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) |
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
1285
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 12:50:00 -
[1] - Quote
Alright, here we go.
I mentioned some changes in the other thread, but here they are in detail. Highlights include: Added warp speed for the travel/tank role Removed a mid slot from cargo role and also gave them 2 highs again Gave special bays to Iteron II, III, IV and Hoarder Fixed the weird CPU insanity Fixed their HP allocation favoring armor (this was leftover old design that I didn't fix first time through) Tried to separate within roles with some kind of distinct advantage or character (Don't expect anything too extreme here, everything I said in the first thread about haulers mainly being used for their cargo capacity is still true) Lots of other general tweaking
On the topic of the special bays: In choosing what these ships would do there were several barriers to work through. We feel that these are already pushing the boundaries of tech 1 specialization, and that's why there is no ship bays/arrays which we feel would have broken those boundaries. Also, I'm sure some of you will be concerned about the imbalance inherent in having more ships for one race than another, and I urge you to look at the feedback on this topic across the EVE community and see that the majority points towards enduring some imbalance if it allows for more character. Here is the first thread with 40 pages or so for your enjoyment: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=250079&find=unread
Looking forward to your feedback, but please don't expect version 3, I have to get on with my life at some point
SIGIL - Most HP
Amarr Industrial Skill Bonuses: +5% Cargo Capacity +5% Agility (was max velocity)
Slot layout: 2H, 4M(+1), 6L(+1); 1 turrets , 0 launchers Fittings: 250 PWG(+180), 300 CPU(-450) Cargo (capacity / capacity with max expanders, t1 expander rigs and all 5 skills): 2100(-900) / 17150m3 Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 780(+624) / 1900(+884) / 2400(+2468) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 125(-30) / .86(-.14) / 11000000 / 13.1(-2.1) Signature radius: 175(-35) Warp speed: 6au/s (+1.5)
BADGER - Most potential Cargo and Base Cargo in role (Also battle HAM Badger)
Caldari Industrial Skill Bonuses: +5% Cargo Capacity +5% Agility (was max velocity)
Slot layout: 2H(+1), 6M(+2), 4L(+2); 1 turrets , 1 launchers(+1) Fittings: 185 PWG(+135), 380 CPU(-370) Cargo (capacity / capacity with max expanders, t1 expander rigs and all 5 skills): 3900(-225) / 19593m3 Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1440(+1166) / 750(+7) / 2060(+1200) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 127(+7) / .94(+.15) / 10650000(-2100000) / 13.8(-.1) Signature radius: 190(-30) Warp speed: 6au/s (+1.5)
WREATHE - Fastest
Minmatar Industrial Skill Bonuses: +5% Cargo Capacity +5% Agility (was max velocity)
Slot layout: 2H(+1), 5M(+3), 5L(+3); 1 turrets , 0 launchers Fittings: 200 PWG(+155), 320 CPU(-280) Cargo (capacity / capacity with max expanders, t1 expander rigs and all 5 skills): 2900(-400) / 18576m3 Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1140(+1061) / 1000(+257) / 2250(+1469) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 140(+15) / .81(-.19) / 10000000 / 11.2(-2.6) Signature radius: 155(-5) Warp speed: 6au/s (+1.5)
Iteron - Good all-around (and Drones!?)
Gallente Industrial Skill Bonuses: +5% Cargo Capacity +5% Agility (was max velocity)
Slot layout: 2H(+1), 5M(+3), 5L(+3); 1 turrets , 0 launchers Fittings: 215 PWG(+170), 350 CPU(-250) DRONES (bay / bandwidth): 30m3 / 15mbit Cargo (capacity / capacity with max expanders, t1 expander rigs and all 5 skills): 2700(-300) / 17294m3 Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 960(+881) / 1050(+269) / 2600(+1819) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 130(+5) / .78(-.22) / 11250000(+1000000) / 12.2(-2) Signature radius: 185(-5) Warp speed: 6au/s (+1.5)
=======================================================================================
BESTOWER - Most potential Cargo
Amarr Industrial Skill Bonuses: +5% Cargo Capacity +5% Max Velocity
Slot layout: 2H, 3M(-1), 6L(+2); 1 turrets , 0 launchers Fittings: 90 PWG(+20), 230 CPU(-520) Cargo (capacity / capacity with max expanders, t1 expander rigs and all 5 skills): 4800 / 39201m3 Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 450(+255) / 850(-323) / 940(-233) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 110(-15) / .95(-.05) / 13500000 / 17.7(-.9) Signature radius: 215(+5)
BADGER MARK II - Launcher, Most Base Cargo
Caldari Industrial Skill Bonuses: +5% Cargo Capacity +5% Max Velocity
Slot layout: 2H, 5M(-1), 4L(+1); 1 turrets , 1 launchers(+1) Fittings: 80 PWG, 320 CPU(-680) Cargo (capacity / capacity with max expanders, t1 expander rigs and all 5 skills): 7300(+2050) / 36674m3 Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 680(+132) / 760(-256) / 810(-206) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 115 / .93 / 13000000(-500000) / 16.8(-.6) Signature radius: 230(-20)
MAMMOTH - Best travel time in role
Minmatar Industrial Skill Bonuses: +5% Cargo Capacity +5% Max Velocity
Slot layout: 2H, 4M(-1), 5L(+1); 1 turrets , 0 launchers Fittings: 80 PWG, 250 CPU(-500) Cargo (capacity / capacity with max expanders, t1 expander rigs and all 5 skills): 5500(-125) / 35230m3 Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 640(+249) / 600(-494) / 935(-238) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 120(+10) / .91(-.09) / 11500000(-1000000) / 14.5(-2.8) Signature radius: 180(-20)
ITERON MARK V - Average (to balance awesome Iteron II, III, IV)
Gallente Industrial Skill Bonuses: +5% Cargo Capacity +5% Max Velocity
Slot layout: 2H, 4M(-1), 5L; 1 turrets , 0 launchers Fittings: 85 PWG, 270 CPU(-580) Cargo (capacity / capacity with max expanders, t1 expander rigs and all 5 skills): 5800(-200) / 37152m3 Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 540(+71) / 650(-718) / 970(-515) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 105(-5) / .87(-.13) / 12500000(+750000) / 16.3 Signature radius: 220(-10)
=======================================================================================
ITERON MARK II - Mineral Bay
Gallente Industrial Skill Bonuses: +5% Mineral Bay Capacity +5% Max Velocity
Slot layo... |
|
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
528
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 12:52:00 -
[2] - Quote
EDIT: Spoke too soon. |
Swiftstrike1
Interfector INC. Fade 2 Black
47
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 12:55:00 -
[3] - Quote
New names for the iterons with special roles plz. They are no longer merely the 3rd or 4th version of the same ship after all :) |
Evelgrivion
Calamitous-Intent
252
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 12:58:00 -
[4] - Quote
Definitely an interesting revision, though I am not wholly sure about the ammo bay; ammunition support seems a bit closer to the prerogative of a black-ops ship operating far from home than a tech 1 cargo hauler. Ammo and fuel bays for the Tech 2 covert haulers would be pretty slick. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium
3818
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 12:59:00 -
[5] - Quote
Booyah! The battle iteron is born. Hold full of cap boosters for the ASB, drones, hefty shield tank and scram.
I'd have preferred to see a +10% warp speed per level if that was possible (instead of the cargo bonus), to give players a reason to train higher
And I'm quietly chuckling at the 50k m3 minerals bay. Suicide gank magnet in the making! I am looking forward to the mistakes people make with this ship!
Is the specialist ammo bay accessible by fleet? I guess you kinda answered that in your original post about "pushing the boundaries" but I figure it's worth asking :)
Thank you CCP Rise, these are genuinely exciting. I'm looking forward to seeing these ships on Tranquility. Amazing! Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
528
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 13:00:00 -
[6] - Quote
Evelgrivion wrote:Definitely an interesting revision, though I am not wholly sure about the ammo bay; ammunition support seems a bit closer to the prerogative of a black-ops ship operating far from home than a tech 1 cargo hauler.
Well, it's not like you can't put a cloak on there and pretend it's a black-ops ship operating far from home. For a tiny fraction of the cost.
|
Caitlyn Tufy
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
344
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 13:00:00 -
[7] - Quote
I take it commodities hold numbers already include skiills?
Gonna go through numbers a bit later for a more extensive response, but from a fast glance I like it. A lot. |
Evelgrivion
Calamitous-Intent
252
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 13:03:00 -
[8] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:Evelgrivion wrote:Definitely an interesting revision, though I am not wholly sure about the ammo bay; ammunition support seems a bit closer to the prerogative of a black-ops ship operating far from home than a tech 1 cargo hauler. Well, it's not like you can't put a cloak on there and pretend it's a black-ops ship operating far from home. For a tiny fraction of the cost.
Sans the crucial capacities to warp while cloaked and the ability to use a covert jump portal, but hey, details. |
Azami Nevinyrall
Carbon Circle Tactical Narcotics Team
1002
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 13:03:00 -
[9] - Quote
This is just....awesome!
Even the Itty drone bay makes it a pvp potential boat!
Just give the other races more Industrials with these (or other) options... I'm not entirely clear on the point of this, but I do have a sudden urge to jump in a catalyst and blow up a miner. Twitter! - @AzamiNevinyrall I'm half expecting a ban for this post. |
Strata Maslav
Born-2-Kill
62
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 13:03:00 -
[10] - Quote
Swiftstrike1 wrote:New names for the iterons with special roles plz. They are no longer merely the 3rd or 4th version of the same ship after all :)
This
Maybe just something like Iteron-O for Ore just to make it easy to understand which variant does what. |
|
Azrin Stella Oerndotte
The Nommo Insurance Fraud.
69
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 13:04:00 -
[11] - Quote
Swiftstrike1 wrote:New names for the iterons with special roles plz. They are no longer merely the 3rd or 4th version of the same ship after all :) Yes, different Iterations of the same hull for different purposes. Nothing wrong with the names. |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E. Aegis Solaris
1991
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 13:06:00 -
[12] - Quote
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. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Raven Solaris
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
255
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 13:06:00 -
[13] - Quote
Okay this is pretty damn awesome, nice job. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1108
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 13:11:00 -
[14] - Quote
i love it! There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E. Aegis Solaris
1991
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 13:12:00 -
[15] - Quote
Evelgrivion wrote:Definitely an interesting revision, though I am not wholly sure about the ammo bay; ammunition support seems a bit closer to the prerogative of a black-ops ship operating far from home than a tech 1 cargo hauler. Ammo and fuel bays for the Tech 2 covert haulers would be pretty slick. Put a cloak on it, use it for extra ammo during POS bashes. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Kekminator
Loktar Ogar Co.
2
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 13:12:00 -
[16] - Quote
Does Hoarder's ammo bay accept POS fuel blocks as cargo? They can be built in Ammo Assembly Array, so it should.
Also, maybe it's time for ore hold / PI hold extender rigs? |
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
1293
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 13:12:00 -
[17] - Quote
First page all positive, I'm outta here |
|
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
585
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 13:14:00 -
[18] - Quote
Looking forward to Megathrons killed by the Battleittys |
Rees Noturana
Red Rock Mining Company
236
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 13:15:00 -
[19] - Quote
After pissy tweet I expected changes made in anger but I'm liking these better. See, just put a little love into something that isn't designed solely for shooting people in the face and you can make people happy.
With 11+ second align times still can you fit an MWD and cloak to have a chance of getting away from gates? -á |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1044
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 13:15:00 -
[20] - Quote
Ok nice, now people can move stuff in different looking ships with marginal differences
Now can we please have some attention to the Nos thread that actualy seriously affects player to player interaction and combat? =<
18 pages and only one dev reply that was basically "Ohh you guys are talking about this? Cool! Lets ignore that andsee how it works!"
Sorry for sounding a bit hostile but i want to use a nos on my ships >_< BYDI (Shadow cartel) Recruitment open!
|
|
Evelgrivion
Calamitous-Intent
252
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 13:15:00 -
[21] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:First page all positive, I'm outta here
Oi you cheeky devil, what about my complaint that the ammo bay seems unfitting for a Tech 1 industrial? |
Rees Noturana
Red Rock Mining Company
236
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 13:16:00 -
[22] - Quote
Kekminator wrote:Does Hoarder's ammo bay accept POS fuel blocks as cargo? They can be built in Ammo Assembly Array, so it should.
Also, maybe it's time for ore hold / PI hold extender rigs?
POS fueler specialty. Now there is a good idea.
-á |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1108
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 13:16:00 -
[23] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:First page all positive, I'm outta here
herpa derp derp...
does the ore bay hold gas? There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Bobby Orion
New Eden Live
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 13:17:00 -
[24] - Quote
Does the term "mineral" when referring to the mineral bay include Ice and gas products in the same why "ore" includes ice and gas ? |
Thorn Galen
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
1204
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 13:19:00 -
[25] - Quote
Great job! Battle Iterons incoming Love the defined cargo across the different hulls. Need name updates for the these hulls, I reckon, it would just do the the changes justice. That final cherry on top.
Very well done, CCP Rise !
o7 Personnel Division Director - Bene Gesserit Chapterhouse CEO Sanctuary Pact Alliance --áSanctuary Pact |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
897
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 13:21:00 -
[26] - Quote
much better :) We are recruiting german-speaking PVP players, contact me :)
Banner was used for this Post |
Cromzor
East India Ore Trade The East India Co.
2
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 13:26:00 -
[27] - Quote
These are great changes! Fun changes! |
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
1304
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 13:28:00 -
[28] - Quote
Ore hold includes Gas
Mineral hold does not include Gas and Ice products
Ammo hold includes cap charges, nanite paste, bombs, and anything else in the "charge" group I believe (I will confirm this soon).
We talked about doing a POS fueler (and I expect this to be the most legit complaint) but it just isn't possible atm. I can't go into specifics but please trust me here =/
Renaming strikes me as messy, but I'll bring it up with our story department and see what their opinion is. |
|
Arline Kley
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
178
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 13:29:00 -
[29] - Quote
Evelgrivion wrote:CCP Rise wrote:First page all positive, I'm outta here Oi you cheeky devil, what about my complaint that the ammo bay seems unfitting for a Tech 1 industrial?
No, you don't understand. He's seen half a dozen happy replies. That means its perfectly balanced and doesn't need looking into further.
Blessed are those that carry the Empress' Light; with it they destroy the shadows |
Cromzor
East India Ore Trade The East India Co.
2
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 13:31:00 -
[30] - Quote
Umm, can they go into capital hanger bays? Carriers that can jump more minerals/PI/ore than jump freighters? |
|
Akrasjel Lanate
Naquatech Conglomerate
1168
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 13:32:00 -
[31] - Quote
Well this is something new |
Kyt Thrace
Lightspeed Enterprises Fidelas Constans
160
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 13:32:00 -
[32] - Quote
I too love the changes, BUT
I feel that the 4 haulers that are cargo bay specific should be made into ORE ships where you use the ORE Industrial skill.
Also they can be different versions/colors of the Noctis to seperate them.
Why make a Caldari character crosstrain to use a Gallente ship when they are at war with the Gallente. R.I.P. Vile Rat |
Azrin Stella Oerndotte
The Nommo Insurance Fraud.
69
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 13:32:00 -
[33] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Ore hold includes Gas
Mineral hold does not include Gas and Ice products
Ammo hold includes cap charges, nanite paste, bombs, and anything else in the "charge" group I believe (I will confirm this soon).
We talked about doing a POS fueler (and I expect this to be the most legit complaint) but it just isn't possible atm. I can't go into specifics but please trust me here =/
Renaming strikes me as messy, but I'll bring it up with our story department and see what their opinion is. Please don't rename them, or any ship for that matter.
The current names suits them more than before I think, with a focus on iterations on roles than just cargo/hp etc. This is a good thing. Don't change it please. |
GizzyBoy
Aperture Harmonics K162
64
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 13:33:00 -
[34] - Quote
What about one that can have a bounes fuel bay to hold pos fuel blocks / isotopes / jump fuel /stront for caps bo's bridging things? |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1108
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 13:34:00 -
[35] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Renaming strikes me as messy, but I'll bring it up with our story department and see what their opinion is.
i would second the request to have the iteron versions get new names... and the badger mrk II There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Rees Noturana
Red Rock Mining Company
236
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 13:34:00 -
[36] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:We talked about doing a POS fueler (and I expect this to be the most legit complaint) but it just isn't possible atm. I can't go into specifics but please trust me here =/
Ooh, a mystery.
I'm guessing it's the way fuel blocks are categorized in the database. -á |
Freighdee Katt
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
208
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 13:35:00 -
[37] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:First page all positive, I'm outta here You done good.
Someone pointed out that the ammo bay should be accessible in space like a fleet hangar; that would push this whole thing from 99% to 101% WIN I think.
|
Abus Finkel
Caldari Capital Construction Inc.
14
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 13:37:00 -
[38] - Quote
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. |
Rhavas
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
172
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 13:37:00 -
[39] - Quote
First impression: Better ideas. Except ammo bay which seems largely useless; we need a T1 ship bay relocation ship for moving fitted ships without contract madness.
Second impression: Holy crap, the Itty 3 is coming out of mothballs and I'm training Gal Ind above 1.
Third impression: OK the ammo bay could be useful for bomber wings but you'd need to make it Blopsable.
Looking forward to the EFT crowd postings. Author of Interstellar Privateer Shattered Planets, Wormholes and Game Commentary |
Freighdee Katt
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
208
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 13:38:00 -
[40] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Renaming strikes me as messy, but I'll bring it up with our story department and see what their opinion is. If you're going to do it, maybe go with something like Iteron Mk II-m / Mk II-i / Mk II-o to designate the specific bays but also keep the faith a bit with the old names. |
|
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
528
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 13:39:00 -
[41] - Quote
Rees Noturana wrote:CCP Rise wrote:We talked about doing a POS fueler (and I expect this to be the most legit complaint) but it just isn't possible atm. I can't go into specifics but please trust me here =/ Ooh, a mystery. I'm guessing it's the way fuel blocks are categorized in the database.
I'm guessing it has to do with this mysterious "industrial work" that's mysteriously "coming down" the mysterious "pipe" that CCP Rise alluded to in previous posts. |
Ronix Aideron
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
102
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 13:40:00 -
[42] - Quote
I like the changes. +1 Start the day off slow and taper off from there.
http://eveboard.com/pilot/Ronix_Aideron |
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
1308
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 13:40:00 -
[43] - Quote
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. |
|
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
26
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 13:43:00 -
[44] - Quote
Better, but with comments/questions.
Iteron Mark II and IV's description of what it can haul is a little cryptic, can they be clarified. Specifically:
1) Can the Iteron Mark IV haul compressed ore 2) Which can haul refined ore (Tritanium, Isogen, etc). The description is slightly cryptic. 3) Which can haul melted ice products (isotopes, heavy water, strontium, Ozone) 4) Can the new bays be expandable through use of rigs and/or cargo expanders? 5) Can any (or all of them), be set to given the ability to haul pure fuel (actual fuel blocks). If not all of them, which one? 6) Can or will the Iteron Mark III be permitted to haul in POS batteries (Such as Gun Turrets, Sensor Dampening Modules, Resistance Batteries, etc). Reason I ask, is that it seems the most "fit" to do that.
Comment:
The Iteron Mark II and Iteron Mark IV seem to overlap a bit (one being a Mineral Hauler, the Other one a Ore Hauler), Couldn't the "Mineral" and "Ore Hauler" role be combined into 1 ship? and the extra ship be repurposed (they just seem to do the same thing, but would require jumping into an entirely new ship after dumping the ore/ice/gas into the processor for processing.
Other than that, long as the 5% per level applies to those bays, seems the haulers will be improved.
|
Marc Callan
Interstellar Steel Templis Dragonaors
208
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 13:43:00 -
[45] - Quote
One clarification: are any of those specialty cargo bays going to be fleet bays, like the Orca's fleet hangar?
Because if the answer's yes, the holy cow, you just gave us a small-gang replenishment ship, and I want one! "Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred..." - Niccolo Machiavelli-á |
Sephira Galamore
Inner Beard Society
122
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 13:43:00 -
[46] - Quote
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. There's definately more reason now that there was before, don't you think? E.g. now if you want maximum general hold, you go for Bestower. It's definately more role destinction now than before. In fact I see people actually crosstraining indies now. |
Freighdee Katt
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
208
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 13:45:00 -
[47] - Quote
Does ammo bay include cap charges?
If not, maybe it should. In fact it maybe should include everything that falls under the "charges" category in the market window. |
Steijn
Quay Industries CAStabouts
335
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 13:46:00 -
[48] - Quote
Im not sure if a solution for this has been mentioned anywhere, if so, ive missed it, but as this is going to bring in another batch of BPOs with extra materials on the build requirements, I think 1 of CCPs biggest aims should be to find a way to get these extras gradually worked into the normal requirements. The current plethora of BPOs with these extra materials is now reaching a stupid level and is making a mockery of ME research. Yes i appreciate why its done, but delegating these as EM is not the final solution and I would hope CCP dont see it as that. |
Sephira Galamore
Inner Beard Society
122
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 13:46:00 -
[49] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:2) Which can haul refined ore (Tritanium, Isogen, etc). The description is slightly cryptic. 3) Which can haul melted ice products (isotopes, heavy water, strontium, Ozone) 5) Can any (or all of them), be set to given the ability to haul pure fuel (actual fuel blocks). If not all of them, which one? 6) Can or will the Iteron Mark III be permitted to haul in POS batteries (Such as Gun Turrets, Sensor Dampening Modules, Resistance Batteries, etc). Reason I ask, is that it seems the most "fit" to do that.
CCP Rise wrote:Ore hold includes Gas Mineral hold does not include Gas and Ice products Ammo hold includes cap charges, nanite paste, bombs, and anything else in the "charge" group I believe (I will confirm this soon). We talked about doing a POS fueler (and I expect this to be the most legit complaint) but it just isn't possible atm. I can't go into specifics but please trust me here =/
Phoenix Jones wrote:4) Can the new bays be expandable through use of rigs and/or cargo expanders? I am pretty sure that's a no - no existing speciality bay can be expanded via mods. |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
26
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 13:47:00 -
[50] - Quote
The mineral hauler should include refined ice (Isotopes, heavy water, ozone, stront).
Ty Seph missed his comments above. |
|
Evelgrivion
Calamitous-Intent
253
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 13:50:00 -
[51] - Quote
The ammunition bay seems like an avenue for considerable abuse; you can fit quite a few hoarders inside of a carrier's ship maintenance bay, and each of those hoarders can be filled to the brim with ammunition for mineral compression purposes. |
Rengerel en Distel
1661
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 13:51:00 -
[52] - Quote
Not sure why people have problems cross-training, since it takes 13 minutes(?). 13 minutes and you get all gallente ships, what's the big deal? And since itty 5 is now going to be about 2500 or so less than a GSC Bestower, people have a reason to cross-train into that as well.
With the increase in shiptoasting, the Report timer needs to be shortened.
|
Raven Solaris
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
255
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 13:52:00 -
[53] - Quote
Marc Callan wrote:One clarification: are any of those specialty cargo bays going to be fleet bays, like the Orca's fleet hangar?
Because if the answer's yes, then holy cow, you just gave us a small-gang replenishment ship, and I want one!
I think this would be actually be good role for DSTs.
Industrials for general hauling. Blockade Runners for smuggling, being speedy, and avoiding potential combat at all cost. Deep Space Transports for aiding fleets as relief and resupply. Fleet Ammunition Hangar, Fleet Drone Hangar, Fleet Fuel Hangar... and I actually can't think of a fourth. Hrm. |
Freighdee Katt
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
208
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 13:53:00 -
[54] - Quote
Evelgrivion wrote:The ammunition bay seems like an avenue for considerable abuse; you can fit quite a few hoarders inside of a carrier's ship maintenance bay, and each of those hoarders can be filled to the brim with ammunition for mineral compression purposes. Nerf incoming. |
Waveform Disturbance
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 13:53:00 -
[55] - Quote
@Minteronlol |
Rees Noturana
Red Rock Mining Company
236
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 13:54:00 -
[56] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:Rees Noturana wrote:CCP Rise wrote:We talked about doing a POS fueler (and I expect this to be the most legit complaint) but it just isn't possible atm. I can't go into specifics but please trust me here =/ Ooh, a mystery. I'm guessing it's the way fuel blocks are categorized in the database. I'm guessing it has to do with this mysterious "industrial work" that's mysteriously "coming down" the mysterious "pipe" that CCP Rise alluded to in previous posts.
I looked through this thread but didn't see any references to other industrial work. What are you referring to?
-á |
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
1151
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 13:56:00 -
[57] - Quote
ah, i was hoping for an itsy-bitsy ship maintenance bay :(
but these ships look alright |
Sofia Wolf
Ubuntu Inc. The Fourth District
221
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 13:56:00 -
[58] - Quote
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. Jessica Danikov > EVE is your real life. the rest is fantasy. caught in a corporation. no escape from banality. open up yours eyes, peer through pod good and seeeeeee. I'm just a poor pilot, I need no sympathy. because I'm easy scam, easy go, little isk, little know. anyway the solar wind blows... |
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
1320
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 13:59:00 -
[59] - Quote
Quote:I looked through this thread but didn't see any references to other industrial work. What are you referring to?
I should be more careful about making vague references to future development. Basically, our extremely high level direction for the next while is focused towards building things - we have no idea what will fall out of this specifically, but the overall direction may lead to new potential uses for indie ships, which is why I felt fine leaving 4 of them more or less open to change down the road. Please don't read into this, there's nothing particular that I know of relative to these ships coming in the near future.
As far as the the abuse of the hoarder ammo bay for compression - the difference in potential capacity and unpacked volume between it and the old Iteron V isn't enormous. Not different enough to create a new kind of abuse, though obviously would make for more efficiency. I'll make sure we talk about if we are happy with this and if not we can adjust the unpacked volume on the Hoarder accordingly. |
|
Burseg Sardaukar
Sardaukar Merc Guild General Tso's Alliance
310
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 13:59:00 -
[60] - Quote
Hell yes! Specialized cargo bays, awesome stuff! 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 |
|
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
528
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 14:00:00 -
[61] - Quote
Rees Noturana wrote:I looked through this thread but didn't see any references to other industrial work. What are you referring to?
CCP Rise referred to it in the other thread.
Twice, actually. |
Rees Noturana
Red Rock Mining Company
236
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 14:02:00 -
[62] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Quote:I looked through this thread but didn't see any references to other industrial work. What are you referring to? I should be more careful about making vague references to future development. Basically, our extremely high level direction for the next while is focused towards building things - we have no idea what will fall out of this specifically, but the overall direction may lead to new potential uses for indie ships, which is why I felt fine leaving 4 of them more or less open to change down the road. Please don't read into this, there's nothing particular that I know of relative to these ships coming in the near future. As far as the the abuse of the hoarder ammo bay for compression - the difference in potential capacity and unpacked volume between it and the old Iteron V isn't enormous. Not different enough to create a new kind of abuse, though obviously would make for more efficiency. I'll make sure we talk about if we are happy with this and if not we can adjust the unpacked volume on the Hoarder accordingly.
Building as in creating new content as opposed to rebalancing existing content or building as in industry? -á |
Rees Noturana
Red Rock Mining Company
236
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 14:02:00 -
[63] - Quote
Thank you.
-á |
Kekminator
Loktar Ogar Co.
3
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 14:05:00 -
[64] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Ore hold includes Gas
Mineral hold does not include Gas and Ice products
Ammo hold includes cap charges, nanite paste, bombs, and anything else in the "charge" group I believe (I will confirm this soon).
We talked about doing a POS fueler (and I expect this to be the most legit complaint) but it just isn't possible atm. I can't go into specifics but please trust me here =/
Renaming strikes me as messy, but I'll bring it up with our story department and see what their opinion is.
There will be much cheering if you implement POS fuel / ice products bays, please consider at least one of those.
Renaming is less messy than having MK II for ore and MK III for minerals - or was it the other way round |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
528
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 14:07:00 -
[65] - Quote
Rees Noturana wrote:Building as in creating new content as opposed to rebalancing existing content or building as in industry?
If you haven't yet, go listen to The section of "CCP Presents!" from Fanfest this year where CCP Seagull talks about her dream of building things, building huge large-scale things, and knowing that never-before-seen wonders lay waiting "if only you could build the right kind of stargate." Interpret it how you wish, as long as you don't join the insufferable "when do we get to build stargates?" crowd.
Kekminator wrote:There will be much cheering if you implement POS fuel / ice products bays, please consider at least one of those. It might be quicker and easier, rather than implementing bays for those things, to just add them into the list of eligible cargo. POS fuel into the ammo bays and gas products/ice products into the mineral bays. It would be enormously wonderful and nobody would hate it. ...Okay, nobody would hate it who doesn't already hate everything CCP does. |
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
104
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 14:08:00 -
[66] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Alright, here we go. Exciting and cool industry ships
These are excellent, thank you. Not that hard once you give it some serious thought right? |
Denidil
Turalyon Plus
598
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 14:10:00 -
[67] - Quote
Looks good Rise - I don't know if you saw my post on reddit - but looking at this numbers it makes my post even more relevant: The Ore Hold on the Orca needs to be a LOT larger... 300k m3 - 400k m3 given the changes to ore bays on the industrials and mining barges / exhumers.
Then let's talk about light carriers ..... :P Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
305
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 14:10:00 -
[68] - Quote
Let's see--all the same, slightly different. This one does this, that one does that. GREAT! Fantastic changes!
Thanks for making them all be able to haul, with each doing it a little bit differently. A couple of questions I'd ask though: Is it possible to have 2x launchers on the Badger Mark II, or would that be unbalanced? Is the 55000 PI bay, for example, at max skills or is it lower and +25% to get 55000?
Otherwise, thanks so much for listening to our feedback and delivering in spades! Now make a hauler that performs hauling better than a mining support ship! |
Dark Stryke
Terrulian Exo Arcologies
6
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 14:13:00 -
[69] - Quote
What a let-down. So you've gone through the trouble of adding 'special bays to the extra ships', yet ignored the entire point of them - to get around the shield vs armor tankers and cargo expanders problems. |
Saheed Cha'chris'ra
Krautz WH Exploration and Production LiVingInTheBoX
85
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 14:14:00 -
[70] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: Looking forward to your feedback, but please don't expect version 3, I have to get on with my life at some point
You Sir, are a genius. CCP should double you paycheck right now. And of course, thanks to everyone who was helping you with this one.
The new special haulers are REALLY USEFUL now. Wow. This is so great.
Thank you for your work. |
|
Dark Stryke
Terrulian Exo Arcologies
6
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 14:16:00 -
[71] - Quote
Denidil wrote:Looks good Rise - I don't know if you saw my post on reddit - but looking at this numbers it makes my post even more relevant: The Ore Hold on the Orca needs to be a LOT larger... 300k m3 - 400k m3 given the changes to ore bays on the industrials and mining barges / exhumers.
Then let's talk about light carriers ..... :P The Orca and Rorqual both need revamps, especially the compression mechanics. |
Krell Kroenen
Miners In Possession
175
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 14:23:00 -
[72] - Quote
Have to say very interesting, over all I like these changes more than the first version. Now just switched the Hoarder and the Wreath and I will be totally happy.
|
Omnathious Deninard
The Scope Gallente Federation
1211
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 14:28:00 -
[73] - Quote
A nice look for many old, dusty and mostly unused Industrials. I like it. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Aurora Fatalis
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
33
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 14:39:00 -
[74] - Quote
Now to hope for a T2 Hoarder able to use Covops bridges to supply Bomber fleets with bombs. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
1587
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 14:42:00 -
[75] - Quote
Nicely done.
They're all useful now. Steve Ronuken for CSM 9!-á I'm starting early :) Handy tools and an SDE conversion Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
26
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 14:43:00 -
[76] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:Let's see--all the same, slightly different. This one does this, that one does that. GREAT! Fantastic changes!
Thanks for making them all be able to haul, with each doing it a little bit differently. A couple of questions I'd ask though: Is it possible to have 2x launchers on the Badger Mark II, or would that be unbalanced? Is the 55000 PI bay, for example, at max skills or is it lower and +25% to get 55000?
Otherwise, thanks so much for listening to our feedback and delivering in spades! Now make a hauler that performs hauling better than a mining support ship!
I think those were base stats, if so, the ships will be of good use.
The mineral hauler still would need to have the ability to move ice products though I think. |
Kali Maat
PVP FAST
25
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 14:44:00 -
[77] - Quote
No more pride to fly the longest train ship in the game (iteron V) when it will only require gallente indu at lvl1 to fly it :(
The length of the Iteron model should be tied to your skill lvl. (in complete logic with the cargo capacity expansion per lvl) pls like this post to vote for this cool idea |
Bloodpetal
Sal's Waste Management and Pod Disposal The Mockers AO
1288
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 14:48:00 -
[78] - Quote
Thanks for going the extra mile and a half.
I'm excited to make sure all my pilots have Ammo Hoarders ready to go for structure bash ops. :) Where I am. |
lycaniz
Grim Determination Nulli Secunda
13
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 14:49:00 -
[79] - Quote
I feel that the mammoth is a bit underwhelming but maybe that's just me..
As for the hoarder, make the 'ammo' count for cap boosters aswell and it will have a use! but as it is it is pretty meh tbh. |
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
1340
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 14:50:00 -
[80] - Quote
lycaniz wrote:I feel that the mammoth is a bit underwhelming but maybe that's just me..
As for the hoarder, make the 'ammo' count for cap boosters aswell and it will have a use! but as it is it is pretty meh tbh.
It does count for cap boosters. Edited OP to make that more clear. |
|
|
lycaniz
Grim Determination Nulli Secunda
13
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 14:51:00 -
[81] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:lycaniz wrote:I feel that the mammoth is a bit underwhelming but maybe that's just me..
As for the hoarder, make the 'ammo' count for cap boosters aswell and it will have a use! but as it is it is pretty meh tbh. It does count for cap boosters.
Ah, good!
*hides* thanks for quick answer. |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
26
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 14:52:00 -
[82] - Quote
Actually if you "REALLY" want the ammo hauler to be a popular ship...
Have it able to haul Strontium.
Ran the numbers on the Ore Hauler, it is decent for hauling ore/ice, but the Mineral hauler would really have to be changed in order to haul refined Ice products (isotopes, heavy water, etc). If it can.. then I would consider the whole industrial change a good start.
In otherwords, the only real change thats now needed is the Mineral Hauling Iteron to be able to haul refined ice products (just as it can haul refined ore products (Isogen, Tritanium).
Here is the concept. Ore hauler goes out, hauls ore, bring it to refinery, refinery refines the product, the mineral hauler hauls the minerals where it needs to go. The mineral hauler currently does not haul ice products (but the ore hauler can haul ice blocks). Thats the only real change I see that's needed. |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
26
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 15:00:00 -
[83] - Quote
*doublepost |
WInter Borne
Cold Station 12 Surely You're Joking
68
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 15:01:00 -
[84] - Quote
Dont suppose the ore hold could updated to include refined ice products?
I know some of us wormholers would enjoy a dedicated stront/fuel hauler with high capacity/low mass. |
MrZany
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
53
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 15:01:00 -
[85] - Quote
Erien Rand wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Jowen Datloran wrote:Thank you for listening to the feedback, Rise. Much appreciated. CCP Rise wrote:
Special purpose bays - This will be for Hoarder, Iteron Mark II, III, and IV. We wanted to do this originally, but held back because of concerns about racial inequality. Based on feedback I'm now hoping you guys will be fine with this inequality, as long as it isn't so favored towards Gallente that no one would ever train another race for hauling. This is as much an issue as people having to train Caldari ship skills if they want to fly a powerful ECM or missile boat. People keep saying this but it is simply not true. It would be if there was a counterpart for the other races. If you don't want to train missiles, its okay because you can train lasers. In this case, there is no option for Caldari or Amarr to counter balance, even if it was a different bay. CCP Rise, why not just make the remaining haulers Ore ships? Ore could purchase the rights to the ships and modify them as they see fit. That would remove any accusations of "inequality" among the races. IIRC when the real world financial crisis happened China purchased the Hummer brand. Something similar could be put into the lore where due to constant wars the empires were forced to sell off some of their excess ship models. Doing this would allow you to get as creative as you like with the ships and also would give a reason why the ships were so drastically remodeled; they are owned by an entirely different corp that wants to take them in a different direction.
Love the direction you are going in! Is there a reason why moving the remaining ships to Ore or Interbus can't happen?
It would seem that from a design and lore standpoint it could be an exciting change. Another faction purchasing the rights to what had been iconic gallente and minmatar hulls due to (insert reason) seems like it would generate interest and create a bit of content.
Also it would free you from having to make the Itty 5 "average" for balancing purposes. Seems like a win/win.
Regardless of what you decide, you have done an excellent job with these changes and you area credit to the game.
Thank you, now go ask for a raise |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
528
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 15:03:00 -
[86] - Quote
@ Phoenix Jones: The Iteron Iterations would follow Gallente naming convention. That being said, it's not hard to tell a cylindrical-spacewang Itty 3 from a lots-of-boxes itty 2. |
Orakkus
Winds of Dawn Kraken.
105
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 15:04:00 -
[87] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Alright, here we go.
First off, love that you changed the Warp AU and coupled it with the agility. This should save industry pilots a lot of time in trying to get items to market.
SIGIL - Most HP - Good increase in PG, and it appears that it might have enough to mount a medium turret. I'm still not a fan of "tanky" being only more HP, but it should be a bit better for running against high-sec gankers.
BADGER - Most potential Cargo and Base Cargo in role (Also battle HAM Badger) - The only thing I disagree with here is the 1 turret/1 launcher thing. CCP Fozzie is well aware of how bad split weapon systems work. Just allow two launchers and/or two turrets and be done with it. They aren't bonused anyways.
WREATHE - Fastest - Good, the ship definately needed some PG to make it viable.
Iteron - Good all-around (and Drones!?) - Drones, eh. Not bad and well played.
=======================================================================================
Glad that you kept every race having their own heavy hauler.
BESTOWER - Most potential Cargo - Cool
BADGER MARK II - Launcher, Most Base Cargo - Same issue with the Badger
MAMMOTH - Best travel time in role - I don't see an AU speed, so does travel time mean ONLY normal space speeds, or is there an AU bonus as well?
ITERON MARK V - Average (to balance awesome Iteron II, III, IV) - Good
=======================================================================================
ITERON MARK II - Mineral Bay - Awesome, good size bay.
ITERON MARK III - PI Commodities Bay - I hope this includes the ability to haul bases.. but other than that.. this is rather nice for base level operations.
ITERON MARK IV - Ore Bay (Ore includes Gas, Ice, and Mineral Ore) - This is the best idea of the bunch. Being able to haul ore around more efficently will be a fairly big boon to starting industrialists.
HOARDER - Ammo bay (This includes anything in the 'charge' group - bombs/cap charges/etc) - This comes in a very close second for good idea and you are now hero worshipped by anyone making cap charges. It will be interesting to see how this ship will play out.
Now for the next important question.. when will we see it? |
Omnathious Deninard
The Scope Gallente Federation
1211
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 15:04:00 -
[88] - Quote
Just out of curiosity, were all the warp speeds changed to 6au/s, only the first 4 say. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
LujTic
Unforeseen Consequences. The Unthinkables
9
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 15:05:00 -
[89] - Quote
I think the mineral and ore specialisations will be popular, but few people need to move more than 40k ammo and > 40k PI products sounds like you're asking to get ganked. I'd rather see the Hoarder than the Iteron II haul ice products (fuel) to make the Hoarder more usefull. Right now it's only good for cap boosters. |
Dex Ratzinger
Epsilon Lyr Nulli Secunda
1
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 15:05:00 -
[90] - Quote
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.
Nope, you have to gimp your fit for that, and it needs to remain that way. Just fly a blockade runner. |
|
Nicen Jehr
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
204
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 15:06:00 -
[91] - Quote
Good work CCP Rise, T1 industrials looks done to me! Little Things to improve GëíGïüGëí-á| My Little Things posts |
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
452
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 15:07:00 -
[92] - Quote
Okay that's cool !
I still think that the badger mark II is crap, but now it has its distinct advantages and its niche, so why not :)
The other industrials seems very cool, except perhaps for minmatar, they are not bad, but their "race bonus" aka speed is a bit meh. G££ <= Me |
Ransu Asanari
Powder and Ball Alchemists Union The Predictables
9
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 15:09:00 -
[93] - Quote
I'm overall pretty happy with these changes. The distinction between roles is good, and it encourages cross-training to get access to the other industrials, where before they may have just been a stepping stone to get cargo levels high enough. I also love the idea of the HAM Battle Badger!
One thing I would have liked to see, is one hauler with a role to be able to haul fitted ships - maybe up to Cruiser/Battlecruiser size. Being able to move ONE fitted ship would be fine I think; right now only the Orca has a Ship Maintenance Bay to store and moved fitted ships. Others will have to weigh in on if that's too specific a role, but this could be a role for the Iteron Mk IV, in my opinion.
Also, I don't believe Nanite Repair Paste counts as a charge... I know that because whenever I move ships via Carrier, I can't keep any in the cargo hold.. only cap boosters, ammo, and scripts.
|
Taleden
North Wind Local no. 612
36
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 15:10:00 -
[94] - Quote
- Nice work on this pass! Streets ahead of the first draft.
- Could you edit the first post to be a little more explicit about which of those numbers are 0-skill baseline numbers, and which are assuming all-5 skills? It's hard to know how to interpret the posted HP, align times, special cargo bays, etc -- some of the stats seem poor-to-okay and some seem okay-to-great, depending on whether you've already factored in +25% or more from all the various applicable skills.
- I'm still confused about the Amarr and Gallente hulls having more armor than shields, given that it would be silly to armor tank any of them so long as cargo expanders are left in their current state. If you insist on leaving cargo expanders as-is and therefore expect all of these ships to be shield tanked, then why bother shifting their HP to armor? I suspect when people get these numbers into EFT they'll find that the Sigil, which you claim to have the highest potential EHP, will in fact be bested by the Badger and maybe even the Wreathe since those ships don't have to compromise between tank and cargo nearly as much.
|
Ransu Asanari
Powder and Ball Alchemists Union The Predictables
9
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 15:13:00 -
[95] - Quote
Oh, and since we're looking at Industrials now (Yes, only Tech 1 for now), maybe make a sticky note when you get around to the T2 versions... I think the Deep Space Transports could use the Interdiction Nullifier System effect, to make them immune to bubbles. Maybe trade the +2 Warp Core Stability for that, as pilots could always fit Warp Core Stabilizers themselves based on risk. This would make them a more defined "Deep Space" aka Nullsec transport ship which would have a useful role out there. Right now, everyone I know uses Jump Freighters or Blockade Runners. |
Caleb Ayrania
TarNec Invisible Exchequer
176
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 15:13:00 -
[96] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Quote:I looked through this thread but didn't see any references to other industrial work. What are you referring to? I should be more careful about making vague references to future development. Basically, our extremely high level direction for the next while is focused towards building things - we have no idea what will fall out of this specifically, but the overall direction may lead to new potential uses for indie ships, which is why I felt fine leaving 4 of them more or less open to change down the road. Please don't read into this, there's nothing particular that I know of relative to these ships coming in the near future. As far as the the abuse of the hoarder ammo bay for compression - the difference in potential capacity and unpacked volume between it and the old Iteron V isn't enormous. Not different enough to create a new kind of abuse, though obviously would make for more efficiency. I'll make sure we talk about if we are happy with this and if not we can adjust the unpacked volume on the Hoarder accordingly.
Could you consider a discussion with the other devs and the CSM to change ORE compression into something that can compete with and make all compression "hacks" obsolete?
I see hardly any game balance or exploit possible with making ORE compression really extremely effective, since that would resolve the whole import and export issue. It would also boost the ORE bay usability, and allow for more future boosts on logistics.
Make them compete with any existing isk/m3 compression scheme.
|
Anela Cistine
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
172
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 15:17:00 -
[97] - Quote
The Itty III has a planetary materials bay, which is great, is that able to hold Command Centers? If not, could you make the standard bay a little bigger so the ship can hold at least 1 command center?
It seems silly for a newbie to have to buy a ship to launch his command centers, then immediately sell that ship and buy a different ship to actually run his planets. |
Taleden
North Wind Local no. 612
36
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 15:18:00 -
[98] - Quote
Anela Cistine wrote:The Itty III has a planetary materials bay, which is great, is that able to hold Command Centers? If not, could you make the standard bay a little bigger so the ship can hold at least 1 command center?
It seems silly for a newbie to have to buy a ship to launch his command centers, then immediately sell that ship and buy a different ship to actually run his planets. IIRC the Primae's special PI hold was able to store command centers, so I would assume the same is true here. It'd be nice to get confirmation though. |
Ransu Asanari
Powder and Ball Alchemists Union The Predictables
9
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 15:18:00 -
[99] - Quote
Anela Cistine wrote:The Itty III has a planetary materials bay, which is great, is that able to hold Command Centers? If not, could you make the standard bay a little bigger so the ship can hold at least 1 command center?
It seems silly for a newbie to have to buy a ship to launch his command centers, then immediately sell that ship and buy a different ship to actually run his planets.
This is a good point. Command Centers are 1000m3, so maybe a static cargo hold of this amount? |
Fergus Runkle
Truth and Reconciliation Council
28
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 15:18:00 -
[100] - Quote
Dark Stryke wrote:Denidil wrote:Looks good Rise - I don't know if you saw my post on reddit - but looking at this numbers it makes my post even more relevant: The Ore Hold on the Orca needs to be a LOT larger... 300k m3 - 400k m3 given the changes to ore bays on the industrials and mining barges / exhumers.
Then let's talk about light carriers ..... :P The Orca and Rorqual both need revamps, especially the compression mechanics.
Yeah these changes (although fantastic, thanks btw) do make the Orca's bays look a little small for its model size.
Also would it hurt to give the Primae a 10k (rather than 1k) PI materials bay? It might get used then. |
|
Omnathious Deninard
The Scope Gallente Federation
1211
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 15:20:00 -
[101] - Quote
Ransu Asanari wrote:Anela Cistine wrote:The Itty III has a planetary materials bay, which is great, is that able to hold Command Centers? If not, could you make the standard bay a little bigger so the ship can hold at least 1 command center?
It seems silly for a newbie to have to buy a ship to launch his command centers, then immediately sell that ship and buy a different ship to actually run his planets. This is a good point. Command Centers are 1000m3, so maybe a static cargo hold of this amount? I would be willing to give up 5k of PI hold for a 5k command center hold. The final PI hold would be 56250m^3 and then the 5k command center hold, and then the standard cargo hold. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Freighdee Katt
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
209
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 15:21:00 -
[102] - Quote
Taleden wrote:I'm still confused about the Amarr and Gallente hulls having more armor than shields, given that it would be silly to armor tank any of them so long as cargo expanders are left in their current state. They're all hull tankers now, as any good hauler should be. |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
26
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 15:26:00 -
[103] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote: I would be willing to give up 5k of PI hold for a 5k command center hold. The final PI hold would be 56250m^3 and then the 5k command center hold, and then the standard cargo hold.
No. The main benefit of that hauler is to haul PI. The command center is a 1 shot deal. To lose 5k hold cause of the center would... Just no.
If the center can fit inside the PI hold itself, good. Don't chop the hold just becaus of the center itself.
|
Sparkus Volundar
Applied Creations The Fendahlian Collective
60
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 15:29:00 -
[104] - Quote
This reinforces the need for people to train the Gallente Industrial skill if those bays are worth using.
That runs counter to a successful theme running through the round of rebalancing to-date.
If specialised holds are needed/fun, they should really go on ORE hulls. Applied Creations is recruiting. Mystic Volundar says, "It could be you! " |
Calzan
The Graduates RAZOR Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 15:30:00 -
[105] - Quote
WIN!
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3260315#post3260315
I said I wont know what to think if Itty 3 became the PI boat of choice after my post. I have no idea if that post was read, part of consideration or anything like that... probably best that I don't know.
CCP Rise, you're alright in my book. I will do all that I can to ensure you get extra booze next fanfest at the very least.
Thank you. |
Unforgiven Storm
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
434
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 15:38:00 -
[106] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Ore hold includes Gas
Mineral hold does not include Gas and Ice products
Ammo hold includes cap charges, nanite paste, bombs, and anything else in the "charge" group I believe (I will confirm this soon).
We talked about doing a POS fueler (and I expect this to be the most legit complaint) but it just isn't possible atm. I can't go into specifics but please trust me here =/
Renaming strikes me as messy, but I'll bring it up with our story department and see what their opinion is.
rename please, yes, yes, yes
Test 1, 2, 3... |
Cyberin
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 15:41:00 -
[107] - Quote
Battle Industrials reborn! Heck yeah!...
<3 CCP Rise |
Van Kuzco
Stryker Industries Ocularis Inferno
67
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 15:42:00 -
[108] - Quote
LujTic wrote:I think the mineral and ore specialisations will be popular, but few people need to move more than 40k ammo and > 40k PI products sounds like you're asking to get ganked. I'd rather see the Hoarder than the Iteron II haul ice products (fuel) to make the Hoarder more usefull. Right now it's only good for cap boosters.
I am absolutely estatic about the PI hauler. I live in a WH with 9 characters doing PI and having to make less trips to a customs office is an absolute godsend.
I love you CCP Rise.
Also I'm assuming Cargo expanders and optimization rigs won't be affecting the specialized bays? Just like with the Orca? |
Unforgiven Storm
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
434
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 15:44:00 -
[109] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:lycaniz wrote:I feel that the mammoth is a bit underwhelming but maybe that's just me..
As for the hoarder, make the 'ammo' count for cap boosters aswell and it will have a use! but as it is it is pretty meh tbh. It does count for cap boosters. Edited OP to make that more clear.
can the ammo version also transport drones? Test 1, 2, 3... |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
2221
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 15:45:00 -
[110] - Quote
I wasn't on board initially with needing special bays for the oddball ships, but I like what you've done.
+1, good work
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all. |
|
Rohas Shepard
THE IRON SKY Ash Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 15:47:00 -
[111] - Quote
Iteron IV for ice, ore and gas ? Finally! |
Auferre
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
14
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 15:52:00 -
[112] - Quote
Interesting changes, lots of new roles, and more differentiation in the old roles - I like it!
I also like the fact that there will be real incentive to spend a day or two training more than one racial industrial skill for different hauling purposes. |
Albert Spear
meadhan oidhche cinneach HELM Alliance
20
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 15:54:00 -
[113] - Quote
Much better - more ships for the hanger, more fun to fly and more challenge for the gankers. Good all the way around.
Now we need:
1) A Q-ship or two - surprise for the bankers 2) A jump tug 3) A warp tug 4) A 200,000 m3 (fully expanded) ship between haulers and freighters 5) A jump blockade runner - small, fast, tanked 6) A armored car hauler - something to move the really high value BPOs around 7) An UNREP ship or two 8) A clone hauler - beyond the Rorquel 9) Look in Jane's Merchant Ships for more ideas
Thank you for taking a second run at this, I think it benefits everyone in the game and at CCP and should bring more fun for all. |
Freighdee Katt
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
210
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 15:54:00 -
[114] - Quote
Sparkus Volundar wrote:If specialised holds are needed/fun, they should really go on ORE hulls. It would make a lot of sense all around to just transfer the Itty II/III/IV to ORE and require Ore Indy skill instead. It seems they "could" do that while not affecting legacy one-off ships like the Quafe Itty IV. New art for them would be awesome, even if it winds up being just three resprays of the Primae. But that's probably not going to happen. And it appears even a skill tweak and logo change most likely will not happen since we "should not expect to see a round 3 on this." |
Aeril Malkyre
Knights of the Ouroboros
238
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 15:55:00 -
[115] - Quote
And CCP Rise knocks it out of the park. This is more like what I was expecting
Wreathe really looks like the little brother of the Prowler now, well done. Sad to lose the mid on my Mammoth, but worth it for the extra hauling, speed, etc. And the Hoarder: that is just wacky enough to work. I don't have any use for a bullet wagon personally, but I can see where it could have a role.
Well done! |
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
199
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 15:55:00 -
[116] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:BADGER - Most potential Cargo and Base Cargo in role (Also battle HAM Badger)
Iteron - Good all-around (and Drones!?) I think I just wet myself.... Yeah. Yeah, I did.
And like the special bays on the extra haulers. Ya done good, boy!
|
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
1365
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 16:01:00 -
[117] - Quote
Hm a few more answers:
Ammo hold will not fit drones
Only the first group is changed to 6au. Maybe I'll update OP with the value listed for the other roles.
All of the stats in OP are base stats with no skills taken into account (except for the potential capacity number listed after base capacity) - More armor than shields is bacause thats how the racial design works usually, no reason to change it here just because you will usually have expanders fit.
Expanders will not affect the new bays.
The PI bay will not hold command centers, and I don't think we'll add a bay for that.
Please don't expect name changes or art changes. I understand why you would want this but I just don't think its going to happen. We aren't going to just call Iterons ORE ships and leave the art the same, and we also aren't going to invest art resources in new modeling (or we would have made extra haulers for Amarr/Caldari), so they will be staying where they are. Name changes are slightly more realistic, but I still doubt the benefit would outweigh the harm. I will still investigate this.
Very happy with your reaction, glad we could figure this out. |
|
Denidil
Turalyon Plus
598
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 16:03:00 -
[118] - Quote
Kil2.. erg Rise .... Orca.. Ore Bay capacity - come on man i've tried to talk to you about this over three different platforms. Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design. |
Siddicus
Nation of Sidd Order of the Exalted
2
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 16:04:00 -
[119] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:
The PI bay will not hold command centers, and I don't think we'll add a bay for that.
It doesn't need to have another bay for it, just to allow it in the current one it has =( Adding the ability to fit Command Centers into the bay will increase its usefulness significantly, and in the end, isn't that the goal of these changes? |
Denidil
Turalyon Plus
598
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 16:07:00 -
[120] - Quote
didn't the Primae's bay hold either? Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design. |
|
Divine Frog
Space Exploitation Inc Get Off My Lawn
1
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 16:08:00 -
[121] - Quote
Swiftstrike1 wrote:New names for the iterons with special roles plz. They are no longer merely the 3rd or 4th version of the same ship after all :) I whole-heartedly approve of these changes, and I also fully concur with this post. |
Max Kolonko
High Voltage Industries Ash Alliance
293
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 16:09:00 -
[122] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Ore hold includes Gas
Mineral hold does not include Gas and Ice products
Ammo hold includes cap charges, nanite paste, bombs, and anything else in the "charge" group I believe (I will confirm this soon).
We talked about doing a POS fueler (and I expect this to be the most legit complaint) but it just isn't possible atm. I can't go into specifics but please trust me here =/
Renaming strikes me as messy, but I'll bring it up with our story department and see what their opinion is.
Pls combine Mineral and ORE into one ship
Pllllsssss work on POS fueler. Read and support: Don't mess with OUR WH's What is Your stance on WH stuff? |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
305
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 16:10:00 -
[123] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Hm a few more answers:
Ammo hold will not fit drones
Only the first group is changed to 6au. Maybe I'll update OP with the value listed for the other roles.
All of the stats in OP are base stats with no skills taken into account (except for the potential capacity number listed after base capacity) - More armor than shields is bacause thats how the racial design works usually, no reason to change it here just because you will usually have expanders fit.
Expanders will not affect the new bays.
The PI bay will not hold command centers, and I don't think we'll add a bay for that.
Please don't expect name changes or art changes. I understand why you would want this but I just don't think its going to happen. We aren't going to just call Iterons ORE ships and leave the art the same, and we also aren't going to invest art resources in new modeling (or we would have made extra haulers for Amarr/Caldari), so they will be staying where they are. Name changes are slightly more realistic, but I still doubt the benefit would outweigh the harm. I will still investigate this.
Very happy with your reaction, glad we could figure this out. Thanks again, Rise for the fantastic overtime hours you guys put into this ship pass. They've been given roles and a purpose!
If the Iteron III doesn't hold command centers in its PI hold, will you consider making the main hold 1000 m3? I think it only makes sense that the PI hauler could set up the PI to be done in the first place.
I would like to go on record to say that ships should NOT be renamed. Iteron Mark (whatever) adds to the charm--and flavor, there's that word!--of the Iteron line, and I think adding more names would just make things confusing and disjumbled.
I also wanted to ask if the Iteron and Sigil were intended to carry less than the two shield-biased ships, considering that they have much fewer low slots, and the armor boats, if even given a DCU, is going to cut into that already small cargo room--maybe a slight bump to their holds (though not to throw the badger off the top; that's a good consolation, considering the Badger Mk. II is the small "large" ship and the Charon again retakes the crown.).
|
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
1367
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 16:12:00 -
[124] - Quote
The Primae has 2 holds, one for commodities and one for CCs. And to the above poster - the goal here is to provide niche roles to these ships, which is definitely accomplished through the commodities hold alone, as other people above have attested to.
As far as the Orca - Because it does things other than have an Ore hold, I'm not super concerned about the overlap with the Iteron Mark whatever, but I'll check with Fozzie/Ytterbium to see what they think about it. |
|
FistyMcBumBasher
Calamitous-Intent
56
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 16:15:00 -
[125] - Quote
I really like the way these changes look, a lot more diversity than the original ones proposed. You and your team going back to the drawing board gives me confidence in your ability to keep making amazing changes. Is it possible for the ships with special bays to also have a normal cargohold of about 500m3? For those situations where you need to haul buttloads of the special bay and just a small amount of normal cargo. |
Denidil
Turalyon Plus
598
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 16:16:00 -
[126] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:The Primae has 2 holds, one for commodities and one for CCs. And to the above poster - the goal here is to provide niche roles to these ships, which is definitely accomplished through the commodities hold alone, as other people above have attested to.
Ahh.. i never actually got one - my accounts were inactive for a short period RIGHT THEN *facepalm*
CCP Rise wrote:As far as the Orca - Because it does things other than have an Ore hold, I'm not super concerned about the overlap with the Iteron Mark whatever, but I'll check with Fozzie/Ytterbium to see what they think about it.
Good :D The Orca and Rorqual are big arse mining capitals and thus should really have ore bay far in excess of a tech 1 industrial. Especially since the Mackinaw's bay is only 5km3 less than the Orcas now. Orca really should have 300,000m3 to 400,000m3 and the Rorq should have like 1,000,000m3. They're big, slow, and they're ORE ships. Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design. |
Sofia Wolf
Ubuntu Inc. The Fourth District
221
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 16:16:00 -
[127] - Quote
Siddicus wrote:CCP Rise wrote:
The PI bay will not hold command centers, and I don't think we'll add a bay for that.
It doesn't need to have another bay for it, just to allow it in the current one it has =( Adding the ability to fit Command Centers into the bay will increase its usefulness significantly, and in the end, isn't that the goal of these changes?
If my math is right with max expanders and t1 expander rigs Iti 3 should have around 2200 of general cargo spece, enough for 2 command centers. Jessica Danikov > EVE is your real life. the rest is fantasy. caught in a corporation. no escape from banality. open up yours eyes, peer through pod good and seeeeeee. I'm just a poor pilot, I need no sympathy. because I'm easy scam, easy go, little isk, little know. anyway the solar wind blows... |
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
1368
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 16:16:00 -
[128] - Quote
The special bay ships all have a 550m3 normal cargo at the moment. |
|
Altaen
Calamitous-Intent
64
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 16:16:00 -
[129] - Quote
If an ore bay includes unrefined ore and ice blocks, does that mean a mineral bay includes refined minerals and refined ice product AKA jump/triage/siege fuel?
Nevermind, just read that it doesn't. I think this is unfortunate. For consistency if nothing else. I do think delivering jump/triage/siege fuel (not fuel blocks, mind you) is a role I would appreciate having filled somehow. |
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
1368
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 16:16:00 -
[130] - Quote
Sofia Wolf wrote:Siddicus wrote:CCP Rise wrote:
The PI bay will not hold command centers, and I don't think we'll add a bay for that.
It doesn't need to have another bay for it, just to allow it in the current one it has =( Adding the ability to fit Command Centers into the bay will increase its usefulness significantly, and in the end, isn't that the goal of these changes? If my math is right with max expanders and t1 expander rigs Iti 3 should have around 2200 of general cargo spece, enough for 2 command centers.
oh gosh this is true - I totally forgot about expanders (as I guess everyone else did), thanks!
|
|
|
Deirdre Anethoel
The Scope Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 16:17:00 -
[131] - Quote
Quote:HOARDER - Ammo bay (This includes anything in the 'charge' group - bombs/cap charges/etc)
Minmatar Industrial Skill Bonuses: +5% Ammo Bay Capacity +5% Max Velocity
Slot layout: 3H(+1), 4M(+1), 3L; 2 turrets(+1), 0 launchers Fittings: 180 PWG(+120), 300 CPU(-350) Cargo (capacity / Ammo/Charge Bay Capacity): 500(-4600) / 50000m3 Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 840(+566) / 800(-216) / 2100(+1084) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 120 / .85(-.15) / 10625000(-875000) / 12.5(-3.4) Signature radius: 185(+5) Warp speed: 4.5au/s
May I suggest this bay should be able to contain drones too? And paste. |
Denidil
Turalyon Plus
598
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 16:20:00 -
[132] - Quote
Altaen wrote:If an ore bay includes unrefined ore and ice blocks, does that mean a mineral bay includes refined minerals and refined ice product AKA jump/triage/siege fuel?
Nevermind, just read that it doesn't. I think this is unfortunate. For consistency if nothing else. I do think delivering jump/triage/siege fuel (not fuel blocks, mind you) is a role I would appreciate having filled somehow.
he already said that the mineral bay does not include ice products Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design. |
DJWiggles
Eve Radio Corporation
88
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 16:20:00 -
[133] - Quote
Deirdre Anethoel wrote:Quote:HOARDER - Ammo bay (This includes anything in the 'charge' group - bombs/cap charges/etc)
Minmatar Industrial Skill Bonuses: +5% Ammo Bay Capacity +5% Max Velocity
Slot layout: 3H(+1), 4M(+1), 3L; 2 turrets(+1), 0 launchers Fittings: 180 PWG(+120), 300 CPU(-350) Cargo (capacity / Ammo/Charge Bay Capacity): 500(-4600) / 50000m3 Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 840(+566) / 800(-216) / 2100(+1084) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 120 / .85(-.15) / 10625000(-875000) / 12.5(-3.4) Signature radius: 185(+5) Warp speed: 4.5au/s May I suggest this bay should be able to contain drones too? And paste.
Paste it will hold as that is under the ammo and charges group ... Live on Eve Radio Wednesdays 20:00 GMT with me & friends blabbering on about Eve and stuff-áFollow me on twitter http://twitter.com/WigglesGRN, like me on facebook http://facebook.com/wigglesGRN or check out my blog http://wiggles.gamingradio.net/blog
|
Ersahi Kir
Infinite Mobility SpaceMonkey's Alliance
201
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 16:21:00 -
[134] - Quote
I think the mk II tiericide is much much better Rise. Thank you very much.
Now about those transport ships.... :D |
Sarmatiko
1237
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 16:21:00 -
[135] - Quote
CCP Rise, while you working closely with T1 industrial ships, maybe you can look at most unused ship in EVE - Primae.
Currently there is practically no reason to use this ship, and after this rebalance there will be absolutely no reason to undock.
In Tyrannis, when Primae was introduced as "starter PI ship", we hadn't "Ore Industrial ship" skill, but now we have. Maybe it will be a good idea to add more specific bays to Primae (in addition to command center bays) with bonuses dependent from Ore Industrial? Same goes for Echelon - why not add simple T1 exploration frig stats or at least 1 High slot for probe launcher? It's not like something bad will happen if people suddenly start using these conserved ships.. -¥ |
Iosue
Black Sky Hipsters
197
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 16:21:00 -
[136] - Quote
Rise, Thanks for making another go at these ships. I'm excited about the revamp and look forward to using some of the new roles. Great job!! |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1232
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 16:22:00 -
[137] - Quote
Deirdre Anethoel wrote:Quote:HOARDER - Ammo bay (This includes anything in the 'charge' group - bombs/cap charges/etc)
Minmatar Industrial Skill Bonuses: +5% Ammo Bay Capacity +5% Max Velocity
Slot layout: 3H(+1), 4M(+1), 3L; 2 turrets(+1), 0 launchers Fittings: 180 PWG(+120), 300 CPU(-350) Cargo (capacity / Ammo/Charge Bay Capacity): 500(-4600) / 50000m3 Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 840(+566) / 800(-216) / 2100(+1084) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 120 / .85(-.15) / 10625000(-875000) / 12.5(-3.4) Signature radius: 185(+5) Warp speed: 4.5au/s May I suggest this bay should be able to contain drones too? And paste. you could squeeze the drones and paste into the 'regular' bay.
i like the changes very much overall, especially the drones. mining iteron inc ;)
"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 |
ApolloF117 HUN
x-universum reunion
4
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 16:24:00 -
[138] - Quote
gut, now make a t2 hoarder for transport ammo with tank not whitout it |
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Tormented of Destiny The Kadeshi
135
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 16:26:00 -
[139] - Quote
Deirdre Anethoel wrote: May I suggest this bay should be able to contain drones too? And paste.
... reading comprehension; it holds paste and doesn't hold drones (at least in the ammo bay). get a normal hauler for drone supply. without a carrier or other ship with fitting service, you could not refill your drone bay anyway.
|
Fredric Wolf
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
14
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 16:29:00 -
[140] - Quote
Just a thought why not introduce the Badger mrk III into the game as the large transport as that is the model the Bustard is made on. This would give you the badger mrk II as the third ship for the Caldari. Then only the Amarr would be left out and it would make more sense IMO.
Fred |
|
Tal Jerrico
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 16:30:00 -
[141] - Quote
amg need stront bay plskthx |
Azami Nevinyrall
Carbon Circle Tactical Narcotics Team
1002
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 16:32:00 -
[142] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Ore hold includes Gas
Mineral hold does not include Gas and Ice products
Ammo hold includes cap charges, nanite paste, bombs, and anything else in the "charge" group I believe (I will confirm this soon).
We talked about doing a POS fueler (and I expect this to be the most legit complaint) but it just isn't possible atm. I can't go into specifics but please trust me here =/
Renaming strikes me as messy, but I'll bring it up with our story department and see what their opinion is. POS fueler would be great actually, just as long as it's properly done!
I'd suggest a new Caldari and Amarr industrial for this purpose actually.
And keep the rest of the industrials as is. I'm not entirely clear on the point of this, but I do have a sudden urge to jump in a catalyst and blow up a miner. Twitter! - @AzamiNevinyrall I'm half expecting a ban for this post. |
Kesi Raae
Anatidae Rising
9
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 16:42:00 -
[143] - Quote
Good changes!
But you forgot the Badger Mk III (T1 version of Bustard model) |
Karak Bol
Crepuscular
87
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 16:44:00 -
[144] - Quote
DJWiggles wrote:Deirdre Anethoel wrote:Quote:HOARDER - Ammo bay (This includes anything in the 'charge' group - bombs/cap charges/etc)
Minmatar Industrial Skill Bonuses: +5% Ammo Bay Capacity +5% Max Velocity
Slot layout: 3H(+1), 4M(+1), 3L; 2 turrets(+1), 0 launchers Fittings: 180 PWG(+120), 300 CPU(-350) Cargo (capacity / Ammo/Charge Bay Capacity): 500(-4600) / 50000m3 Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 840(+566) / 800(-216) / 2100(+1084) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 120 / .85(-.15) / 10625000(-875000) / 12.5(-3.4) Signature radius: 185(+5) Warp speed: 4.5au/s May I suggest this bay should be able to contain drones too? And paste. Paste it will hold as that is under the ammo and charges group ...
And you can put drones into the normal Cargo. |
Elfi Wolfe
University of Caille Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 16:49:00 -
[145] - Quote
I like. |
Marc Callan
Interstellar Steel Templis Dragonaors
209
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 16:51:00 -
[146] - Quote
Drones are a special case; while you're in space, you can't transfer them from a cargohold to a drone bay without using a fitting service on an Orca or carrier, unlike with ammunition, which just needs to be in your combat ship's main cargohold to be useful. "Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred..." - Niccolo Machiavelli-á |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
305
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 17:00:00 -
[147] - Quote
Deirdre Anethoel wrote:Quote:HOARDER - Ammo bay (This includes anything in the 'charge' group - bombs/cap charges/etc)
Minmatar Industrial Skill Bonuses: +5% Ammo Bay Capacity +5% Max Velocity
Slot layout: 3H(+1), 4M(+1), 3L; 2 turrets(+1), 0 launchers Fittings: 180 PWG(+120), 300 CPU(-350) Cargo (capacity / Ammo/Charge Bay Capacity): 500(-4600) / 50000m3 Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 840(+566) / 800(-216) / 2100(+1084) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 120 / .85(-.15) / 10625000(-875000) / 12.5(-3.4) Signature radius: 185(+5) Warp speed: 4.5au/s May I suggest this bay should be able to contain drones too? And paste. Let's not push our luck here. Don't forget that there are ships with ~35k+ m3 that will carry all your worldly desires, including drones!!
|
Drew Li
Space Exploitation Inc Get Off My Lawn
46
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 17:05:00 -
[148] - Quote
Specialized bay (ship hangar) capable of carrying assembled ships. Could limit the volume, but for many in empire I'm sure the capability would be appreciated. |
Denidil
Turalyon Plus
599
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 17:11:00 -
[149] - Quote
Drew Li wrote:Specialized bay (ship hangar) capable of carrying assembled ships. Could limit the volume, but for many in empire I'm sure the capability would be appreciated.
Orca already exists.
Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design. |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld White Mountain Coalition
229
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 17:14:00 -
[150] - Quote
Loving these changes, superb in fact!
It's great to see some real differences between racial ships with specialised roles, changes like this kill claims of homogenization dead which is a good thing.
Well done to the balance team and thanks for listening to the community guys. Tiericide is tiers by another name. |
|
Jhousetlin Zamayid
Stoic Assembly Lines
9
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 17:17:00 -
[151] - Quote
Why don't you give each race the same number of Industrials and give them the same specificity of the Gallente? |
Mazaron
DeathByDestruction
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 17:22:00 -
[152] - Quote
Well, time to sell my now useless Bustard. T2 Deep Space Transports are pretty much worthless from these changes. |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
2036
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 17:23:00 -
[153] - Quote
*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 going 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. |
|
Elandra Grimm
EntroPrelatial Industria Here Be Dragons
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 17:25:00 -
[154] - Quote
It's an interesting set of tweaks. My question is primarily about the collier. Is it accessible from space, or do I have to dock to a carrier to offload ammo?
Someone also mentioned Q-ships, which would be a lot of fun, and a nasty surprise for suicide gankers and small gangs, but there's no way I can think of doing it right without what would amount to strategic haulers (which I would totally support).
It would be cool to have a fleet of strat haulers go out, half with cargo subsystems, the other half fitted as Q-ships. All people see is a fleet of strat haulers. Not hard to do either with the subsystem framework. I posted a bunch of strat hauler ideas in the last thread, no one seemed interested.
Too much Harrington in my past probably.
Good start though.
Ellie |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
305
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 17:25:00 -
[155] - Quote
Jhousetlin Zamayid wrote:Why don't you give each race the same number of Industrials and give them the same specificity of the Gallente? If he were to do that, what would be the point of having 4 separate lines of identical ships? It seems like you don't quite understand what 'homogenization' means, and why its detrimental for a game that's build around strengths and weaknesses of one ship to the other.
4 races each with 5 identical ships is a terrible idea and concept. At that point, just remove ALL the ships and make a single hauler name "Industrial Ship Placeholder."
|
Freighdee Katt
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
211
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 17:25:00 -
[156] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:As far as the Orca - Because it does things other than have an Ore hold, I'm not super concerned about the overlap with the Iteron Mark whatever, but I'll check with Fozzie/Ytterbium to see what they think about it. If anything the T1 ore haulers now are a huge complement to the Orca's fleet support role, because the Orca can stay on station in the belt while the haulers lighter off the ore to station. This will be a big deal when "big changes" to OGB hit (assuming that ever happens).
And when it comes to hauling anything other than spar and trit, the EHP of an Orca vs. any special hauler says all you need to know about whether the "roles" of these ships overlap: they don't. One invites you to die in a fire every time you undock. One does not.
|
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
306
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 17:29:00 -
[157] - Quote
Mazaron wrote:Well, time to sell my now useless Bustard. T2 Deep Space Transports are pretty much worthless from these changes. Don't worry; many T1 ships have rendered T2 ships marginalized or obsoleted. Just be happy that when Industrial T2s' time to be rebalanced comes, *this* is what they'll be compared and contrasted against.
I'm sure we'll see some killer HAC changes coming down the pipe soon.
|
Freighdee Katt
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
211
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 17:29:00 -
[158] - Quote
Still no comment it seems on whether the ammo bay can be accessed by fleet in space like a fleet hangar. |
Marc Callan
Interstellar Steel Templis Dragonaors
210
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 17:33:00 -
[159] - 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.
Right. Time to organize a fleet of Myrmidons to shoot up the Jita monument in protest against the Gallente faction battlecruiser being based on the Brutix. "Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred..." - Niccolo Machiavelli-á |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
306
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 17:34:00 -
[160] - Quote
Freighdee Katt wrote:Still no comment it seems on whether the ammo bay can be accessed by fleet in space like a fleet hangar. Probably not since no other bays are accessible in space by anyone other than yourself. If there was only a way to--I dunno--jettison things into some sort of container, a can, if you will, that would spin in space and be accessible to everyone....if only there was a way...
|
|
Karash Amerius
Sutoka
113
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 17:34:00 -
[161] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:More armor than shields is bacause thats how the racial design works usually, no reason to change it here just because you will usually have expanders fit.
Oh how the naive think; it should be a sport picking out these blanket predictions for future balancing turmoil. Karash Amerius Operative, Sutoka |
Orakkus
Winds of Dawn Kraken.
105
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 17:34:00 -
[162] - Quote
Denidil wrote: Orca already exists.
True, but the skillset needed to use it for hauling ships is ridiculous. It shouldn't be a requirement to branch into the mining skills for this task. But, this does go into my next question for CCP Rise and CCP Ytterbium and CCP Fozzie: Can we expect an Ore or Industrial ship capable of hauling other ships like the Orca? Ideally, if it could haul up to two battleships (and that can be at level 5), that would produce a new revenue stream for those who buy regular BSes on the open market, then rig them to resell them again at a higher price, or for better logistical control. |
Sofia Wolf
Ubuntu Inc. The Fourth District
221
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 17:35:00 -
[163] - Quote
Jhousetlin Zamayid wrote:Why don't you give each race the same number of Industrials and give them the same specificity of the Gallente?
Why waist time for dews and artists only to duplicate same functionality for each race? There is no need to make all races mirror images of each other. Even if they have different number of ships it is possible to make each race worth skilling for for their specific reasons. If they were all same you would skill only in one race, and that would be boring. Making each race different forces you to make choices, and makes those choices matter.
I would say this asymmetrical arrangement of indies is far more interesting then if we had GÇ£nGÇ¥ number of indis for each race doing exactly the same thing in same way. Jessica Danikov > EVE is your real life. the rest is fantasy. caught in a corporation. no escape from banality. open up yours eyes, peer through pod good and seeeeeee. I'm just a poor pilot, I need no sympathy. because I'm easy scam, easy go, little isk, little know. anyway the solar wind blows... |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
309
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 17:38:00 -
[164] - Quote
Rise, I would ask a serious question: It seems like each race, except for Amarr, has some sort of lolpvp boat, with of course the Battle Badger (now with more HAMs), the Iteron with drones + turret, and the Hoarder being able to fit two turrets. Any chance we could see the Sigil or Bestower having a second turret hardpoint added? I don't mean to add an additional high slot; leave the highs at two and just add an additional turret.
No reason Amarr pilots should be left out on lolpvp ops. ^.^ |
Omnathious Deninard
The Scope Gallente Federation
1213
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 17:51:00 -
[165] - Quote
Orakkus wrote:Denidil wrote: Orca already exists.
True, but the skillset needed to use it for hauling ships is ridiculous. It shouldn't be a requirement to branch into the mining skills for this task. But, this does go into my next question for CCP Rise and CCP Ytterbium and CCP Fozzie: Can we expect an Ore or Industrial ship capable of hauling other ships like the Orca? Ideally, if it could haul up to two battleships (and that can be at level 5), that would produce a new revenue stream for those who buy regular BSes on the open market, then rig them to resell them again at a higher price, or for better logistical control. Freighter and plastic wrapped battleships. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Denidil
Turalyon Plus
599
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 17:52:00 -
[166] - Quote
Orakkus wrote:Denidil wrote: Orca already exists.
True, but the skillset needed to use it for hauling ships is ridiculous. It shouldn't be a requirement to branch into the mining skills for this task. But, this does go into my next question for CCP Rise and CCP Ytterbium and CCP Fozzie: Can we expect an Ore or Industrial ship capable of hauling other ships like the Orca? Ideally, if it could haul up to two battleships (and that can be at level 5), that would produce a new revenue stream for those who buy regular BSes on the open market, then rig them to resell them again at a higher price, or for better logistical control.
I think they might do this with a tech 2 ship, or perhaps a new line of high allowed capitals (*cough*light carrier*cough*). Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design. |
Callic Veratar
Power of the Phoenix
389
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 17:53:00 -
[167] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:Rise, I would ask a serious question: It seems like each race, except for Amarr, has some sort of lolpvp boat, with of course the Battle Badger (now with more HAMs), the Iteron with drones + turret, and the Hoarder being able to fit two turrets. Any chance we could see the Sigil or Bestower having a second turret hardpoint added? I don't mean to add an additional high slot; leave the highs at two and just add an additional turret.
No reason Amarr pilots should be left out on lolpvp ops. ^.^
New Amarr industrial with 2/3 high slots for lasers and new Caldari industrial with a POS fuel bay? DirectX 11, it's not rocket appliance! |
Chris Winter
Zephyr Corp V.A.S.T.
150
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 17:54:00 -
[168] - Quote
So I can go Gallente and need four different ships for four different roles...or I can go Amarr, fill the hold with GSCs, and have 50k m3 of space for whatever I want, not just specific products. Ore, minerals, and PI products all are fairly small, so they fill GSCs well.
I guess if you're lazy and don't want to deal with GSCs, the new Gallente options are good? Glad I held off training to wait for this announcement, since the Amarr one makes the entire Gallente line obsolete.
And then there's the problem with tanks being nerfed across the board. Ganker's paradise... |
Silivar Karkun
Imperium Aeternam Phantom Armada
62
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 17:54:00 -
[169] - Quote
dont wanna discourage your work CCP Rise, but is a mineral hauler necessary?, maybe it could be used for something more meaningfull i mean, any common hauler can move minerals, it would make more sense to use those 50k m3 of bay for something like fuel for example, which its a more important matter than minerals. maybe leave minerals for the Iteron IV along with its ore, ice and gas support.
overall, that new proposal looks better than the other, nice job. im looking forward to see my improved bestower. |
Callic Veratar
Power of the Phoenix
389
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 17:55:00 -
[170] - Quote
Denidil wrote:Orakkus wrote:Denidil wrote: Orca already exists.
True, but the skillset needed to use it for hauling ships is ridiculous. It shouldn't be a requirement to branch into the mining skills for this task. But, this does go into my next question for CCP Rise and CCP Ytterbium and CCP Fozzie: Can we expect an Ore or Industrial ship capable of hauling other ships like the Orca? Ideally, if it could haul up to two battleships (and that can be at level 5), that would produce a new revenue stream for those who buy regular BSes on the open market, then rig them to resell them again at a higher price, or for better logistical control. I think they might do this with a tech 2 ship, or perhaps a new line of high allowed capitals (*cough*light carrier*cough*).
ORE Industrial Carrier with 2.5M ship maintenance bay. DirectX 11, it's not rocket appliance! |
|
Dave Stark
3245
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 17:55:00 -
[171] - Quote
excellent, the badger mk2 having the highest base cargo but lowest potential cargo (that's still the case? i'll admit i glanced over those parts) is quite nice, it's interesting.
as for the specialised ship, that's nice also.
however, there still seems to be no reason to buy any of them over an orca other than "i r teh poor" are you going to bother addressing that? |
Marcel Devereux
Aideron Robotics
238
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 17:56:00 -
[172] - 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.
Whoa there, slow down now. Just because we like these changes doesn't give you the liberty to go around saying Rise is doing a good job. When the day comes that he is actually doing a good job, I will be the first to give him his cake-in-a-jar. Until then, no cake for you Rise! |
Denidil
Turalyon Plus
599
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 17:56:00 -
[173] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:
And then there's the problem with tanks being nerfed across the board. Ganker's paradise...
NERFED? did you read the changes? Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design. |
Silivar Karkun
Imperium Aeternam Phantom Armada
62
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 17:58:00 -
[174] - Quote
here's another idea for the Iteron II, extend its use not only for minerals, but other refined comodities like ice derivated products and moon materials.
we dont actually have a dedicated moon goo hauler anyways. |
Denidil
Turalyon Plus
599
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 17:59:00 -
[175] - Quote
Callic Veratar wrote:Denidil wrote:Orakkus wrote:Denidil wrote: Orca already exists.
True, but the skillset needed to use it for hauling ships is ridiculous. It shouldn't be a requirement to branch into the mining skills for this task. But, this does go into my next question for CCP Rise and CCP Ytterbium and CCP Fozzie: Can we expect an Ore or Industrial ship capable of hauling other ships like the Orca? Ideally, if it could haul up to two battleships (and that can be at level 5), that would produce a new revenue stream for those who buy regular BSes on the open market, then rig them to resell them again at a higher price, or for better logistical control. I think they might do this with a tech 2 ship, or perhaps a new line of high allowed capitals (*cough*light carrier*cough*). ORE Industrial Carrier with 2.5M ship maintenance bay.
I don't think it should be an ORE ship. I think full caps and supercaps need their SMA sizes increased and then a new series of "light capitals" added between battleship and full caps. light dreads and light carriers - high sec allowed, not allowed in level 4 missions. Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design. |
Jackie Fisher
Syrkos Technologies Joint Venture Conglomerate
193
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 18:00:00 -
[176] - 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. You see we are reasonable people who hate moaning and only do it when we are right and you are wrong.
Was hoping for an exotic dancer bay but I suppose that will have to wait for the Badger 3. Fear God and Thread Nought |
Kusum Fawn
State War Academy Caldari State
339
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 18:01:00 -
[177] - Quote
is there actually any reason to use these specialized ships when they are all horribly inefficient outside their very small defined role?
I'm not that interested in having to use seven different ships to do the work of one. its rather sad to think that big cargo boxes in space cant hold more then one type of thing. or that anyone whos ever dealt with shipping would like the idea of restricted boxes.
Im sure that they will all get used some, but in a year only the base models will still be getting produced in numbers.
utility ought to novelty Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.
|
Kyt Thrace
Lightspeed Enterprises Fidelas Constans
164
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 18:01:00 -
[178] - 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.
I think CCP Rise is being racist in that he wants a Caldari Citizen that is loyal to the State to have to cross train & use stupid gallente ships because there is no other choice.
I thought CCP broke up the standard battlecruiser /destroyer skill into each faction battlecruiser/destroyer skill to make the Tier cycle correct.
CCP you are going backwards putting the different cargo bay ships under the gallente & minmatar only.
Make these specialty ships fall under the ORE Industrial Group.
R.I.P. Vile Rat |
Deirdre Anethoel
The Scope Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 18:03:00 -
[179] - Quote
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:Deirdre Anethoel wrote: May I suggest this bay should be able to contain drones too? And paste.
... reading comprehension; it holds paste and doesn't hold drones (at least in the ammo bay). get a normal hauler for drone supply. without a carrier or other ship with fitting service, you could not refill your drone bay anyway.
I understood it wasn't able to hold drones, hence why I suggested it. Of course, it should go with the ability to put drones into drone bays, and may be a bit complicated/too much, you're right. |
Anela Cistine
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
172
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 18:07:00 -
[180] - Quote
Fredric Wolf wrote:Just a thought why not introduce the Badger mrk III into the game as the large transport as that is the model the Bustard is made on. This would give you the badger mrk II as the third ship for the Caldari. Then only the Amarr would be left out and it would make more sense IMO.
Fred
If they made a third Amarr hauler it would obviously have a "livestock" bay. Since players have little need to haul around livestock, we can just pretend it already exists but nobody uses it. |
|
Adunh Slavy
1051
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 18:13:00 -
[181] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: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.
How did he get in there? |
Silivar Karkun
Imperium Aeternam Phantom Armada
62
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 18:14:00 -
[182] - Quote
Anela Cistine wrote:Fredric Wolf wrote:Just a thought why not introduce the Badger mrk III into the game as the large transport as that is the model the Bustard is made on. This would give you the badger mrk II as the third ship for the Caldari. Then only the Amarr would be left out and it would make more sense IMO.
Fred If they made a third Amarr hauler it would obviously have a "livestock" bay. Since players have little need to haul around livestock, we can just pretend it already exists but nobody uses it.
but the bestower is already used as an slave transport......in fact, all the amar hauler except for their freighters are based in slave transports. |
Forlorn Wongraven
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
67
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 18:15:00 -
[183] - Quote
Posting in thread about ships I never use. Also totally angry about whatever OP said. Shadoo > whoever was the first nyx on grid Shadoo > THANK GOD YOU ARE A SMART MAN and fitted the best tank in PL Shadoo > (ie. cyno) |
Sarmatiko
1239
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 18:15:00 -
[184] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: ..and we also aren't going to invest art resources in new modeling (or we would have made extra haulers for Amarr/Caldari), so they will be staying where they are.
But what about reusing already created art resources and V3 textures for some missing Caldari/Amarr industrials (with ore bay as most desired one I think). Something like Badger Mark III, Nugoeihuvi Badger II, Sukuuvestaa Badger Mark II or Kador Bestower. Guess there is really many variants, and from simple player perspective it's not that hard to make new ship instance with existing model and skin Of course this will push everyone into the Abyss of "we have too many Industrial ships, arrrrrgggghhh!!!", but still..
-¥ |
Caleb Ayrania
TarNec Invisible Exchequer
176
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 18:19:00 -
[185] - Quote
Kusum Fawn wrote:is there actually any reason to use these specialized ships when they are all horribly inefficient outside their very small defined role?
I'm not that interested in having to use seven different ships to do the work of one. its rather sad to think that big cargo boxes in space cant hold more then one type of thing. or that anyone whos ever dealt with shipping would like the idea of restricted boxes.
Im sure that they will all get used some, but in a year only the base models will still be getting produced in numbers.
utility ought to novelty
I think what the problem in what you point out here is the lack of a general vision regarding roles. Capacity of the ships and their operational range.
A while back the intended long range ACTUAL freight carrying ship was granted space jettison and pickup function. This was because of the lack of purposed ships to compete and perform these functions. The freighter and the Orca swizz army knife issue needs a huge reconsideration.
What you seem to be asking for is that Freighters become actual large capacity and long range. This would be possible by making the JF and Freighter go back to the original roles. A way to do that would be using containers in a way that give a game-mechanical function.
Container should always drop almost all content to space. They should have 25-50% bonus to capacity and be different in types like the bays. The different container types could be held in the matching industrial bays.
Materials not in a container should almost always be lost on destruction. The jettison and pickup would be removed from JF and Freighter again.
Thus denial of loot or reduction in loot drop would be at the cost of capacity, and resulting in "less" interesting soft target regarding industrials. Except ofc for the purpose of disruption and tears.
The DST and the BR should get capacity that match in between T1 industrial and Freighters, and compete with Orca on anything except for ORE/Minerals. Thus making the Orca the equivalent of a wet load freigther, but not the current multi purpose winner.
Also the unscannable feature should go on the DST and not the BR. Its a double boost that we have currently, swap them and both ships would be used. Preferably also a sort of Ship bay function on the DST..
Just a few thoughts.. for the road ahead.
|
Silivar Karkun
Imperium Aeternam Phantom Armada
62
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 18:20:00 -
[186] - Quote
Sarmatiko wrote:CCP Rise wrote: ..and we also aren't going to invest art resources in new modeling (or we would have made extra haulers for Amarr/Caldari), so they will be staying where they are.
But what about reusing already created art resources and V3 textures for some missing Caldari/Amarr industrials (with ore bay as most desired one I think). Something like Badger Mark III, Nugoeihuvi Badger II, Sukuuvestaa Badger Mark II or Kador Bestower. Guess there is really many variants, and from simple player perspective it's not that hard to make new ship instance with existing model and skin Of course this will push everything further into the Abyss of "we have too many Industrial ships, arrrrrgggghhh!!!", but still..
that kador bestower looks like something used by the EoM fanatics, in any case it would be interesting. |
marVLs
200
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 18:23:00 -
[187] - Quote
Approved |
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers
150
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 18:24:00 -
[188] - Quote
Diversity and choices. Wonderful rethink. Thank you. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1110
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 18:25:00 -
[189] - Quote
I do know this is off topic. but any chance you guys are going to get pirate ships in for 1.1?
fingers crossed on guritas loosing the missile bonus and gaining the tracking/optimal range bonus that they domi has. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Mattk50
WhiteWalkers
3
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 18:26:00 -
[190] - Quote
The non-specialized t1 changes are pretty much perfect, but i have to note that the specialized bay ships need smaller bays. Keep in mind, theres no point in fitting cargo expanders on these ships. They will be full nano/stab fit without any penalty to their capability. In addition, they get the skill bonus to the bay. Its a bit too much.
I suggest either reducing the amount of available low slots on the specialized ships to account for this, or reducing the specialized bay capacities just a hair. Just a hair. These specialized bays should be better than the vanilla ships for their purposes, but not SO much better that if you have a max cargo capacity industrial you might as well give up, because you should be using the specialized ship instead. |
|
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1110
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 18:27:00 -
[191] - Quote
Sarmatiko wrote:CCP Rise wrote: ..and we also aren't going to invest art resources in new modeling (or we would have made extra haulers for Amarr/Caldari), so they will be staying where they are.
But what about reusing already created art resources and V3 textures for some missing Caldari/Amarr industrials (with ore bay as most desired one I think). Something like Badger Mark III, Nugoeihuvi Badger II, Sukuuvestaa Badger Mark II or Kador Bestower. Even reusing T2 models with T1 skins is possible (just like Bustard uses model of non existent Badger mk III) - T2 Bestower. Guess there is really many variants, and from simple player perspective it's not that hard to make new ship instance with existing model and skin Of course this will push everything further into the Abyss of "we have too many Industrial ships, arrrrrgggghhh!!!", but still..
i want a deviant art player contest for the missing ships There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Sofia Wolf
Ubuntu Inc. The Fourth District
222
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 18:33:00 -
[192] - Quote
Kyt Thrace 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. I think CCP Rise is being racist in that he wants a Caldari Citizen that is loyal to the State to have to cross train & use stupid gallente ships because there is no other choice. I thought CCP broke up the standard battlecruiser /destroyer skill into each faction battlecruiser/destroyer skill to make the Tier cycle correct. CCP you are going backwards putting the different cargo bay ships under the gallente & minmatar only. Make these specialty ships fall under the ORE Industrial Group.
I would go exactly the opposite way and redistribute ore industrials back to 4 empires. Minamtar would get Noctis because they make their ships from junk and scrap so that makes them natural home for salvager. 3 mining barges I would distribute evenly among 3 remaining races. Venture would go to Minmatar or Angel Cartel because it is fast and agile and good for making drugs. Orca and Rorqual could remain ore, mostly because I donGÇÖt know whom to give them. Jessica Danikov > EVE is your real life. the rest is fantasy. caught in a corporation. no escape from banality. open up yours eyes, peer through pod good and seeeeeee. I'm just a poor pilot, I need no sympathy. because I'm easy scam, easy go, little isk, little know. anyway the solar wind blows... |
Flux Astraeus
InterSun Freelance Moon Warriors
1
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 18:41:00 -
[193] - Quote
Some good changes here. Except taking away points from the PWG on many of them is a massive undersight! Because of one major fitting flaw as it pertains to the T1 Indi class. Fitting a cloak, and the correct SIZE MWD for this ship class should be a given by default without having to add engineering modules to accomodate this fit.
Not taking power away on an already flawed power grid scheme. In that this size vessel class should be able to fit a size 10MWD.Not a 1MWD, the physics just don't compute.
Here's why.
Because these things are sitting ducks with appalling allign times you should be able to fit out for stealth to get you off gates quickly and be able to employ the cloak / MWD trick which just see's you on grid for a few seconds as you basically warp off and don't get stuck on grid at gate, alligning for 15sec.
Lets call the Mammoth out here as example 1.We all know it hasn't been given the love it deserved here but anyway, at the moment you can fit out the Mammoth with 1 Improved cloaking device , and 10 MWD if you fit all your low slots with Micro Aux power core 1's instead of T1 cargo expanders.
Sure you sacrifice cargo capacity but you've got yourself a mini blockade runner in that you can be off grid in a second at gate with this fit and stay safe. But if you nurf the power grid more your going to take away the ability to do this without needing T2 Micro Aux PC which is screwing it over even more, that knocking a second off default align times.
It needs to be a PWG of 100 minimum to employ this.Because the MWD cloak trick won't work with a 1MWD on this ship because its too small for ship size. So you take away 450 off CPU, almost halving it , wow why so much? But power too , you are turning it into a piece of junk and limiting the fit out even more across more than just the Mammoth here, I don't see why this is a good idea at all? leave the power grids alone if anything give them more so they can fit a correct size MWD for the ship class. |
Ellariona
Bite Me inc Bitten.
125
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 18:41:00 -
[194] - Quote
This just in: EFT download spike because of industrial pilot influx! |
MailDeadDrop
Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
197
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 18:43:00 -
[195] - Quote
Kekminator wrote:Also, maybe it's time for ore hold / PI hold extender rigs?
CCP Rise, you've done an admirable jobs so far. Really: well done! I don't mean to put stuff on your plate pointlessly, but I think Kekminator could be correct: it may be time to add rigs which enhance specialized bays.
Now I do realize that capital-sized rigs for specialized bays would cause 11-dimensional chaos with balance among carriers and supers. So don't create/seed them. Just create/seed BPOs for small and medium rigs; that would cover the Venture, the Primae, and the T1 haulers. Not having large- or capital-sized rigs postpones (perhaps forever) figuring out exactly what balance chaos would result from mucking around with Orca, Carrier, or Supercarrier specialty bays.
MDD |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1110
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 18:44:00 -
[196] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:I do know this is off topic. but any chance you guys are going to get pirate ships in for 1.1?
fingers crossed on guritas loosing the missile bonus and gaining the tracking/optimal range bonus that they domi has.
moreover:
worm bonus:
Special Ability: 50% bonus to drone tracking
Caldari Frigate Skill Bonus: 4% bonus to shield resistance per level
Gallente Frigate Skill Bonus: 10% to drone hitpoints per level
(increase base drone bay to 50m3)
gila:
special ability: 50% bonus to drone tacking/optimal range
Caldari Cruiser Skill Bonus: 4% bonus to shield resistance per level
Gallente Cruiser Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to drone hitpoints and damage per level
Rattlesnake:
Special ability: 25% bonus to sentry drone damage
Caldari Battleship Skill Bonus: 4% bonus to shield resistance per level
Gallente Battleship Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to drone hitpoints/damage/tracking/optimal range per level
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
PotatoOverdose
SONS of LEGION RISE of LEGION
134
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 18:44:00 -
[197] - Quote
Interesting changes. I like the drones on the iteron. And the HAM badger. Kinda hoped for an SMA or Corp Hangar on one of the indy's but oh well.
Good changes overall. |
Dersen Lowery
Laurentson INC StructureDamage
580
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 18:47:00 -
[198] - Quote
So, I use an Iteron III for PI. I follow a link to round 2 of the industrial changes, and... \o/ my ship will now be bonused for PI.
There are a few little things here and there (please don't gimp them so badly on PG!) but this is a solid start and a good direction for industrials. Drone-wielding Iteron FTW. Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables. |
Laendra
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
12
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 18:49:00 -
[199] - Quote
@CCP Rise,
I like the changes. Just a question for ya.
With the advent of special bays, are we still going to be able to put them into Carriers/Rorquals/Orcas with those bays filled (esp. Ammo bay, but the others too, would be nice)?
|
Karash Amerius
Sutoka
114
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 18:51:00 -
[200] - Quote
The Caldari could have a third hull...just reskin the Bustard. Karash Amerius Operative, Sutoka |
|
Luke Hartelse
Red Dwarf Jupiter Mining Corporation.
2
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 18:55:00 -
[201] - Quote
Overall i like all of the changes and battle badger can finally be reborn with added launcher!
However with the Iterons i feel the mineral bay and the ore bay should be one and the same meaning. in my eyes that the Iteron II should have a bay for both ore, minerals, gas etc... and instead give Iteron 4 a frigate holding bay? This would give newer players the ability to move their precious frigates around without having to move each one individually give it say the ability to move 2/3 frigates at a time?
Luke. |
LtCol Laurentius
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
132
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 18:59:00 -
[202] - Quote
This is a much better version of the changes than the original proposal.
One thing i dont get is that you avoid giving a ship a ship maintenance array usable for moving rigged ships (a relocation ship) because "it have broken the boundaries of Tech 1 specialization"
Well, all ships currently equipped with ship maintenance arrays are Tech 1 mate
And to use the hoarder as a relocation ship with - say - the capability to move up to a rigged battlecruiser would be infinitly more worth it to the players than a ammo ship.
Just my 2 cents anyway. |
Laendra
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
12
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 19:03:00 -
[203] - Quote
Kekminator wrote:Does Hoarder's ammo bay accept POS fuel blocks as cargo? They can be built in Ammo Assembly Array, so it should.
Also, maybe it's time for ore hold / PI hold extender rigs?
Special Bay extender rigs would definitely add more player customization/choice. Imagine, Rorquals with Ore Hold extender rigs instead of Cargo extender rigs for those that are compression specialists, et.al. |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
30
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 19:04:00 -
[204] - Quote
The Mineral Hauler still needs to be able to haul melted/processed Ice products.
Will the Ore hauler be able to haul compressed ore? |
Denidil
Turalyon Plus
603
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 19:07:00 -
[205] - Quote
LtCol Laurentius wrote:Well, all ships currently equipped with ship maintenance arrays are Tech 1 mate .
any SMA ship we get will not cost <1m isk for the hull.
Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design. |
LtCol Laurentius
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
132
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 19:13:00 -
[206] - Quote
Denidil wrote:LtCol Laurentius wrote:Well, all ships currently equipped with ship maintenance arrays are Tech 1 mate . any SMA ship we get will not cost <1m isk for the hull.
I dont see why, as long as you keep its utility down by restricting SMA size. Also, mineral reqs can be tweaked. |
Unezka Turigahl
Det Som Engang Var
79
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 19:13:00 -
[207] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Renaming strikes me as messy, but I'll bring it up with our story department and see what their opinion is. i would second the request to have the iteron versions get new names... and the badger mrk II
Ferret? Weasel?
Freighdee Katt wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Renaming strikes me as messy, but I'll bring it up with our story department and see what their opinion is. If you're going to do it, maybe go with something like Iteron Mk II-m / Mk II-i / Mk II-o to designate the specific bays but also keep the faith a bit with the old names.
Or just Iteron M-type, Iteron O-type, etc.
But I prefer the Kyt Thrace's idea about making the specialized cargo haulers ORE faction haulers. Then just name the Iteron I plain old 'Iteron', and give the Iteron V a new name. Remove Iteron II-IV and turn existing ones into the new Iteron V.
|
Jeanne-Luise Argenau
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
12
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 19:14:00 -
[208] - Quote
+1 for the changes CCP Rise
Also i would switch the iteron Mk II and MK IV over to ore industrial and if your collegues in the design department have some time create 2 new ore skins for them. |
Letrange
Chaosstorm Corporation
58
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 19:17:00 -
[209] - Quote
Probably too late to chime in here, but heck why not.
Is there any story reason you couldn't have transferred one or two of the iterons over to ORE? The mineral and ore ones specifically. Hell say ORE bought the rights to the hull plan from the other megacorps and then adapted the ore bay technology they had on their T1 Orca for use by T1 hulls they just acquired the rights to.
Heck this way you'd end up with Galente/Minmatar with 3 hulls and Amarr/Caldari with 2 each which would have substantially closed the hull count gap between the factions - then when you did that upcoming industry changes you guys seem to have planned you could introduce 2 new hauler to fill out the ship lists like you did with the Magnate back in the day.
just my 2 isk
|
Miss Mass
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
10
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 19:19:00 -
[210] - Quote
Awesome job, CCP Rise! These are much more interesting. |
|
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
30
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 19:19:00 -
[211] - Quote
I would name them this:
The Iteron Mark IV (Ore hauler), The Goliath
Iteron Mark II (Mineral Hauler), the Behemoth
Iteron Mar IV (Planetary Hauler), The Conveyor (too close to the Covetor, but works eitherway)
Will the Goliath be able to haul compressed ore (on that note, compressed ice?) |
Chris Winter
Zephyr Corp V.A.S.T.
150
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 19:31:00 -
[212] - Quote
Denidil wrote:Chris Winter wrote:
And then there's the problem with tanks being nerfed across the board. Ganker's paradise...
NERFED? did you read the changes? Yeah. The big haulers, the ones people will actually use, all got their base tanks nerfed, and their CPU nerfed so they can't fit as big of a shield tank anymore.
Ganker's paradise. |
Crynsos Cealion
Matari Munitions The Fendahlian Collective
7
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 19:38:00 -
[213] - Quote
Looks very promising, but another two small points:
Fuel, like finished POS Fuel - might be senseful to add this into one of the Iteron bays, especially seeing as 55k PI will be hardly ever filled but you can easily haul 55k POS fuel somewhere. (Into wormholes especially)
Liquid Ozone, Heavy Water, Strontium Clathrates and all of the racial Isotopes - might be a good idea to add this to the minerals bay. |
Den Sethos
The Scope Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 19:40:00 -
[214] - Quote
Good round of rebalances, I would say, we get some specialised capacity. This will help just about everybody, since the base specialised cargo capacities are superior to the normal cargo capacity, even with full skill. |
Denidil
Turalyon Plus
603
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 19:43:00 -
[215] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:Denidil wrote:Chris Winter wrote:
And then there's the problem with tanks being nerfed across the board. Ganker's paradise...
NERFED? did you read the changes? Yeah. The big haulers, the ones people will actually use, all got their base tanks nerfed, and their CPU nerfed so they can't fit as big of a shield tank anymore. Ganker's paradise.
omg, you might have to make a decision between which to use? THE HORROR THE HORROR! Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
310
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 19:44:00 -
[216] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:Denidil wrote:Chris Winter wrote:
And then there's the problem with tanks being nerfed across the board. Ganker's paradise...
NERFED? did you read the changes? Yeah. The big haulers, the ones people will actually use, all got their base tanks nerfed, and their CPU nerfed so they can't fit as big of a shield tank anymore. Ganker's paradise. I'm so happy that it worked out this way. You know why? It gives us choices. Decisions to make as which one is best for this or that. AND, it urges specializing into a T2 line for safer hauls if I have more expensive goods. The T1 large haulers let us carry lots of goods--salvage and the like--conveniently, while the tanky ones can survive the random ganking dessie but at the cost of cargo room. Choices not only as which one to fly but now each ship has its own advantages/disadvantages in its own right. Lovely, and very Eve.
|
Balthasar Moreq
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 19:49:00 -
[217] - Quote
Overall good changes, would have liked to see a POS Fuel Hauler though.
Means that this char (which is an alt and is Dual Training) that was training up for an Itty V (getting all the skills to fit as per Jester's recommendations) needs probably another month to train up the other 3 races to V, well done Gé¼Gé¼P for getting another PLEX out of me .
|
iskflakes
653
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 19:51:00 -
[218] - Quote
I love it!
They're all unique AND interesting. Much better than 4 useless and 12 clones of each other with a different paintjob!
Now take a break, then do it for T2. - |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
30
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 19:55:00 -
[219] - Quote
Will the ore ship be able to haul compressed ore and compressed ice? |
Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
506
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 19:59:00 -
[220] - Quote
Count me as one of the few who aren't impressed with these changes and think the specialized cargo bays are dumb.
Why get 3 separate ships to haul planet goo, ore and ammo, when I could just get 1 Mammoth or Itty V that can haul anything.
Think of it this way...
You can't pick up your planet stuff, haul it to Jita to sell, buy a small hull or modules and haul them back. Or if you are mining to build stuff, you can haul ore to a station, but can't haul finished products out.
Long term, this just leads back to people mostly using only a couple of the T1 industrials, and the rest used rarely or not at all. Like who needs a special ammo hauler? Can't fit a covops cloak so it won't be used as a bomb truck for stealth bomber fleets. Not flexible enough to haul any other needed supplies to the front lines of a war. No drones? Holds ammo but not the guns? Absolutely pointless. |
|
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
310
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 20:01:00 -
[221] - Quote
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:Count me as one of the few who aren't impressed with these changes and think the specialized cargo bays are dumb.
Why get 3 separate ships to haul planet goo, ore and ammo, when I could just get 1 Mammoth or Itty V that can haul anything.
Think of it this way...
You can't pick up your planet stuff, haul it to Jita to sell, buy a small hull or modules and haul them back. Or if you are mining to build stuff, you can haul ore to a station, but can't haul finished products out.
Long term, this just leads back to people mostly using only a couple of the T1 industrials, and the rest used rarely or not at all. Like who needs a special ammo hauler? Can't fit a covops cloak so it won't be used as a bomb truck for stealth bomber fleets. Not flexible enough to haul any other needed supplies to the front lines of a war. No drones? Holds ammo but not the guns? Absolutely pointless. Is it as pointless as 4 ships being utterly useless? Nobody is compelling you to use any of the specialized-bay ships, and you have every opportunity to fly one of the "large" haulers if you prefer general goods.
Your argument seems to suggest that you'd rather limit choices and marginalize ships solely for the sake that you don't see the value in having specialized ships.
|
Hildulfr
Dark Fusion Industries Limitless Inc.
1
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 20:02:00 -
[222] - Quote
Much better than the first go around! Really like most of the changes and ideas that went into the second round of changes. Nice job taking in the feedback and working with it. There may be some haters, but it can't be for lack of trying here. |
Linna Excel
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
175
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 20:02:00 -
[223] - Quote
Well, each race has flavor now. I like how gallente can specialize in different stuff... but now I need to get a new ship.
I still don't see why you guys didn't just do ore haulers instead though. I can has blogging skills! |
Michal Jita
Lords Of The Universe Exiled Ones
1
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 20:02:00 -
[224] - Quote
Overall excellent changes, just one thing, will the special edition Ity 4 get any bigger Ore hold? They are now very rare but give them 100k m3 ore bay and we can soon see them flying again...
When is 1.1 coming? |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld White Mountain Coalition
230
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 20:04:00 -
[225] - Quote
I don't think there's any need to change the names, I'm really happy with the functions being changed though, the names should stay the same for continuity reasons otherwise well have threads requesting name changes for practically anything. 'Can you change the ferox name to the "purdy puttycat"...' Tiericide is tiers by another name. |
Commander Ted
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
748
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 20:14:00 -
[226] - Quote
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:I don't think there's any need to change the names, I'm really happy with the functions being changed though, the names should stay the same for continuity reasons otherwise well have threads requesting name changes for practically anything. 'Can you change the ferox name to the "purdy puttycat"...' A easy way to identify what it is would be nice.
Iteron type A Iteron type O iteron type P https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec. |
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
1419
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 20:26:00 -
[227] - Quote
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. |
|
Catherine Laartii
Crimson Serpent Syndicate Templis Dragonaors
15
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 20:27:00 -
[228] - Quote
I am immensely pleased by the special cargo bays, but moreover by the fact that the CPU output of industrials aren't on-par with a titan any more.
The only issue I can see is that they ALL don't get that nice agility bonus. Apart from that, I find this immensely appealing. |
Catherine Laartii
Crimson Serpent Syndicate Templis Dragonaors
15
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 20:34:00 -
[229] - Quote
GizzyBoy wrote:What about one that can have a bounes fuel bay to hold pos fuel blocks / isotopes / jump fuel /stront for caps bo's bridging things?
I can see this carrying over into the Blockade runner role a bit. Their cargo hold is already deceptively small, so there seems to be plenty of room to add a big fuel bay/block bay thing. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
314
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 20:35:00 -
[230] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:ITERON MARK IV - Ore Bay (Ore includes Gas, Ice, and Mineral Ore)
Gallente Industrial Skill Bonuses: +5% Ore Hold Capacity +5% Max Velocity
Slot layout: 2H(+1), 4M, 4L(+1); 1 turrets , 0 launchers Fittings: 120 PWG(+50), 260 CPU(-490) Cargo (capacity / Ore Hold Capacity): 550(-4700) / 50000 Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 590(+355) / 710(-306) / 950(-223) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 120 / .94(-.06) / 12975000(+1725000) / 16.9(+1.3) Signature radius: 205(-15) Warp speed: 4.5au/s Would it be possible to move one of the low slots in this ship to a high? It'd help us to be able to fit more tractor beams for whenever it needs to pick up jetcans, and the lows aren't terribly useful for expanding the cargo hold anymore.
|
|
Kenrailae
Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships.
18
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 20:37:00 -
[231] - Quote
Do Like Rise! Well done! The Law is a point of View |
Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
506
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 20:38:00 -
[232] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:Is it as pointless as 4 ships being utterly useless? Nobody is compelling you to use any of the specialized-bay ships, and you have every opportunity to fly one of the "large" haulers if you prefer general goods.
Your argument seems to suggest that you'd rather limit choices and marginalize ships solely for the sake that you don't see the value in having specialized ships.
I think they should get some more generally useful bonuses instead of being put into some niche that results in the same issue now of ships just not getting used. At least for Minmatar, I liked the idea more of Wreathe for agility, Hoarder for tank, Mammoth for cargo. Since they made cross training easier, they could look into other more specialized bonuses.
I would rather have a choice of hauling ore in an agile, tanky or some other ship with a generally useful bonus than a ship that can only hold ore and does nothing else.
I would rather see;
Caldari/Amarr shield/armor resists tractor beam speed/range survey range a decent drone bay and drone bonus (repair drone bonus?) local/remote rep bonus change the cargohold to equal size 'fleet hanger' with refitting
And that is without getting into specifically offensive stuff. Like weapons bonus for the ever popular Battle Badger, or some sort of ECM or energy neut bonus to shake off gankers. |
Taleden
North Wind Local no. 612
37
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 20:40:00 -
[233] - Quote
Quick question -- are the Badger Mark II's shield/armor values correct?
Every other hull follows the usual racial pattern:
- Amarr armor >> shield
- Gallente armor > shield
- Minmatar armor < shield
- Caldari armor << shield
except for the Badger Mark II, which has slightly more armor than shielding. I'd say it's a typo but the delta values do line up with its current shield/armor HP. Seems odd though. |
Kor Kilden
Thukker Tribe Holdings Inc. Gathering Of Nomadic Explorers
18
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 20:45:00 -
[234] - Quote
I wish I could hit the like button more than once without it toggling, but I guess that's what alts are for...
For what little it's worth, now I have a good excuse to use something other than a mammoth. Let the market speculation begin! |
Justin Thyme
The Salvage and Reclamation Guild
8
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 20:49:00 -
[235] - Quote
Kor Kilden wrote:I wish I could hit the like button more than once without it toggling, but I guess that's what alts are for...
For what little it's worth, now I have a good excuse to use something other than a mammoth. Let the market speculation begin!
I was just looking. I think it already has.
"Hunting rats is like mining for scrap metal... and occasionally striking gold"-á I don't shoot people. That would be wrong. I do however shoot Ore Thiev...-- Justin Thyme |
Anshu Zephyran
Zephyran INC StructureDamage
15
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 20:50:00 -
[236] - Quote
Love these changes! My only wish is that for the Iteron I get enough bandwith for a full flight of lights. |
Edward Olmops
Sirius Fleet Cerberus Unleashed
71
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 20:57:00 -
[237] - Quote
Ok, some people mentioned it already :-D Great changes!
The second set definitely was worth going trough the painful last thread. Thank you Rise! |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
30
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 20:57:00 -
[238] - Quote
Anshu Zephyran wrote:Love these changes! My only wish is that for the Iteron I get enough bandwith for a full flight of lights.
I somewhat can't fathom the drones helping outside of a very lucky ecm hit. Doesn't hurt the ship I suppose.
This is a good start. Though now I have to train a few of my alts down the gallente path (level 4 should do fine).
Also.. will the mineral/build cost change? |
Catherine Laartii
Crimson Serpent Syndicate Templis Dragonaors
17
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 21:06:00 -
[239] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:Denidil wrote:Chris Winter wrote:
And then there's the problem with tanks being nerfed across the board. Ganker's paradise...
NERFED? did you read the changes? Yeah. The big haulers, the ones people will actually use, all got their base tanks nerfed, and their CPU nerfed so they can't fit as big of a shield tank anymore. Ganker's paradise.
They didn't get their CPU nerfed to fit less of a shield tank. They got it nerfed so ships like the badger 2 didn't have more base cpu than a FREAKING TITAN.
Also, they can actually fit BETTER tanks now due to the extra PG. Previously they were unable to fit large shield extenders. Now they can. This is a good thing. |
Burl en Daire
The Ecstatic Cult of Dionysus Trifectas Syndicate
2
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 21:07:00 -
[240] - Quote
I like the changes and the Iitty name can stay. Looks like I will have to own all the Itty hulls to move my stuff; at least they all look different. I really like the ammo bay because it would be very easy for new pilots to get in to big fights by just being cloaked and sitting in system for an ammo cache. Personally I like the imbalance between the races because it highlights each race's differences without creating an imbalance in fighting. |
|
Talvu
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 21:07:00 -
[241] - Quote
Well I guess I'm gonna have to sell my Sigil then as I'm not seeing any reason for piloting anything other than a Badger MK1 for my particular needs with these changes. I can foresee a lot of Badger mk1s, Bestowers, and Badger mk2s if these changes go through. Can't say I'm happy with these changes one bit frankly, feels like these are even less inspired than the original proposal. Also why do you keep trying to skirt impact that cargo expanders have on these ships? |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
30
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 21:10:00 -
[242] - Quote
Thats what was missing.
The New Ammo Hauler (Hoarder), should be able to haul POS modules in its hold also (or the new Iteron II). One of them should be able to grab and haul/move POS modules/batteries, hangers, SBU's, Claim Units, etc.
That would cover about everything needed regarding mass hauling. |
Denidil
Turalyon Plus
606
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 21:14:00 -
[243] - Quote
Talvu wrote:Well I guess I'm gonna have to sell my Sigil then as I'm not seeing any reason for piloting anything other than a Badger MK1 for my particular needs with these changes. I can foresee a lot of Badger mk1s, Bestowers, and Badger mk2s if these changes go through. Can't say I'm happy with these changes one bit frankly, feels like these are even less inspired than the original proposal. Also why do you keep trying to skirt impact that cargo expanders have on these ships?
you're not very bright. Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design. |
Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
507
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 21:25:00 -
[244] - Quote
Catherine Laartii wrote:Chris Winter wrote:Denidil wrote:Chris Winter wrote:
And then there's the problem with tanks being nerfed across the board. Ganker's paradise...
NERFED? did you read the changes? Yeah. The big haulers, the ones people will actually use, all got their base tanks nerfed, and their CPU nerfed so they can't fit as big of a shield tank anymore. Ganker's paradise. They didn't get their CPU nerfed to fit less of a shield tank. They got it nerfed so ships like the badger 2 didn't have more base cpu than a FREAKING TITAN. Also, they can actually fit BETTER tanks now due to the extra PG. Previously they were unable to fit large shield extenders. Now they can. This is a good thing.
So long as there is still enough cpu to fit an expanded probe launcher, it isn't so bad. I know the Mammoth in particular has more cpu than you can really use. |
NiftyWolfie Aishai
Legion of the Strike Wolves Swollen Starfish Alliance
21
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 21:36:00 -
[245] - Quote
Nice changes, this should have something to please everyone |
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
56
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 21:39:00 -
[246] - Quote
Two things I would like to point out here, first the cargo holds you're introducing all have a base capacity that is at least 30% higher than the largest regular hauler with full expanders and racial skill to 5, with skills this differential goes up to 75%. This makes them the only viable option for that particular activity.
The activities for which you are adding these special ship roles are some of the most usual uses for T1 industrial ships, so you are effectively re-introducing the same imbalance we had before, and curiously enough the Gallente went from the best T1 industrial to the only T1 industrial skill worth using. Wanting to move Ore, PI or Minerals in anything other than Gallente industrials leaves you in an even worse situation than we have now where the Iteron V is only 26.5% better than the Bestower.
So much for rebalancing...
CCP Rise wrote:To the above concerns - I can see that you are able to make a list of "best" by capacity, but in reality the difference between capability between Amarr and Gallente is tiny.
Gallente max capacity (t1 rigs): 38433m3 Amarr max capacity (t1 rigs): 39201m3
There is 2% difference. If you feel compelled to cross train because technically Amarr is at the top now, I think that's okay. The old gap looked like this:
Gallente: 38433m3 Minmatar: 28259m3
In the old scenario, 26.5% difference actually was enough that you were basically compelled to train one race.
I prefer the new version
So now for anyone moving Minerals, Ore or PI commodities (what else is worth moving in a T1 hauler?) the only choice is Gallente, not by a 26.5% difference, but a 75% difference. Yeah, I liked that newer version better too.
You wanted to introduce a little racial variety, but all you ended up doing was break the class even more than it was originally, give those specialized industrials a 10-15% extra capacity in their specialized cargo holds at max skill so not everyone feels obligated to train Gallente Industrial V. Or at least remove the hull bonus to the special cargo hold so that people who feel the need to cross train only need to train them to 1 to get the full benefit. |
Omnathious Deninard
The Scope Gallente Federation
1214
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 21:53:00 -
[247] - Quote
Edward Pierce wrote:Two things I would like to point out here, first the cargo holds you're introducing all have a base capacity that is at least 30% higher than the largest regular hauler with full expanders and racial skill to 5, with skills this differential goes up to 75%. This makes them the only viable option for that particular activity. The activities for which you are adding these special ship roles are some of the most usual uses for T1 industrial ships, so you are effectively re-introducing the same imbalance we had before, and curiously enough the Gallente went from the best T1 industrial to the only T1 industrial skill worth using. Wanting to move Ore, PI or Minerals in anything other than Gallente industrials leaves you in an even worse situation than we have now where the Iteron V is only 26.5% better than the Bestower. So much for rebalancing... CCP Rise wrote:To the above concerns - I can see that you are able to make a list of "best" by capacity, but in reality the difference between capability between Amarr and Gallente is tiny.
Gallente max capacity (t1 rigs): 38433m3 Amarr max capacity (t1 rigs): 39201m3
There is 2% difference. If you feel compelled to cross train because technically Amarr is at the top now, I think that's okay. The old gap looked like this:
Gallente: 38433m3 Minmatar: 28259m3
In the old scenario, 26.5% difference actually was enough that you were basically compelled to train one race.
I prefer the new version So now for anyone moving Minerals, Ore or PI commodities (what else is worth moving in a T1 hauler?) the only choice is Gallente, not by a 26.5% difference, but a 75% difference. Yeah, I liked that newer version better too. You wanted to introduce a little racial variety, but all you ended up doing was break the class even more than it was originally, give those specialized industrials a 10-15% extra capacity in their specialized cargo holds at max skill so not everyone feels obligated to train Gallente Industrial V. Or at least remove the hull bonus to the special cargo hold so that people who feel the need to cross train only need to train them to 1 to get the full benefit. They are extremely niche roles for the ships. Making a general bay more attractive still. The following will be true after this: Iteron Mark II = space pi+¦ata as it will be able to hold 6 million units of minerals. That is 35 Mill isk in Tritanium. Iteron Mark III = PI commodities. Iteron Mark IV = Mining operation is in progress. Hoarder = Another space pi+¦ata as it will hold millions of isk worth of charges. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Deirdre Anethoel
The Scope Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 21:55:00 -
[248] - Quote
Quote: So now for anyone moving Minerals, Ore or PI commodities (what else is worth moving in a T1 hauler?) the only choice is Gallente, not by a 26.5% difference, but a 75% difference. Yeah, I liked that newer version better too.
If you're serious about what you do, you move that in orca or freighter. T1 haulers are made for casual players and hauling your stuff (bit of ships, modules, etc), and will still be used for that. |
Talvu
1
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 21:58:00 -
[249] - Quote
Denidil wrote:Talvu wrote:Well I guess I'm gonna have to sell my Sigil then as I'm not seeing any reason for piloting anything other than a Badger MK1 for my particular needs with these changes. I can foresee a lot of Badger mk1s, Bestowers, and Badger mk2s if these changes go through. Can't say I'm happy with these changes one bit frankly, feels like these are even less inspired than the original proposal. Also why do you keep trying to skirt impact that cargo expanders have on these ships? you're not very bright. You do not offer any counter argument nor inquire for a better explanation, and claim me dim? Have you even look at the stats proposed, if so then surely you've seen how the badger mk1 has better cargo capacity and defensive potential while still offering comparable mobility? I see the Bestower getting a used a lot due to max general capacity and the Badger Mk2 for best capacity with minimal SP investment. |
SubStandard Rin
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 22:00:00 -
[250] - Quote
Swiftstrike1 wrote:New names for the iterons with special roles plz. They are no longer merely the 3rd or 4th version of the same ship after all :)
I agree good choices only thing i miss is that I think that some of the Itty hulls should get another base skill instead of Gallente Industrial it should require Ore Industrial.
(Ore hauler for example)
and im still missing a smuggler industrial with minimal bay but that might be "hoping" as a Tec2 version since moving drugs around is a pita.
|
|
Chris Winter
Zephyr Corp V.A.S.T.
151
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 22:06:00 -
[251] - Quote
Edward Pierce wrote:Two things I would like to point out here, first the cargo holds you're introducing all have a base capacity that is at least 22% higher than the largest regular hauler with full expanders and racial skill to 5, with skills this differential goes up to 37%. This makes them the only viable option for that particular activity. The activities for which you are adding these special ship roles are some of the most usual uses for T1 industrial ships, so you are effectively re-introducing the same imbalance we had before, and curiously enough the Gallente went from the best T1 industrial to the only T1 industrial skill worth using. Wanting to move Ore, PI or Minerals in anything other than Gallente industrials leaves you in an even worse situation than we have now where the Iteron V is only 26.5% better than the Bestower. So much for rebalancing... CCP Rise wrote:To the above concerns - I can see that you are able to make a list of "best" by capacity, but in reality the difference between capability between Amarr and Gallente is tiny.
Gallente max capacity (t1 rigs): 38433m3 Amarr max capacity (t1 rigs): 39201m3
There is 2% difference. If you feel compelled to cross train because technically Amarr is at the top now, I think that's okay. The old gap looked like this:
Gallente: 38433m3 Minmatar: 28259m3
In the old scenario, 26.5% difference actually was enough that you were basically compelled to train one race.
I prefer the new version So now for anyone moving Minerals, Ore or PI commodities (what else is worth moving in a T1 hauler?) the only choice is Gallente, not by a 26.5% difference, but a 75% difference. Yeah, I liked that newer version better too. You wanted to introduce a little racial variety, but all you ended up doing was break the class even more than it was originally, give those specialized industrials a 10-15% extra capacity in their specialized cargo holds at max skill so not everyone feels obligated to train Gallente Industrial V. Or at least remove the hull bonus to the special cargo hold so that people who feel the need to cross train only need to train them to 1 to get the full benefit. Allow me to introduce you to the Giant Secure Container. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium
3820
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 22:07:00 -
[252] - Quote
Evelgrivion wrote:The ammunition bay seems like an avenue for considerable abuse; you can fit quite a few hoarders inside of a carrier's ship maintenance bay, and each of those hoarders can be filled to the brim with ammunition for mineral compression purposes.
I would suggest that there is an obvious way to avoid the problem: remove mineral compression. Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Vartan Sarkisian
Inner Visions Of Sound Mind
75
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 22:07:00 -
[253] - Quote
How about going for something radical like scrapping the Indies as they are now, replacing them with a couple of hulls (one about say 30kme and another around 100kme cargo space) (or something else that is decided) that take interchangeable subsystems like the Tengu's etc. The subsystems would enable you to tailor the ship to your needs, more EHP, Warp Stabbed, More Cargo, Faster Align, Cov Ops etc. You can swap and change the subsystems depending on what you want to do, the ship could be made by ORE and then we wouldn't have a bunch of ships with a different model that basically do the same thing.
People could get a "refund" on all the points that they have accrued so far training 4 races indy level to whatever level they have and replace it with a non racial skill just called Industrial, the different levels could give the sub systems a better percentage or lower cost to use etc. I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time... like tears in rain... Time to die. |
Orakkus
Winds of Dawn Kraken.
107
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 22:09:00 -
[254] - Quote
Edward Pierce wrote: You wanted to introduce a little racial variety, but all you ended up doing was break the class even more than it was originally, give those specialized industrials a 10-15% extra capacity in their specialized cargo holds at max skill so not everyone feels obligated to train Gallente Industrial V. Or at least remove the hull bonus to the special cargo hold so that people who feel the need to cross train only need to train them to 1 to get the full benefit.
Stop being lazy. Training Gallente Industrial to V isn't a hard task. Second, you get a significant benefit over the heavy haulers at even Gallente Industrial I, which takes all of, what, 15 to 20 minutes to train? No one is going to train up to Gallente Industrial V if they don't need to, so that obligation bit is nonsense. |
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
56
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 22:15:00 -
[255] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote: Allow me to introduce you to the Giant Secure Container.
Good point, I hadn't considered that extra 23%.
I look forward to seeing what they come up with for the missing 8 industrial ships needed to round this whole thing up, because after all, this comment from Rise still applies:
CCP Rise wrote:Quote:Sorry, what do you mean by unfair? There are already a lot of things, like the resist VS repbonus thingie, that's also unfair in most of the cases. As you say, its resist vs repair. In the case of Indies, it would have had to be: resist vs nothing because Caldari/Amarr have no ship. This would have been the only case in the whole game of one race having access to a role that wasn't balanced in some way for the other races with another ship. |
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
56
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 22:16:00 -
[256] - Quote
Orakkus wrote:Edward Pierce wrote: You wanted to introduce a little racial variety, but all you ended up doing was break the class even more than it was originally, give those specialized industrials a 10-15% extra capacity in their specialized cargo holds at max skill so not everyone feels obligated to train Gallente Industrial V. Or at least remove the hull bonus to the special cargo hold so that people who feel the need to cross train only need to train them to 1 to get the full benefit.
Stop being lazy. Training Gallente Industrial to V isn't a hard task. Second, you get a significant benefit over the heavy haulers at even Gallente Industrial I, which takes all of, what, 15 to 20 minutes to train? No one is going to train up to Gallente Industrial V if they don't need to, so that obligation bit is nonsense. Then why address the imbalance in the first place? If training Gallente Industrial to V is no big deal, lets just leave it as it is now and move on to more important ships to rebalance. |
Ash Katara
The Damned and the Doomed
7
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 22:17:00 -
[257] - Quote
Anybody want a pair of Hoarders, I have no use for ammo haulers. |
Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
507
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 22:27:00 -
[258] - Quote
Talvu wrote: I can foresee a lot of Badger mk1s, Bestowers, and Badger mk2s if these changes go through. Can't say I'm happy with these changes one bit frankly, feels like these are even less inspired than the original proposal.
These really are sort of thoughtless and hamfisted changes. CCP Rise should have stopped when he had to say "We feel that these are already pushing the boundaries of tech 1 specialization..."
There are a ton of bonuses they could choose from to give the T1 industrials a little more utility or make them stand out from the others. The specialized bays are a straight up nerf to anyone who already owns one for general hauling. I know it is going to involve me reprocessing a ton of Hoarders because an ammo bay on an otherwise unbonused industrial is worthless. No one will use it on a battlefield as an ammo cache. Carriers can do this AND let you fit more drones and refit other weapons, and blockade runners can use blops bridges to travel with and supply bombers.
The new indy meta with this is going to be Badger for tank and (still) Itty V for max cargo. The Itteron IV will no doubt see some use as an ore truck for mining fleets, but people will still need to buy another indy to use for general hauling. The cargo and agility/velocity bonuses still means there is no big difference between the industrials and easy cross training means even less reason to use them since you aren't locked into 1 race so much.
You like the idea of a Battle Badger? shield resits Want an ammo cache ship? make the cargo bay a fleet hanger with refit Ore truck to pick up from an Orca? big agility bonus Ore truck for solo miners using jet cans? tractor beam bonus, survey bonus for finding the next good rock General support industrial? remote rep/cap bonus How about a Gallente drone boat support? drone bonus damage/hitpoints/repair/e-war Get between trade hubs quickly? agility/warp speed and a cap bonus to get between distant gates. A POS managing ship? anchor time bonus, maybe a cyno bonus (shorter duration, less LO consumption)
They should be choosing bonuses that make people want to use one industrial over another because is generally better for certain tasks. Not forcing people to buy multiple industrials because they are locked into only hauling specific items with specific ships. Over all, these changes mean that T1 industrials are still fairly crappy, and people will still make a bee line to Orcas for overall utility and freighters for serious cargo hauling.
Seriously, with the skill changes, you can get into an Orca with big cargo, fleet hanger, ship hanger, refit, drones, serious tank for about the same time it takes to max out an Iteron V. The T1 industrials need bonuses aside from just cargo/speed to make them useful beyond ships for people to poor to get an Orca. |
Taleden
North Wind Local no. 612
38
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 22:33:00 -
[259] - Quote
To facilitate more feedback, I've edited PyFA's database file to reflect the proposed changes.
Patched PyFA 1.1.15 database file
Please direct any feedback about this PyFA patch to it's separate thread so as to keep this rebalance thread on-topic. |
Voith
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
114
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 22:37:00 -
[260] - Quote
Good Job, now do command ships. |
|
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld White Mountain Coalition
232
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 22:39:00 -
[261] - Quote
Not everyone can afford an orca though, or have the time to grind to get one. Tiericide is tiers by another name. |
TheSmokingHertog
TALIBAN EXPRESS
103
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 22:40:00 -
[262] - Quote
Freighdee Katt wrote:Evelgrivion wrote:The ammunition bay seems like an avenue for considerable abuse; you can fit quite a few hoarders inside of a carrier's ship maintenance bay, and each of those hoarders can be filled to the brim with ammunition for mineral compression purposes. Nerf incoming.
Ouch, and I did like the ammo bay the most... |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld White Mountain Coalition
232
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 22:45:00 -
[263] - Quote
No need for a nerf, abusing mineral compression is just emergent gameplay... Tiericide is tiers by another name. |
Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
507
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 23:05:00 -
[264] - Quote
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:Not everyone can afford an orca though, or have the time to grind to get one.
You could sell 2 Plex and have enough isk for an Orca and a a Mackinaw if you didn't want to grind for it in game.
The only thing you are forced to wait on in Eve is the training time. And an Orca now takes as long as a maxed Iteron V, or the special Iterons.
For specialized bays, they should make ORE cargo ships that use the ORE Industrial skill. Give the racial ones racial flavor to make them different from each other, but leave them as general cargo ships. As others have pointed out, with these changes Gallente is still the one to train for general hauling, and now has even more reason for being the only to train being the only race that has remotely useful special bays. |
Chamile Eonic
The Church of MDAMC
3
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 23:26:00 -
[265] - Quote
I'm sure smarter people than me will help find all the exploits/emergent gameplay.
From my perspective you just turned industrials from bland and boring to something interesting and useful. Well Done! |
GooieGoober
Miranda Regional Technologies
1
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 23:26:00 -
[266] - Quote
With all this talk about specialized cargo holds...what about specialized cargo Modules. :)
Drop in a mid or low module that converts some cargo space over to increased specialized space. i.e. drop in an ore cargo specializer and it converts 2000 m3 generic cargo space to 10,000 m3 ore space? Or is this too difficult to modify the base ship programming? |
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
945
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 23:49:00 -
[267] - Quote
How about one that specializes in fuel like isotopes, stront, and liquid ozone? This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. |
Romeo Deluxe
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
15
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 23:50:00 -
[268] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Alright, here we go. ...
Looking forward to your feedback, but please don't expect version 3, I have to get on with my life at some point
Your life belongs to us. |
LockOnStratus
Frankenmouse Inc Class Act Cartel
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 00:04:00 -
[269] - Quote
Why does the Iteron 3 become the comodies ship when the Iteron 4 has a special commodity version? Also wil the Quafe edition get a ore or commodities bay? |
Haedonism Bot
Viziam Amarr Empire
398
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 00:08:00 -
[270] - Quote
This thread has too many pages.
Here's a good change to industrials - quadruple their cargo capacity across the board, eliminate all mid slots (who needs mid slots anyway?), and make it so that they can't warp to gates at zero - 10k or 15k is fine.
Also give them all a new paint job. Maybe pink, or school bus yellow, or white with red concentric circle patterns. Join the Revolutionary Front and liberate New Eden from it's stuff.
|
|
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 |
|
Vartan Sarkisian
Inner Visions Of Sound Mind
75
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 09:43:00 -
[301] - Quote
Thing with specialised bays is say you have 3 or 4 different loads to take which would require 3 or 4 different specialised bays, you would have to do 3 or 4 trips, I am assuming here that if you have a specialised bay then you can put nothing else in that bay accept for the goods that it specialises in, nor are you able to put those items in a regular bay. because if you are, there is no need to a specialised one right?
There are too many industrials anyway, scrap most of them, and introduce something new. Stop trying to find slightly different roles for the current ships to fit into, just out them. I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time... like tears in rain... Time to die. |
Petrified
Old Men Online TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
17
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 09:49:00 -
[302] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote: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!!!"
Honestly, I can't imagine what kind of mining support ship would not have a large hold. Particularly a mining support ship that is meant to be in the belt and gathering/consolidating from multiple mining vessels. Perhaps diminishing the general cargo hold in favor of expanding the Ore hold would make the best sense, but why diminish a very useful and diverse vessel because one feels it is overpowered?
I might enjoy my Orca, but there are things the Orca is not good at that T2 Industrials excel at (get past a gate camp solo in low sec in an Orca, I dare you).
I think ships as a whole should be more diversified and more flexible in their overall applications. Seeing a narrowing of the vessels into specific roles is more or less what T2 struck me as being. Though, the newer norm of more specialized T1 with T2 being the stronger big brother is not unattractive as well.
As for Orca SP: I have a considerable amount of SP and I have yet to find any of it wasted - even if I never fly an Orca again, there are usable skills that are applicable elsewhere. Diversification and the ability to adapt is crucial to surviving in EVE. Most people who seriously grip about changes that 'ruin' what they can do are those who specialized in one area to the near exclusion of others.
I'll stand by what I said before: Industrials need a power boost to make them comparable rather than nerfing the Gold standard Industrials should be built around. We are already seeing hints of this buff by specialized bays being given to the extra Gallente and Minmatar ships. It is a step in the right direction.
|
Unforgiven Storm
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
438
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 09:51:00 -
[303] - Quote
I wrote some words:
http://thelazypilot.wordpress.com/2013/06/27/much-better/
TL;DR
The cargo for the ORE looks a little small having in mind ore/ice takes lots of space, give it more 10k so: ore=60, PI=55, Minerals=50
Change the names of the Badger Mark II, the Iterons I, II, III and IV. For the Iteron Mark V just called it Iteron.
Drop the ammo bay version and do this:
- ITERON MARK II GÇô Mineral Bay
- ITERON MARK III GÇô Ice Bay
- ITERON MARK IV GÇô Ore and Gas Bay
- HOARDER GÇô PI Commodities Bay
Move the 4 specialized ships to the Interbus creating future options for more ships and who knows t2 versions of them. Test 1, 2, 3... |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
33
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 09:51:00 -
[304] - Quote
I like the latest proposed changes. When might we expect to see them? |
Petrified
Old Men Online TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
17
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 09:57:00 -
[305] - Quote
Vartan Sarkisian wrote: There are too many industrials anyway, scrap most of them, and introduce something new. Stop trying to find slightly different roles for the current ships to fit into, just out them.
The main issue with that is people grow attached to their ships - even if they have not flown them in 5-6 years. Plus the amount of artwork that you are essentially discarding. Plus, the "too many industrials" is really only applicable to one race: Gallente. Minmatar come close only with 3 to the Gallente 5 (not including the special editions which are merely different paint jobs)
Perhaps if you defined "something new" because the specialized holds in these indies are certainly new to them.
I am generally of the opinion that there are too few ship models in the game, but I guess their Art Department has limitations to work around. |
Salpad
Carebears with Attitude
343
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 10:08:00 -
[306] - Quote
Yay! Most of this is completely awesome, but 2 things:
1. Please consider giving a larger cargo/bay capacity bonus than 5%/lvl, so as to give a greater reward to those who take the time to train the racial industrial skill(z) to 5. Such as 7.5%/level. Maybe in exchange for lowering base cargo/bay capacity in proportion?
The current bonus creates a very strong temptation to just train the skill to 1, and then stop, and never train any further, because as soon as you have the skill trained to 1, you can fly the ship and thus enjoy the majority of benefits, and +5% cargo per skill level isn't hugely attractive.
CCP Rise wrote: ITERON MARK IV - Ore Bay (Ore includes Gas, Ice, and Mineral Ore)
Gallente Industrial Skill Bonuses: +5% Ore Hold Capacity +5% Max Velocity
Slot layout: 2H(+1), 4M, 4L(+1); 1 turrets , 0 launchers Fittings: 120 PWG(+50), 260 CPU(-490) Cargo (capacity / Ore Hold Capacity): 550(-4700) / 50000 Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 590(+355) / 710(-306) / 950(-223) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 120 / .94(-.06) / 12975000(+1725000) / 16.9(+1.3) Signature radius: 205(-15) Warp speed: 4.5au/s
2. Given how enormously bulky ore is, I really think you ought to increase the base ore bay capacity. Maybe increase to 65k m3, and increase the bonus to 10%/lvl, whereas the other cargo capacity bonuses only get increased to 7.5%/lvl?
I just think that there's insufficient oomph here. The mineral, charges and PI versions are fine, but this one... not so much. I really think it needs a buff. |
Salpad
Carebears with Attitude
343
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 10:11:00 -
[307] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:First page all positive, I'm outta here
Ok, here's a negative: Why can't we have LOW slot modules to give bonuse sto specialzied bay capacity? Or at least RIGs to do so? You introduced specialzied bays year ago, but the module/rig side of things still hasn't caught up with this development. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
549
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 10:26:00 -
[308] - Quote
Salpad wrote:Yay! Most of this is completely awesome, but 2 things:
2. Given how enormously bulky ore is, I really think you ought to increase the base ore bay capacity. Maybe increase to 65k m3, and increase the bonus to 10%/lvl, whereas the other cargo capacity bonuses only get increased to 7.5%/lvl?
I just think that there's insufficient oomph here. The mineral, charges and PI versions are fine, but this one... not so much. I really think it needs a buff.
Find me another T1 hauler with less cost and lower travel time than an Orca that can carry more than 50k of ore in one trip. |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
32
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 10:37:00 -
[309] - Quote
Those who take hauling will take gallente industrial to level 4. Those skills increase the bay by 10,000 m3.
So yea, its 3 days. |
Jowen Datloran
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
550
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 11:05:00 -
[310] - Quote
Vartan Sarkisian wrote:..., I am assuming here that if you have a specialised bay then you can put nothing else in that bay accept for the goods that it specialises in, nor are you able to put those items in a regular bay. because if you are, there is no need to a specialised one right?
Of course you can put those items in regular bays too, silly you. Mr. Science & Trade Institute, EVE Online Lorebook-á |
|
Cerlestes
Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance
77
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 11:09:00 -
[311] - Quote
Salpad wrote:1. Please consider giving a larger cargo/bay capacity bonus than 5%/lvl, so as to give a greater reward to those who take the time to train the racial industrial skill(z) to 5. Such as 7.5%/level. Maybe in exchange for lowering base cargo/bay capacity in proportion?
Gotta agree with this. The base is way too overpowered imho. Why not make it 30k m3 base with a 20% bonus per skill level? |
Raziel Walker
Grey Templars Fidelas Constans
14
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 11:22:00 -
[312] - Quote
Can't the NPC corporations sell their obsolete hoarder and iteron models to ORE and have them released as ORE industrial ships?
No biggie for me but it would add some flavor and balance the number of ships across the factions. This also prevents a bigger imbalance once you get to the T2 variations. |
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
1476
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 11:29:00 -
[313] - Quote
Today's update:
We are going to go ahead and bump the unpacked volume on the Hoarder significantly (up to 400000) to avoid any major issues with compression. This gives it the same packed volume to cargo ratio that the Iteron V has currently.
One of the most recent posts mentions increasing the bonus per level from skills for the special bay haulers, and I was thinking the same thing. I'm going to increase the skill bonus per level for all the special bay haulers from 5% per level to 10% per level, and reduce the base bays to give basically the same potential bay size as before. This means you will still get an improvement at level 1 over any normal hauler, but you have to invest SP to make the difference quite as big. This seems especially appropriate since these ships don't have to sacrifice lows to reach the same capacity.
I talked with our story team about renaming and they are going to think about it and get back to me. As I said before, there are problems with both sides so I've just left it in their hands and will report back to you guys as soon as I know more.
As always, thanks for the feedback o/ |
|
Tiber Ibis
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
61
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 11:33:00 -
[314] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:First page all positive, I'm outta here I like the new changes. First ones were good anyway, but these are definitely a lot more interesting. And I don't think it is too game breaking giving specialised roles like this as they are tier 1 industrials, so hardly end game content which required fine balance. Nice work. |
Eladaris
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
334
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 11:35:00 -
[315] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:As always, thanks for the feedback o/ Appreciate the updates!
Although, I do feel the need to /facepalm at the poster's complaining that race X's tanky hauler isn't as powerful as race Y's tanky hauler.
Didn't we JUST finish a thirty page post complaining that not all hauler's had to be identical? It takes 3 days to train into another race's industrial to IV, and they're perfectly viable there. You can unlock a certain hull after 20-40 minutes of training time. They don't all have to be homogenized. |
Bloody Wench
597
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 11:38:00 -
[316] - Quote
Very well done Sir. Support a High Resolution Texture Pack |
Aprudena Gist
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
43
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 11:40:00 -
[317] - Quote
unless you move all those specialized haulers to a non racial faction this is pointless
Interbus or Ore would be ideal in terms of game lore |
Aprudena Gist
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
43
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 11:52:00 -
[318] - Quote
Specialty bays that are smaller then the max cargo hold of the largest general hauler is absolutely ******* pointless they would have to carry 1.5 to 2x as much load for them to be worthwhile at all to own.
Also itemization on general haulers since your doing it is also terrible.
There are very few ways to fit a hauler correctly and most of those include all cargo expanders in the lows. You should either change the base cargo up and fewer low slots so you have to make real decisions on why or what your fitting. |
Unforgiven Storm
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
438
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 11:59:00 -
[319] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Today's update:
edit: Also I want to acknowledge all the ideas around converting the special bay haulers to ORE, or any other similar solution. I completely understand where you're coming from but this simply isn't possible. It would either require an enormous investment by our art teams, which we don't feel is worthwhile, or would mean some kind of hacky re-texturing type approach, which we feel is ultimately bad for the game (we have standards okay). This is why we were originally hesitant about giving anything exciting to all 5 Iterons, we knew we didn't like where it would leave us in relation to this stuff. I'm glad that most of you seem to be able to cope with it as it stands though.
1 - We understand very well that the Art teams have zero time available and that changing industrial hulls is not worthwhile.
2 - We are willing to compromise with you and CCP that changing hulls will never happen.
3 - We are willing to accept these hulls like they are in other line and just have the NPC symbol changed for now.
4 - We are willing to wait for a new "non-hacky" re-texturing / paint job say 1-2 years from now, when the Art team finds time to come back to them.
Just do it right, give this ships to Interbus, compromise. We accept the art problems and what comes with them. Please just put these ships in the correct and logic place were they belong from now on. Test 1, 2, 3... |
Basil Pupkin
Why So Platypus
20
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 12:15:00 -
[320] - Quote
Aprudena Gist wrote:Specialty bays that are smaller then the max cargo hold of the largest general hauler is absolutely ******* pointless they would have to carry 1.5 to 2x as much load for them to be worthwhile at all to own. No, they aren't. 1) You're forced to use all lows and rigs to reach max cargohold, while on specialty boats you aren't. It would make a perfect sense to fit something for align time reduction in hisec, and tank/stabs for low and null. 2) if you open your eyes and see the industrial skill bonuses correctly, you'll realize they aren't smaller at all. |
|
Unforgiven Storm
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
439
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 12:16:00 -
[321] - 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.
Give my Iteron mark IV Quafe ultramarine edition lots of love please.
Test 1, 2, 3... |
Kaeden Dourhand
T.O.R.
2
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 12:32:00 -
[322] - Quote
Hey Rise,
A few posts back you mentioned poking Fozzie about the Orca's ore bay being a bit underwhelming compared with the new itty ore bay, is there any update on that?
Overall, I'm really loving the work you've done here so far, keep it up!
Also, I'm with you on the decision to not change ships around and stuff them in a generic ORE/Interbus corner. |
Zifrian
Licentia Ex Vereor Black Core Alliance
1033
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 12:48:00 -
[323] - Quote
Very nice changes. Thanks for taking our feedback!
On thing I was wondering though, wouldn't it be a better idea to move the itty 2,3,4 and hoarder to ORE? People would still have to train another skill, but now they seem to have unique roles. Ore could buy/steal the plans to the ships. But it's just a thought for storyline.
Otherwise, really like the direction. Looking forward to T2 upgrades! Maximze your Industry Potential! - Get EVE Isk per Hour! |
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus Aeterna Anima
95
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 12:51:00 -
[324] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:[...] converting the special bay haulers to ORE [...] would either require an enormous investment by our art teams
Do you seriously want to imply that creating a single ship model (or even repurposing an existing model that is not used as a player ship yet - i would expect you to have whole FOLDERS of these after 10 years) falls into the category 'ENORMOUS INVESTMENT' by your art team?
It's not like the 4 special haulers couldn't all base on the same model with different colouring. |
MailDeadDrop
Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
198
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 13:02:00 -
[325] - Quote
CCP Rise, I'm going to repeat myself here (once) and ask about small and medium astronomic rigs which alter the stats for specialty bays. You don't seemed to have made any comment on that idea, which either means it treads close to some secret plan (and you don't want to touch it), you think it's a terrible idea but don't want to poo-poo on it, or you've simply overlooked it. Or maybe you just don't like me.
MDD |
Kaeden Dourhand
T.O.R.
2
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 13:02:00 -
[326] - Quote
Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:CCP Rise wrote:[...] converting the special bay haulers to ORE [...] would either require an enormous investment by our art teams Do you seriously want to imply that creating a single ship model (or even repurposing an existing model that is not used as a player ship yet - i would expect you to have whole FOLDERS of these after 10 years) falls into the category 'ENORMOUS INVESTMENT' by your art team? It's not like the 4 special haulers couldn't all base on the same model with different colouring.
CCP's Art team is their most backlogged department.
I've read somewhere it takes about 6 months for changes/new models to be completed, partially because they have so much work stacked up already.
If it were me, I'd hire more art dudes, but hey. |
Taleden
North Wind Local no. 612
40
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 13:11:00 -
[327] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote: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.
What happens if you drop a single cargo expander for a DCU2? The Sigil's higher hull HP might push it ahead again. But in principle I share your concern, which is why I mention the cargo expander problem every time I post in this thread.
Also note that there's no need for math, I put the modified ship stats into PyFA so you can play with fittings directly: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=253003 |
Basil Pupkin
Why So Platypus
20
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 13:12:00 -
[328] - Quote
Kaeden Dourhand wrote: CCP's Art team is their most backlogged department.
I've read somewhere it takes about 6 months for changes/new models to be completed, partially because they have so much work stacked up already.
If it were me, I'd hire more art dudes, but hey.
I'd say better art dudes over more art dudes.
Unlike programmers, art dudes are actually dependent on liking their work. Get some dudes who love spaceships instead of more dudes, a tip from the guy in the cg movie industry. |
Kaeden Dourhand
T.O.R.
2
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 13:15:00 -
[329] - Quote
You're claiming the current artdudes do not love spaceships?
I agree, good artdudes>bad artdudes, but logically more 'good artdudes'>less 'good artdudes'
I think the current artdudes like spaceships, and do their job very well, and take it seriously, considering the beautiful game that is EVE that we're playing, which is why I said more artdudes. We need more of those awesome artdudes.
Dem dudes. |
Basil Pupkin
Why So Platypus
21
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 13:17:00 -
[330] - Quote
Kaeden Dourhand wrote:You're claiming the current artdudes do not love spaceships?
I agree, good artdudes>bad artdudes, but logically more 'good artdudes'>less 'good artdudes'
I think the current artdudes like spaceships, and do their job very well, and take it seriously, considering the beautiful game that is EVE that we're playing, which is why I said more artdudes. We need more of those awesome artdudes.
Dem dudes.
Good artdudes don't take 6 months to deliver something they like. |
|
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
1483
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 13:21:00 -
[331] - Quote
I think our art guys are awesome. Its more about where we want their attention than how much attention they have.
I chatted with Fozzie about the Orca and neither of us feel that any change is necessary for either ship. The Orca does so much more than haul Ore that there really isn't much tension between them. |
|
Kaeden Dourhand
T.O.R.
2
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 13:29:00 -
[332] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:I chatted with Fozzie about the Orca and neither of us feel that any change is necessary for either ship. The Orca does so much more than haul Ore that there really isn't much tension between them.
Understood, and agreed. Just wanted to know for sure |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
33
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 13:29:00 -
[333] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:I think our art guys are awesome. Its more about where we want their attention than how much attention they have.
I chatted with Fozzie about the Orca and neither of us feel that any change is necessary for either ship. The Orca does so much more than haul Ore that there really isn't much tension between them.
Oh I almost see a threadnaught coming.
If the following is addressed, it would be fine:
Fuel block hauling, refined ice hauling, pos module hauling. |
Gevlin
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
218
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 13:40:00 -
[334] - Quote
Oh oh oh....
Horder now with ammo bay... The new Goon alt suicide ship.. LOL
I would love to see larger ammo explosion when this explodes,,, maybe having the effect of bomb going off killing the pod pilot in the process.... Would make this ship more nerve racking to fly.
The new Goon Newbie suicide ship.. LOL
Just had to say it. Some day I will have the internet and be able to play again. |
Taleden
North Wind Local no. 612
40
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 13:40:00 -
[335] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:I'm going to increase the skill bonus per level for all the special bay haulers from 5% per level to 10% per level, and reduce the base bays to give basically the same potential bay size as before. This means you will still get an improvement at level 1 over any normal hauler, but you have to invest SP to make the difference quite as big.
Here's some updated math for anyone curious about how the general haulers now compare to the specialized ones, with and without GSCs, at all five skill levels (edit: including T1 cargo rigs and full T2 expanders for the generalists):
31207 / 32693 / 34179 / 35665 / 37152 -- Iteron V, without GSCs 32929 / 34497 / 36065 / 37633 / 39201 -- Bestower, without GSCs 40207 / 41693 / 44079 / 45565 / 47952 -- Iteron V, with GSCs 41929 / 44397 / 46865 / 48433 / 50901 -- Bestower, with GSCs 45100 / 49200 / 53300 / 57400 / 61500 -- Hoarder (Ammo) 46200 / 50400 / 54600 / 58800 / 63000 -- Iteron IV (Ore) 47300 / 51600 / 55900 / 60200 / 64500 -- Iteron II (Minerals) 49500 / 54000 / 58500 / 63000 / 67500 -- Iteron III (PI)
So even with GSCs the specialized bays are always bigger than the biggest general bays at the same skill level, but not by much in some cases.
Also, I just noticed that the Iteron III and IV rhyme with their new specialties: three for P, four for ore; was that intentional, CCP Rise you sly dog? |
Oraac Ensor
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
252
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 13:43:00 -
[336] - Quote
Swiftstrike1 wrote:New names for the iterons with special roles plz. They are no longer merely the 3rd or 4th version of the same ship after all :) No, the names are fine. You only need look at them to see that they're still versions of the Iteron family - just with different subdivision of their cargo space. |
Kaeden Dourhand
T.O.R.
2
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 13:46:00 -
[337] - Quote
Taleden wrote:Also, I just noticed that the Iteron III and IV rhyme with their new specialties: three for P, four for ore; was that intentional, CCP Rise you sly dog?
by that logic, it should've been two for goo. |
Caleb Ayrania
TarNec Invisible Exchequer
179
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 13:55:00 -
[338] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:I think our art guys are awesome. Its more about where we want their attention than how much attention they have.
I chatted with Fozzie about the Orca and neither of us feel that any change is necessary for either ship. The Orca does so much more than haul Ore that there really isn't much tension between them.
The problem is how WELL it does other things that boost and haul ore. These two things should be the main purpose, and the secondary functions should have other ships as competitors. Ideally the Orca should be only used for boosting and long range mineral/ORE transport. The Rorq should be a solution to import/export via the compression role. Also it should be made possible to compress in highsec also. Thus making compressed ORE the best solution and removing the needs for 425mm work arounds. Some BPO for compressed minerals might be a good second tier solution, thus making ORE bay and Mineral Bay in Industrials in general really useful.
A concept that was mentioned in discussion was to make low sec "safe" for neutrals during incursions. Thus allowing temporary opening up for import and export in the period of the event. So the winning faction would spawn security. This would also be linked to the permanent FW location. Not sure where this idea originate, but the temporary access to low sec might be a really useful way of spreading and populating it in a more organic way. The added import/export benefits would be a bonus feature.
|
Oraac Ensor
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
252
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 13:56:00 -
[339] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Renaming strikes me as messy, but I'll bring it up with our story department and see what their opinion is. The names are fine.
Leave them as they are, there is no conceivable reason to change them. |
Ersahi Kir
Infinite Mobility SpaceMonkey's Alliance
202
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 14:02:00 -
[340] - Quote
Taleden wrote:Ersahi Kir wrote: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. What happens if you drop a single cargo expander for a DCU2? The Sigil's higher hull HP might push it ahead again. But in principle I share your concern, which is why I mention the cargo expander problem every time I post in this thread. Also note that there's no need for math, I put the modified ship stats into PyFA so you can play with fittings directly: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=253003
If you drop a cargohold expander II for a DCU2 you will get more hp, but in that case you could drop the cargo expander from all the other hulls and add a DCU2 and get pretty much the same result.
The problem that I was pointing out is that all the shield HP's are very close together for the industrials, and when you add in the extra mid slot(s) for hardeners the other ships will pull away in EHP over the sigil. The sigil doesn't distinguish itself as a tanky industrial until the cargo amounts get small enough that it can use all 6 lows for an armor tank (800 mm plate, 4 hardeners/eamn, dcu2). Once the m3 that need to get hauled gets much over 2625 the sigil role just falls apart because it has to switch from a armor tank to a shield tank, but it lacks the slots to get good shield resists.
The badger niche of highest max cargo is retained across similar configurations, the wreath niche of fastest remains across similar configurations, but the sigil niche of highest ehp falls apart at very models m3 totals (~6k m3 I think). That's the problem I have with the current sigil slot layout. |
|
Azrin Stella Oerndotte
The Nommo Insurance Fraud.
74
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 14:06:00 -
[341] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Today's update:
We are going to go ahead and bump the unpacked volume on the Hoarder significantly (up to 400000) to avoid any major issues with compression. This gives it the same packed volume to cargo ratio that the Iteron V has currently.
Can you promise that all those SMA's with hoarders inside of them won't explode?
Poor WH people, not that I see much use for it in WH's. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
320
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 14:07:00 -
[342] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Today's update:
We are going to go ahead and bump the unpacked volume on the Hoarder significantly (up to 400000) to avoid any major issues with compression. This gives it the same packed volume to cargo ratio that the Iteron V has currently.
One of the most recent posts mentions increasing the bonus per level from skills for the special bay haulers, and I was thinking the same thing. I'm going to increase the skill bonus per level for all the special bay haulers from 5% per level to 10% per level, and reduce the base bays to give basically the same potential bay size as before. This means you will still get an improvement at level 1 over any normal hauler, but you have to invest SP to make the difference quite as big. This seems especially appropriate since these ships don't have to sacrifice lows to reach the same capacity.
I talked with our story team about renaming and they are going to think about it and get back to me. As I said before, there are problems with both sides so I've just left it in their hands and will report back to you guys as soon as I know more.
As always, thanks for the feedback o/
edit: Also I want to acknowledge all the ideas around converting the special bay haulers to ORE, or any other similar solution. I completely understand where you're coming from but this simply isn't possible. It would either require an enormous investment by our art teams, which we don't feel is worthwhile, or would mean some kind of hacky re-texturing type approach, which we feel is ultimately bad for the game (we have standards okay). This is why we were originally hesitant about giving anything exciting to all 5 Iterons, we knew we didn't like where it would leave us in relation to this stuff. I'm glad that most of you seem to be able to cope with it as it stands though. Thanks for the update. Any thoughts on giving the Sigil/Bestower an additional turret hardpoint so Amarr pilots don't have to be left out on lolpvp Industrial fleets? The other races each have some capability (BBadger, Iteron, Hoarder) but not Amarr.
|
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
320
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 14:12:00 -
[343] - Quote
Unforgiven Storm wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Today's update:
edit: Also I want to acknowledge all the ideas around converting the special bay haulers to ORE, or any other similar solution. I completely understand where you're coming from but this simply isn't possible. It would either require an enormous investment by our art teams, which we don't feel is worthwhile, or would mean some kind of hacky re-texturing type approach, which we feel is ultimately bad for the game (we have standards okay). This is why we were originally hesitant about giving anything exciting to all 5 Iterons, we knew we didn't like where it would leave us in relation to this stuff. I'm glad that most of you seem to be able to cope with it as it stands though. 1 - We understand very well that the Art teams have zero time available and that changing industrial hulls is not worthwhile. 2 - We are willing to compromise with you and CCP that changing hulls will never happen. 3 - We are willing to accept these hulls like they are in other line and just have the NPC symbol changed for now. 4 - We are willing to wait for a new "non-hacky" re-texturing / paint job say 1-2 years from now, when the Art team finds time to come back to them. Just do it right, give these ships to Interbus, compromise. We accept the art problems and what comes with them. Please just put these ships in the correct and logic place were they belong from now on. No, "we" are not.
The changes being proposed are fine; all the industrials are good (and bad) for various tasks and in their own right. It doesn't make any sense to attach the special-bay ships to the ORE Industrial skill considering that it takes 15 minutes to train into Gallente/Minmatar Industrial for the specialized bay.
Please don't speak for "we" when its obvious that not everyone in the community agrees with your viewpoint.
|
Taleden
North Wind Local no. 612
40
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 14:30:00 -
[344] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote:If you drop a cargohold expander II for a DCU2 you will get more hp, but in that case you could drop the cargo expander from all the other hulls and add a DCU2 and get pretty much the same result.
No, not the same result: notice that every "tanky" hauler now has twice as much hull HP as either shield or armor, and that a DCU2 adds 60% hull resists. That means the Sigil's 2400 hull HP becomes 6000 EHP, while the Badger's 2060 only goes up to 5150 under the DCU2. That gap only gets wider when you add in skills or other fittings that increase hull HP. The bigger threat to the Sigil's niche might be the Iteron, whose 2600 hull HP goes to 6500 with a DCU2.
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
6549
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 14:33:00 -
[345] - Quote
Unforgiven Storm wrote: 3 - We are willing to accept these hulls like they are in other line and just have the NPC symbol changed for now.
It's fine that you can accept that, but we can't and won't. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Oraac Ensor
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
253
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 14:42:00 -
[346] - Quote
Kali Maat wrote:No more pride to fly the longest train ship in the game (iteron V) when it will only require gallente indu at lvl1 to fly it I don't understand the future tense here - Gallente Indy Lvl 1 is all that's required now.
Quote:The length of the Iteron model should be tied to your skill lvl. (in complete logic with the cargo capacity expansion per lvl) pls like this post to vote for this cool idea The flaw in that logic is that the Iteron IV is ttwice as wide as all the others. |
Tiber Ibis
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
61
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 14:44:00 -
[347] - Quote
I would rather see the specialised bays on the ore ships actually. So +1 for that. But this is a good compromise anyway. Would it be possible if that option could be looked at further down the line though Fozzie or Rise? |
Omnathious Deninard
The Scope Gallente Federation
1214
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 14:52:00 -
[348] - Quote
Tiber Ibis wrote:I would rather see the specialised bays on the ore ships actually. So +1 for that. But this is a good compromise anyway. Would it be possible if that option could be looked at further down the line though Fozzie or Rise? Version 2.0 came about because 4 ships were going to be shelved, many said give them special bays. CCP listened and now you cry because you want these ships shelved again and 4 new ships made for ORE. I like the specialized bays for Gallente and Minmatar, both of those races have more versital ships through out there line up and this adds to there racial flavor. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Tiber Ibis
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
61
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 15:08:00 -
[349] - Quote
I'm not crying. I just think the ore ships need a look in on these new specialised bays. Perhaps we could create an ore ship which has multiple specialised bays, although at lower levels than the specialised t1 racial ships. |
Oraac Ensor
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
253
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 15:18:00 -
[350] - Quote
Anela Cistine wrote:The Itty III has a planetary materials bay, which is great, is that able to hold Command Centers? If not, could you make the standard bay a little bigger so the ship can hold at least 1 command center?
It seems silly for a newbie to have to buy a ship to launch his command centers, then immediately sell that ship and buy a different ship to actually run his planets. Cargo expanders. |
|
Kiori Misoku
Blue Cloud Components Limited
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 15:25:00 -
[351] - Quote
Much Better!
I like it a lot.
Now they all feel like they have purposes again instead of the massive redundancy that was seeing before. |
Elder Ozzian
Frozen Dawn Inc Arctic Light
66
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 15:31:00 -
[352] - Quote
How about fuel ? What ship I am supposed to use for hauling... 1. Jump fuel, 2. Pos fuel, 3. Siege/Triage/Industrial Core fuel? I disagree! |
Abus Finkel
Caldari Capital Construction Inc.
16
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 15:35:00 -
[353] - 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. For a new player they can spend around 23d 16h to get Gallente Industrial V and get 37152m3 general purpose cargo 64500m3 minerals 67500m3 PI 63000m3 Ore
Or they can spend the same time getting for example Amarr Industrial V and get 2049m3 more general purpose cargo 25299m3 less minerals 28299m3 less PI 23799m3 less Ore
Choosing anything other than Gallente seems like a waste of time to me. |
Ersahi Kir
Infinite Mobility SpaceMonkey's Alliance
202
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 15:35:00 -
[354] - Quote
Taleden wrote:Ersahi Kir wrote:If you drop a cargohold expander II for a DCU2 you will get more hp, but in that case you could drop the cargo expander from all the other hulls and add a DCU2 and get pretty much the same result. No, not the same result: notice that every "tanky" hauler now has twice as much hull HP as either shield or armor, and that a DCU2 adds 60% hull resists. That means the Sigil's 2400 hull HP becomes 6000 EHP, while the Badger's 2060 only goes up to 5150 under the DCU2. That gap only gets wider when you add in skills or other fittings that increase hull HP. The bigger threat to the Sigil's niche might be the Iteron, whose 2600 hull HP goes to 6500 with a DCU2.
You need to look at similar configurations though, and that's what you're failing to do. For my purposes a 'similar configuration' for the industrials is when they're roughly at the same m3 of cargo (the badger will always have the slight lead but they'll be in the same general area of m3 cargospace). The thing is that the badger essentially gets 2 "free" low slots worth of base cargo over the sigil, and the wreath/iteron get 1 "free" low slots worth of base cargo over the sigil. So when you normalize the structure hp to account for this you get these numbers:
sigil 1536 structure hp 4267 m3 cargo
badger 2060 structure hp 4875 m3 cargo
wreath 1800 structure hp 4590 m3 cargo
iteron 2080 structure hp 4303 m3 cargo
assumptions: hull upgrades 0 industrial skill 5 using cargo expander II lows to 'normalize' the numbers
Now the thing is that after this point the m3 cargo and structure hp remains proportional for every cargo expander II you add. For every cargo expander II you add the structure hp will go down 20%, and the m3 cargo will go up 27.5. Adding a dcu2 after this point to all the ships actually favors the other tanky ships over the sigil because the sigil lost 36% of it's structure getting into the same ballpark cargo size. And with the way these ships are set up the shield buffer takes over because having a rough base 6k hp before resists are taken into account outweights the hp provided by a dcu2. Not to mention that the other ships can get higher shield resists because they have extra mid slots to fit hardeners.
So I think my point still stands. The sigil is only the highest hp tanky industrial at very low m3 cargo. Once you have to start using cargo expander lows/rigs the sigil quickly loses it's place as the most tanky hauler as it has to switch from armor/hull tank to shield tank, where it gets outclassed by ships that can get higher resists on the largest buffer (shield). This seems to go against it's niche, which is why I'm bringing it up here. |
Unforgiven Storm
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
440
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 15:42:00 -
[355] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Unforgiven Storm wrote: 3 - We are willing to accept these hulls like they are in other line and just have the NPC symbol changed for now.
It's fine that you can accept that, but we can't and won't.
That is a shame, I was seeing this has a solution to fix the racial advantage that now the Gallente will have and an open door for in the near future we could be given a ship freighter (to freight assembled ships around using gates).
Keeping them on the race lines, basically kills that dream, because if having ONE SF was a very little small "maybe", keeping the ships in the racial lines means for sure we will never have one, because if you do one for a race you are forced to do 3 more to cover the remaining races and having in account the art depart problems that will not happen, ever.
...
In MY opinion we were so close to a perfect industrial re-balance that it hurts my heart not getting there. I'm clearly loosing my time by pressing this issue.
Good job, you did all you can. I understand your limitations. Test 1, 2, 3... |
Unforgiven Storm
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
440
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 15:46:00 -
[356] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:Unforgiven Storm wrote:[quote=CCP Rise]Today's update:
] No, "we" are not. The changes being proposed are fine; all the industrials are good (and bad) for various tasks and in their own right. It doesn't make any sense to attach the special-bay ships to the ORE Industrial skill considering that it takes 15 minutes to train into Gallente/Minmatar Industrial for the specialized bay. Please don't speak for "we" when its obvious that not everyone in the community agrees with your viewpoint.
It was an abuse to use the word we, yes, sorry all for that. Anyway I had a reason to ask for these changes, I posted something in a blog, my reasoning is in there, maybe you agree with them and change your opinion... or maybe not
http://thelazypilot.wordpress.com/2013/06/27/much-better/ Test 1, 2, 3... |
Purps
Anatidae Rising
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 15:51:00 -
[357] - Quote
Doesn't the PI hauler kind of step on the Primae's toes? |
Taleden
North Wind Local no. 612
40
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 15:57:00 -
[358] - Quote
Purps wrote:Doesn't the PI hauler kind of step on the Primae's toes? Look again at the Primae's PI hold size. I don't think there's any ship in the game that doesn't step on the Primae's toes, if you think the Primae's toes are about efficiently hauling PI goods. It's a collector's item, not a ship. |
Flux Astraeus
InterSun Freelance Moon Warriors
1
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 16:21:00 -
[359] - Quote
Can I ask why you nurfed the Mammoth when everyone here across both threads when this topic began said that it was an awesome Indi and probably the best looking in its class?
|
Elfi Wolfe
University of Caille Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 16:22:00 -
[360] - Quote
I like the current plan. Lore wise the Gallente are the traders so the have more trade ships. |
|
Sofia Wolf
Ubuntu Inc. The Fourth District
225
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 16:28:00 -
[361] - Quote
I see many want specialised ships moved to ORE but I think that would be bad decision. Even if art department had time to do it I would be against it. If art had time IGÇÖd much rather have ore ships redistributed to empires with new models and skins made for those ships as to be stylistically appropriate for they new resident empire.
Entire line of ORE ships makes no sense both form game design or form IC flavour POW. Looking form RP perspective each empire has separate racial skill line because they had unique parallel histories of development with their unlike approach to design and technology. Even pirate corps derive their ships from those basic 4 ship design traditions. And that is good , it makes sense form story perspective and game design perspective. Chasing your preferred empire line actually brings consequence and shapes the way you fight and live in New Eden. I primary fly Minamtar combat ships and that limits what I can do and how well can can do it in PvP and PvE. Giving people opportunity to make that choice is what people want when they scream against homogenisation.
But then we have this sour thumb, this obnoxious Gallente corp that thinks it special snowflake, that thinks it's better and that wants its on special separate line differentiated form all of four traditional lines. Why would ORE of all NPC corps and pirates in New Eden get this special treatment? It is silly.
Even aside from RP problems ORE line is also inferior game design because when it comes to selecting skill for optimal resource gathering ship it removes all choice. If you want to mine gas, or ice, or minerals, or collect salvage and loot, or provide mining boosts, or if you want to do it in tanky gank safe way, or lazy GÇ£i donGÇÖt want to warp back to station every 5 minGÇ¥way, or maximum efficiency GÇ£hulkGÇ¥ way, answer is always the same: GÇ£train the ******* ORE shipsGÇ¥. This is clear contrast form way combat and transport ships where done in empire lines where you have to actually chose the way you want to do things, and those choices mater. But when it comes to resource collection answer is always the same boring old ORE line. Meh.
Now I do realise that however ****** was that decision to pile up all resource gathering ships in single line, now it is too late to change. However I think it is stupid to compound on this past dumb decision by adding additional ships in already bloated ORE line at the expanse of diversity in empire ship lines.
So TL:DR is IGÇÖm glad you don have time to move Iterions 2-4 to ORE line because it ORE skill line is **** game design that should burn in fire. Jessica Danikov > EVE is your real life. the rest is fantasy. caught in a corporation. no escape from banality. open up yours eyes, peer through pod good and seeeeeee. I'm just a poor pilot, I need no sympathy. because I'm easy scam, easy go, little isk, little know. anyway the solar wind blows... |
Kaeden Dourhand
T.O.R.
3
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 16:29:00 -
[362] - Quote
Abus Finkel wrote:For hauling needs outside of the special bays you will generally get better performance from options other than Gallente.
For a new player they can spend around 23d 16h to get Gallente Industrial V and get 37152m3 general purpose cargo 64500m3 minerals 67500m3 PI 63000m3 Ore
Or they can spend the same time getting for example Amarr Industrial V and get 2049m3 more general purpose cargo 25299m3 less minerals 28299m3 less PI 23799m3 less Ore
Choosing anything other than Gallente seems like a waste of time to me.
I'm just going to quote this for truth, needs a bit more fiddling with the numbers, 2k max cargo extra isn't enough to offset the specialisation the rest of the gallente line gives. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
197
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 16:35:00 -
[363] - Quote
Kaeden Dourhand wrote:Abus Finkel wrote:For hauling needs outside of the special bays you will generally get better performance from options other than Gallente.
For a new player they can spend around 23d 16h to get Gallente Industrial V and get 37152m3 general purpose cargo 64500m3 minerals 67500m3 PI 63000m3 Ore
Or they can spend the same time getting for example Amarr Industrial V and get 2049m3 more general purpose cargo 25299m3 less minerals 28299m3 less PI 23799m3 less Ore
Choosing anything other than Gallente seems like a waste of time to me. I'm just going to quote this for truth, needs a bit more fiddling with the numbers, 2k max cargo extra isn't enough to offset the specialisation the rest of the gallente line gives.
It's basically a choice. We can have the 2 basic cargo lines, with the extra hulls just sort of filler in their respective trees, or we can have what has been proposed with the specialized holds, which is much better IMO. They aren't going to move the hulls to other lines, remove the hulls, or add hulls into the other lines. This is what there is. |
Durzulgor
Futuristic Supporters of Musical Extravaganza
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 16:35:00 -
[364] - Quote
Awesome! I'm really looking forward to those changes! Thumbs up CCP and thx Rise for giving it a second overhaul! |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
322
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 16:41:00 -
[365] - Quote
Abus Finkel wrote:For hauling needs outside of the special bays you will generally get better performance from options other than Gallente. Everyone seems to continually lose sight of this. You can't boil haulers (or any ship, really) down to one metric, and I'm not even talking about things like the Battle Badger. Align times, top speed, EHP, etc. all must be considered. I know it's convenient to break it down to a stat that you can point back to and yell "Hey! Look at this here! These ships do more!" But you're losing the fact that the Badger I, for example, has the most cargo room of the swift haulers. Or that a Bestower can hold 50,000 of ANY cargo with GSCs. Badger Mark II can carry 7300 and leave the lows free for nanos. It's not a black-and-white matter like so many people try to argue it is. I'm sorry, but it simply isn't.
|
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
550
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 16:48:00 -
[366] - Quote
The mammoth is gaining max cargo, gaining shield and becoming faster, with a smaller sig, yet people are complaining that it's being nerfed. I don't understand this. |
Denidil
Turalyon Plus
610
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 16:54:00 -
[367] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: I chatted with Fozzie about the Orca and neither of us feel that any change is necessary for either ship. The Orca does so much more than haul Ore that there really isn't much tension between them.
I guess we're going to have to disagree on this one. it has 50k m3 ore bay, it costs 750m-800m isk. the new T1 industrials have a 50km3 orebay for under 1m. the Mackinaw has an 35km3 ore bay. Max cargo fit the orca can carry about 180km3 of ore (92k+40k+50k) [level V char] - sure that is ok, but i still think the ratio between mackinaw bay sizes and orca bay (or Rorq) bay is insufficient. Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design. |
Flux Astraeus
InterSun Freelance Moon Warriors
1
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 16:58:00 -
[368] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:The mammoth is gaining max cargo, gaining shield and becoming faster, with a smaller sig, yet people are complaining that it's being nerfed. I don't understand this.
Its losing -500 from CPU good luck fitting it with anything worthwhile. Plus the EHP isn't changing regardless of small gain in shield cap as its traded off from the Armor loss. I'd call that a nurf when most of the others received PWG buffs etc, but not the Mammoth.
|
Zaxix
Long Jump.
144
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 17:05:00 -
[369] - Quote
Muuuch better. Variety, delicious variety. It's nice to move away from the OMG Roles conversation to just nitpicking!
A couple of things, some of which other posters have mentioned, some not. Please forgive me if I missed a dev post somewhere in the middle, but I think I read them all.
There seems to be an overall align time/agility nerf. Align time is the heart and soul of hauling. I'm not seeing the need for the nerf. Maybe there is some underlying logic I'm missing out on. Even ships that are receiving a bonus to agility get the overall nerf, which struck me as strange. Is there some sig size to align time math that I'm not understanding? That brings me to velocity increases. While people do autopilot T1 industrials, the gank danger is too high to do it with anything remotely valuable, so people go gate to gate with anything ganklicious in the hold. In mining support, an AB, MWD, or 150km+ warp off gets you around the grid more quickly than velocity ever could. The change that would be more complementary to the "please god let me align and not die" role of all haulers would be to swap the velocity bonus with an agility bonus. Give the agility specced ships a higher bonus and the others the 5%. Maybe, possibly, leave one of the lines with the velocity bonus, but pretty please, not the Mammoth (yes, I am totally Mammoth biased).
The mineral bay is a bit odd. I'm not sure I see what role it's filling. Maybe nullsec production POS resupply? Usually, at the point minerals are transported, the necessary volumes for real production are in the freighter load range. Maybe a better new player entry point for small scale minerals trading? This one was a bit of mystery to me. It's not a bad thing, just odd.
The ammo bay was also a bit odd. I have trouble picturing this ship's role. Battlefield resupply seems unlikely (who wouldn't immediately pop it?). Entry level ammo production and haul to sale seems like a possibility, but I'm not sure that justifies a whole role dedicated to it. This totally makes sense for T2 haulers that might be supporting a black ops fleet, but unless there's going to be a third T2 transport based on the hoarder, this hold type's best use will never see the light of day. Again, not bad, but I'm not seeing the role it's filling. Maybe it's ammo for the high slots? :P As if the hoarder would live long enough!
All in all, much, much better than round 1. MUCH. The one thing I think in general could improve these sorts of rebalance threads is a little more information from the CCP side about the VISION you have for ships. When you make these changes, what are you thinking about it's role? How do you see it being used? That way when these monster threads start growing, the discussion is focused on whether or not the changes fit the vision or whether the vision fits how the ships are really used by the playerbase.
So, what was your vision for the ammo and minerals bays? And, as I asked in the previous thread, what lead to the decision to make the Amarr ships the big cargo carriers? I'm not saying Itty V should remain the king, but I would like to know what the reasoning was for the change (I have 5's in every hauling ship in EVE, so it doesn't affect me one way or the other). I'd also like to know if that reasoning will extend to freighters. ***Prodigal Frog***
|
Flux Astraeus
InterSun Freelance Moon Warriors
1
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 17:24:00 -
[370] - Quote
Zaxix wrote:Muuuch better. Variety, delicious variety. It's nice to move away from the OMG Roles conversation to just nitpicking!
There seems to be an overall align time/agility nerf. Align time is the heart and soul of hauling. I'm not seeing the need for the nerf. Maybe there is some underlying logic I'm missing out on. .
I think your reading the figure the wrong way mate , the allign time = (-x) value x = seconds. They are getting a buff as the align time is lowered hence the minus. Your confusing it with the other values where in there place its a + value = > .
|
|
Ersahi Kir
Infinite Mobility SpaceMonkey's Alliance
202
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 17:28:00 -
[371] - Quote
Flux Astraeus wrote:Alvatore DiMarco wrote:The mammoth is gaining max cargo, gaining shield and becoming faster, with a smaller sig, yet people are complaining that it's being nerfed. I don't understand this. Its losing -500 from CPU good luck fitting it with anything worthwhile. Plus the EHP isn't changing regardless of small gain in shield cap as its traded off from the Armor loss. I'd call that a nurf when most of the others received PWG buffs etc, but not the Mammoth.
What are you fitting that requires so much CPU? All the industrials had obnoxious CPU, it was more or less impossible to use it all in an actual fit. As it stands you can fit a full tank on a mammoth and still have over 100 spare CPU, so I'm not seeing where the CPU nerf is actually going to hinder the mammoth at all. |
Kaeden Dourhand
T.O.R.
3
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 17:28:00 -
[372] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:It's basically a choice. We can have the 2 basic cargo lines, with the extra hulls just sort of filler in their respective trees, or we can have what has been proposed with the specialized holds, which is much better IMO. They aren't going to move the hulls to other lines, remove the hulls, or add hulls into the other lines. This is what there is.
I totally agree with the choice made, and I fully support it, I would just like the numbers tweaked a bit to make the distinction between the gallente line and the amarr/caldari line a bit sharper for the sheer hauler space.
right now, 2k extra all-purpose m3 doesn't really offset not having 3 awesome specialised ships at your command. |
Flux Astraeus
InterSun Freelance Moon Warriors
1
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 17:43:00 -
[373] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote:Flux Astraeus wrote:Alvatore DiMarco wrote:The mammoth is gaining max cargo, gaining shield and becoming faster, with a smaller sig, yet people are complaining that it's being nerfed. I don't understand this. Its losing -500 from CPU good luck fitting it with anything worthwhile. Plus the EHP isn't changing regardless of small gain in shield cap as its traded off from the Armor loss. I'd call that a nurf when most of the others received PWG buffs etc, but not the Mammoth. What are you fitting that requires so much CPU? All the industrials had obnoxious CPU, it was more or less impossible to use it all in an actual fit. As it stands you can fit a full tank on a mammoth and still have over 100 spare CPU, so I'm not seeing where the CPU nerf is actually going to hinder the mammoth at all.
I didnt really word my comment correctly at all in hind sight. Your right its not the CPU that is the issue its the PWG value where the rest were given a buff the Mammoth wasn't when it needs one so it can fit a 10MN Micro Warp Drive not a 1MN which is frigate size so it can employ the MWD/ cloak trick to actually help it not to be ganked. Apologies for not wording my first statement correctly. |
Zaxix
Long Jump.
144
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 18:01:00 -
[374] - Quote
Flux Astraeus wrote:Zaxix wrote:Muuuch better. Variety, delicious variety. It's nice to move away from the OMG Roles conversation to just nitpicking!
There seems to be an overall align time/agility nerf. Align time is the heart and soul of hauling. I'm not seeing the need for the nerf. Maybe there is some underlying logic I'm missing out on. . I think your reading the figure the wrong way mate , the allign time = (-x) value x = seconds. They are getting a buff as the align time is lowered hence the minus. Your confusing it with the other values where in there place its a + value = > . How embarrassing! Thank you sir! ***Prodigal Frog***
|
Oraac Ensor
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
253
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 18:05:00 -
[375] - 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. WHAAAAAT???????
No, no, no - surely you can't mean they'll change to the Iteron V hull model? That ship is the third stupidest looking hull in all of EVE, behind the Tristan and the Imicus. I can never figure what it most looks like - a giant, legless, space-going stick insect, or an Iteron III with an Iteron II's nose shoved up its arse.
The special edition Iteron IV's already have specialised additional cargo holds, so why should they change? |
Taleden
North Wind Local no. 612
40
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 18:07:00 -
[376] - Quote
Flux Astraeus wrote:Your right its not the CPU that is the issue its the PWG value where the rest were given a buff the Mammoth wasn't when it needs one so it can fit a 10MN Micro Warp Drive not a 1MN which is frigate size so it can employ the MWD/ cloak trick to actually help it not to be ganked.
The Mammoth, Badger II and Iteron V received no change to their PWG. Only the Bestower gained 20 PWG, moving it from 70 to 90 which is more than the other high-capacity haulers have, but I don't think even that is enough to fit a 10MN MWD.
Which is probably by design. Those four haulers are now aimed at maximum capacity, with minimal tank, speed and maneuverability. If you need any of those things, such as hauling in low-sec, then the high-capacity haulers are not the right ship. You will want a Sigil, Badger, Wreathe or Iteron, which all have subtantially higher tank, better align times, and plenty of PWG for a MWD. |
Salpad
Carebears with Attitude
344
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 18:16:00 -
[377] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:One of the most recent posts mentions increasing the bonus per level from skills for the special bay haulers, and I was thinking the same thing. I'm going to increase the skill bonus per level for all the special bay haulers from 5% per level to 10% per level, and reduce the base bays to give basically the same potential bay size as before. This means you will still get an improvement at level 1 over any normal hauler, but you have to invest SP to make the difference quite as big. This seems especially appropriate since these ships don't have to sacrifice lows to reach the same capacity.
Yay!
But you still need to acknowledge the fact that the ability to haul 50k m3 of ore isn't equal to the ability to haul 50k m3 of minerals. Eitgher the 50k m3 ore bay is underpowered, or else the 50k m3 mineral bay is overpowered, and unequal power isn't in the spirit of tiercide. Personally I think you ought to enlarge the ore bay, since as someone else (Mara?) pointed out, the ability to undock with 50k m3 of minerals is sweet, sweet potentail for suciide gank, but if you want to go conservative, you can make the mineral bay smaller instead for starters, then change your mind in some months.
Other than that, I'm absolutely ecstatic about these changes! Great job!! |
Albert Spear
meadhan oidhche cinneach HELM Alliance
22
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 18:19:00 -
[378] - Quote
Taking a risk and talking about the idea of building things in the next release, here are some thoughts on what Industrials could do and what might add to the game play as part of the build things.
In the real world moving large items at sea requires one of (or both) two classes of ships:
1) Heavy duty sea going tugs to pull the large objects into position to be aligned and then secured. Oil rigs, sea going industrial facilities and other large structures all depend on sea going tugs to move them.
2) Heavy lift ships, these ships have massive cranes or the ability to ballast down to accept very large loads to move from place to place.
In both cases they move things that can not be moved in other fashions.
I could see a piece of gameplay where large structures are assembled in space by using tugs to move them around and attach them to other pieces. I could see jump tugs that move them between systems (heavy lift ships too). The neat thing about tugs is they sometimes lose the load on the way - the tow cable is broken and the load drifts free, free for anyone to claim in pirate waters.
Because heavy lift ships carry their load open, they avoid major storms, because the load can fall off. Instead of storms think about bumping to move a load off a heavy lift ship and make it a free for all as to who can grab it first.
In both cases the limits imposed by internal volume disappear, because the limit is now power - power to move the load from point A to point B - as the loads get heavier/larger the speed, align times and agility are all impacted.
An empty tug can out run many ships, but with a full tow they are slow and require skill to maneuver.
Given the goal of building things, this may be a game play item that people want to think about.
It works for the industrial guys - they have a way to move things - including completely configured structures from one location to another (surprise) - and the gankers can steal the load without having to actually deal with the ship towing/carrying the load.
The risk may be worth the reward for both sides.
This is an idea, nothing but an idea. I had to put it forth because of the theme for the next release and the discussion on industrials. |
Endeavour Starfleet
897
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 18:33:00 -
[379] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Today's update:
We are going to go ahead and bump the unpacked volume on the Hoarder significantly (up to 400000) to avoid any major issues with compression. This gives it the same packed volume to cargo ratio that the Iteron V has currently.
One of the most recent posts mentions increasing the bonus per level from skills for the special bay haulers, and I was thinking the same thing. I'm going to increase the skill bonus per level for all the special bay haulers from 5% per level to 10% per level, and reduce the base bays to give basically the same potential bay size as before. This means you will still get an improvement at level 1 over any normal hauler, but you have to invest SP to make the difference quite as big. This seems especially appropriate since these ships don't have to sacrifice lows to reach the same capacity.
I talked with our story team about renaming and they are going to think about it and get back to me. As I said before, there are problems with both sides so I've just left it in their hands and will report back to you guys as soon as I know more.
As always, thanks for the feedback o/
edit: Also I want to acknowledge all the ideas around converting the special bay haulers to ORE, or any other similar solution. I completely understand where you're coming from but this simply isn't possible. It would either require an enormous investment by our art teams, which we don't feel is worthwhile, or would mean some kind of hacky re-texturing type approach, which we feel is ultimately bad for the game (we have standards okay). This is why we were originally hesitant about giving anything exciting to all 5 Iterons, we knew we didn't like where it would leave us in relation to this stuff. I'm glad that most of you seem to be able to cope with it as it stands though.
This nerf (tho slight I admit) to the specialized bays for newer players is saddening.
Let me start by saying I LOVE the new line of specialized haulers. They are going to make living out in nullsec far easier and more sustainable for smaller corps and alliances that don't have 50 orcas on call. Not to mention it means more incentive to recruit newer players to aid in hauling ore and other activities.
The thing is I disagre with that poster's idea for 10 percent and reduced base and I disagree with it being implemented because it is another trend that harms newer players and forces them to spend valuable time training (likely off attributes) into an industral line that they may not make use of other than specialized hauling of one thing.
Yes it is slight. And right now it matters very little. What I worry about is a trend. Some in this topic have clearly stated they think these ships are OP (Despite the fact that they are specialized) You listened to one of those and I worry about what tomorrow will bring. I don't want these awesome ships suffering a slow death by a thousand nerfs that Drake pilots got because they dared train into the most balanced ship in the midline.
So are you completely happy with this? Are you pretty sure you are not going to be tempted to nerf them any further? This change already nearly pushed the idea into better for Ore industrial skill because then atleast that skill will help newer players get into a Noctis. |
Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
509
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 18:40:00 -
[380] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: edit: Also I want to acknowledge all the ideas around converting the special bay haulers to ORE, or any other similar solution. I completely understand where you're coming from but this simply isn't possible. It would either require an enormous investment by our art teams, which we don't feel is worthwhile, or would mean some kind of hacky re-texturing type approach, which we feel is ultimately bad for the game (we have standards okay). This is why we were originally hesitant about giving anything exciting to all 5 Iterons, we knew we didn't like where it would leave us in relation to this stuff. I'm glad that most of you seem to be able to cope with it as it stands though.
Then just scrap the specialized bays. It is a dumb way of making these ships unique. I understand that there is sort of a built in imbalance with Gallente have the most Industrials, but this just magnifies the imbalance. Sure, the Iteron V is only the second biggest general hauler now, by 2000m3 maxed out and then you give Gallente all the best specialized hulls. To the point where these specialized bays are so awesome that the Hoarder has to be tweaked because its only value is in abusing mineral compression and hauling with carriers.
You want to make them unique, interesting, have reason to train one over another for different roles? Give them something other than cargo and velocity/agility bonuses. Balance out Gallente by giving each ship just one bonus and double up bonues on the Caldari and Amarr hulls.
Badger - cargo, agility, shield resists
Badger II - cargo, velocity, fleet hanger
Bestower - cargo, velocity, armor resists
Sigil - cargo, agility, drones
Wreath - cargo, agility, warp speed
Hoarder - cargo, tractor beam and/or turret bonus
Mammoth - cargo, velocity, probes
Iteron I - cargo, agility
Iteron II - cargo, drones
Iteron III - cargo, fleet hanger
Iteron IV - cargo, tractor beam
Iteron V - cargo, velocity
There are so many options to make Industrials more interesting that just "small and fast, big and slow, and Gallente hauls the most with special bays". |
|
Endeavour Starfleet
897
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 18:40:00 -
[381] - Quote
Salpad wrote:CCP Rise wrote:One of the most recent posts mentions increasing the bonus per level from skills for the special bay haulers, and I was thinking the same thing. I'm going to increase the skill bonus per level for all the special bay haulers from 5% per level to 10% per level, and reduce the base bays to give basically the same potential bay size as before. This means you will still get an improvement at level 1 over any normal hauler, but you have to invest SP to make the difference quite as big. This seems especially appropriate since these ships don't have to sacrifice lows to reach the same capacity. Yay! But you still need to acknowledge the fact that the ability to haul 50k m3 of ore isn't equal to the ability to haul 50k m3 of minerals. Eitgher the 50k m3 ore bay is underpowered, or else the 50k m3 mineral bay is overpowered, and unequal power isn't in the spirit of tiercide. Personally I think you ought to enlarge the ore bay, since as someone else (Mara?) pointed out, the ability to undock with 50k m3 of minerals is sweet, sweet potentail for suciide gank, but if you want to go conservative, you can make the mineral bay smaller instead for starters, then change your mind in some months. Other than that, I'm absolutely ecstatic about these changes! Great job!!
How about no!
50K of minerals is going to greatly help those in nullsec move minerals from refining to building systems as well as not have to spend hours dealing with a hauler spawn.
They are balanced when you think about who will make benefit of using them. The Ore hauler at 50k is balanced when you think about fitting it for ore hauling duty. Give someone who isn't already spacerich a fair cut to haul the ore.
So some idiot will undock in an easily ganked ship with 50k in minerals. That loss will hurt for that player but only a few times if they are not idiots.
|
Ellahan Vhektor
DIVERGENT PROXY
9
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 18:41:00 -
[382] - Quote
if gall an min get "special ships " so should amarr and caldari anything else would be unbalanced and as far as i can remember this was about ship balancing and this would be an unbalancing i really wanted a badger mark 3,4 and 5 too anything else would be unfair plus a badger mk5 would be awesome GòöGòùGòæGòæ GòöGòùGòæGòæGòª Gòª-áGòªGòªGòöGòù GòöGòù GòªGòöGòùGòöGòùGòöGòù GòæGòæGòáGòú GòÜGòùGòáGòúGòæ Gòæ-áGòæGòæGòÜGòù GòáGòú GòæGòáGòúGòáGòúGòáGò¥ GòÜGò¥GòæGòæ GòÜGò¥GòæGòæGò¬ Gòæ-áGò¬GòæGòÜGò¥ GòæGòæ GòæGòæGòÜGòæGòæGòæ
|
Endeavour Starfleet
897
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 18:46:00 -
[383] - Quote
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:CCP Rise wrote: edit: Also I want to acknowledge all the ideas around converting the special bay haulers to ORE, or any other similar solution. I completely understand where you're coming from but this simply isn't possible. It would either require an enormous investment by our art teams, which we don't feel is worthwhile, or would mean some kind of hacky re-texturing type approach, which we feel is ultimately bad for the game (we have standards okay). This is why we were originally hesitant about giving anything exciting to all 5 Iterons, we knew we didn't like where it would leave us in relation to this stuff. I'm glad that most of you seem to be able to cope with it as it stands though.
Then just scrap the specialized bays. It is a dumb way of making these ships unique. I understand that there is sort of a built in imbalance with Gallente have the most Industrials, but this just magnifies the imbalance. Sure, the Iteron V is only the second biggest general hauler now, by 2000m3 maxed out and then you give Gallente all the best specialized hulls. To the point where these specialized bays are so awesome that the Hoarder has to be tweaked because its only value is in abusing mineral compression and hauling with carriers. You want to make them unique, interesting, have reason to train one over another for different roles? Give them something other than cargo and velocity/agility bonuses. Balance out Gallente by giving each ship just one bonus and double up bonues on the Caldari and Amarr hulls. Badger - cargo, agility, shield resists Badger II - cargo, velocity, fleet hanger Bestower - cargo, velocity, armor resists Sigil - cargo, agility, drones Wreath - cargo, agility, warp speed Hoarder - cargo, tractor beam and/or turret bonus Mammoth - cargo, velocity, probes Iteron I - cargo, agility Iteron II - cargo, drones Iteron III - cargo, fleet hanger Iteron IV - cargo, tractor beam Iteron V - cargo, velocity There are so many options to make Industrials more interesting that just "small and fast, big and slow, and Gallente hauls the most with special bays".
No.. And probes? Really? Horrible ideas
The change to lower base and higher percentage for the specialized haules does again push things into "Train into this line nao" Yet that is an issue with harming newer players not potential for the ship.
In nullsec these ships WILL be used. And quite often. PI will be a tiny bit less tedius. Hauler spawns and moving minerals to building stations won't be a job that scares folks into logging out. And newer players can be valued in hauling ore.
THAT is a GREAT thing. It's saddening you don't seem to get that in my opinion. |
Zaxix
Long Jump.
144
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 18:50:00 -
[384] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:In nullsec these ships WILL be used... [for] Hauler spawns. This is something I hadn't ever thought about before. Very interesting application for that hold type. ***Prodigal Frog***
|
Endeavour Starfleet
897
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 18:51:00 -
[385] - Quote
Ellahan Vhektor wrote:if gall an min get "special ships " so should amarr and caldari anything else would be unbalanced and as far as i can remember this was about ship balancing and this would be an unbalancing i really wanted a badger mark 3,4 and 5 too anything else would be unfair plus a badger mk5 would be awesome
No they should not. The specialized ships were more of a light train high effect class of specialized ships that will end some of the huge imbalance between newer players and the spacerich. Now that is being reduced with this sad change that will require newer players to invest more SP at the start of their journey into specialized ships.
Now I am slightly in the camp of "Make these use Ore Industral skill" If this sad trend of making it harder for newer pilots continues as atleast that skill will help them get into a Noctis for other tasks.
These are not unbalanced. They are SPECIALIZED narrow task ships. Without this specialization these ships would gather dust in hangars and these giant issues in nullsec would continue. |
Taleden
North Wind Local no. 612
41
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 19:19:00 -
[386] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Unforgiven Storm wrote: 3 - We are willing to accept these hulls like they are in other line and just have the NPC symbol changed for now.
It's fine that you can accept that, but we can't and won't.
Then how about the opposite strategy: simply change the hold capacity bonus on the Hoarder and Iteron II-IV to the ORE Industrial skill, while leaving the hulls' minimum skill requirements and velocity bonuses tied to the racial industrial skills.
The ships then remain ostensibly "Gallente" or "Minmatar", so their names and visual design are unchanged, and they still require Gallente/Minmatar Industrial level 1 to fly. But this way the Gallente Industrial skill no longer has so much more value than the other racial industrial skills, while the ORE Industrial skill increases the specialized holds just like it does on all of ORE's own ships, which are the only ones who currently have specialized holds at all.
Speaking of which, that also writes your lore for you: Gallente and Minmatar engineers do not make specialized holds, only ORE does that. So when the Gallente and Minmatar were retrofitting their industrial ships and had some extra models they didn't need anymore, they just licensed some specialized holds from ORE and grafted them onto their old hulls. Consequently, the Gallente and Minmatar Industrial skills still improve those hulls' propulsion systems because those are unchanged, but the ORE Industrial skill is now required in order to improve the special holds' efficiency, because those cargo bays were in fact designed and built by ORE and not the Gallente or Minmatar. |
Zaxix
Long Jump.
144
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 19:26:00 -
[387] - Quote
Taleden wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Unforgiven Storm wrote: 3 - We are willing to accept these hulls like they are in other line and just have the NPC symbol changed for now.
It's fine that you can accept that, but we can't and won't. Then how about the opposite strategy: simply change the hold capacity bonus on the Hoarder and Iteron II-IV to the ORE Industrial skill, while leaving the hulls' minimum skill requirements and velocity bonuses tied to the racial industrial skills. The ships then remain ostensibly "Gallente" or "Minmatar", so their names and visual design are unchanged, and they still require Gallente/Minmatar Industrial level 1 to fly. But this way the Gallente Industrial skill no longer has so much more value than the other racial industrial skills, while the ORE Industrial skill increases the specialized holds just like it does on all of ORE's own ships, which are the only ones who currently have specialized holds at all. Speaking of which, that also writes your lore for you: Gallente and Minmatar engineers do not make specialized holds, only ORE does that. So when the Gallente and Minmatar were retrofitting their industrial ships and had some extra models they didn't need anymore, they just licensed some specialized holds from ORE and grafted them onto their old hulls. Consequently, the Gallente and Minmatar Industrial skills still improve those hulls' propulsion systems because those are unchanged, but the ORE Industrial skill is now required in order to improve the special holds' efficiency, because those cargo bays were in fact designed and built by ORE and not the Gallente or Minmatar. This is a rather pointless discussion. What does it matter what is labeled what? Also, the Quafe Itty has a special bay and it's not an ORE product. ***Prodigal Frog***
|
Taleden
North Wind Local no. 612
41
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 19:34:00 -
[388] - Quote
Zaxix wrote:This is a rather pointless discussion. What does it matter what is labeled what? Also, the Quafe Itty has a special bay and it's not an ORE product.
That's also a novelty ship and not really relevant to this rebalance of the actual ships people fly for fun and profit.
The issue is that the Gallente Industrial skill is quantitatively more valuable than the other racial Industrial skills, because it yields vastly superior ore/mineral/PI hauling capacity at the cost of a paltry ~2000m3 general capacity compared to Amarr. That's a little imbalanced, which is why many folks in this thread have been suggesting that the specialized haulers be reassigned to ORE. CCP doesn't want to do that because it would either look half-baked or require art work that they want to focus elsewhere, so I'm proposing a compromise that solves the racial industrial skill imbalance without any art issues. |
Omnathious Deninard
The Scope Gallente Federation
1215
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 19:41:00 -
[389] - Quote
Ellahan Vhektor wrote:if gall an min get "special ships " so should amarr and caldari anything else would be unbalanced and as far as i can remember this was about ship balancing and this would be an unbalancing i really wanted a badger mark 3,4 and 5 too anything else would be unfair plus a badger mk5 would be awesome Go tea the first thread about industrial balancing and see that is was requested by the player base. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Endeavour Starfleet
897
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 19:42:00 -
[390] - Quote
Taleden wrote:Zaxix wrote:This is a rather pointless discussion. What does it matter what is labeled what? Also, the Quafe Itty has a special bay and it's not an ORE product. That's also a novelty ship and not really relevant to this rebalance of the actual ships people fly for fun and profit. The issue is that the Gallente Industrial skill is quantitatively more valuable than the other racial Industrial skills, because it yields vastly superior ore/mineral/PI hauling capacity at the cost of a paltry ~2000m3 general capacity compared to Amarr. That's a little imbalanced, which is why many folks in this thread have been suggesting that the specialized haulers be reassigned to ORE. CCP doesn't want to do that because it would either look half-baked or require art work that they want to focus elsewhere, so I'm proposing a compromise that solves the racial industrial skill imbalance without any art issues.
It is not imbalanced in the least. And if there is ANY reason to move to Ore Industrial Skill. It is because it is a path that will aid newer players in nullsec.
Again these are specialized ships meant for one task then it's back in the hangar.
Also keep in mind that when CCP removes Tiers. They change build requirements. These ships build requirements will likely be changed to that of the current highest to build of the line. |
|
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
2229
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 19:49:00 -
[391] - 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.
Ok, I can add some unhappy.
Why don't you give us a specialized bay for collecting the loot spew "reward" mechanic? Let the bay open up (imaginarily, so the art folks don't get uppity about extra work) and automagically collect that crap?
*grumble grumble*
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all. |
Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
509
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 19:58:00 -
[392] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote: THAT is a GREAT thing. It's saddening you don't seem to get that in my opinion.
It would be great if all the races had an option for a ~50,000m3 general cargohold if you wanted to pick up a ton of planet goo or a hauler spawn. That is what they should do if they don't want to leave a bunch of ship irrelevant and move newbies closer to the spacerich. Put in some big base cargo or 10% cargo bonus.
This stuff though is just a handout to everyone who already trained Gallente Industrial V. Sure, Iteron V isn't the biggest any more, but who cares because you get 3 super big specialized haulers. It is so overpowered that the Iteron I and V not being best in class is a small price to pay.
The result is the same as what we have now. Train Gallente for hauling, everything else is for gimick fits or people who are bad at math.
faux edit;
I think the idea of just moving the Iteron II-IV and Hoarder to ORE Industrial skills isn't a bad compromise. The models for them can be changed some where down the line. That way every race gets a small/fast and big/slow hauler, and the specialized stuff can be moved to ORE Industrial. Also, seriously consider doing a fleet hanger instead of ammo bay. Ammo bay is way too restricted for normal use, and too good not to be abused for mineral compression or carrier hauling. |
Endeavour Starfleet
897
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 20:05:00 -
[393] - Quote
They don't get those specialized types because they don't need it. They have their own benefits unlike the federation which was about to have three of its line made even more worthless than they already are. Not to mention that its main hauler is losing more tank.
So training this line is if you want specialized cargo hauling. Others if you want other benefits. It is balanced in that approach.
The reason I am saying maybe we need to look and moving them to ORE Industral skill is IF CCP continues to want to nerf these specialized ships for newer players.
Not as any kind of silly compromise because you don't get your probe hauler. |
Kor Kilden
Thukker Tribe Holdings Inc. Gathering Of Nomadic Explorers
22
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 20:17:00 -
[394] - Quote
Ellahan Vhektor wrote:if gall an min get "special ships " so should amarr and caldari anything else would be unbalanced and as far as i can remember this was about ship balancing and this would be an unbalancing i really wanted a badger mark 3,4 and 5 too anything else would be unfair plus a badger mk5 would be awesome
Sounds like you want all the races and their ships to be identical so you can pick which race to fly by which one looks best. When I started I went through all the frigate and destroyer hull stats deciding which suited my typical play style and personality the best snd chose that. What you're apparently proposing is the single best way to stagnate the universe and make eve boring and not worth playing. |
Ersahi Kir
Infinite Mobility SpaceMonkey's Alliance
202
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 20:44:00 -
[395] - Quote
Honestly I want a special amarr hauler that can hold 1,000,000 m3 of livestock.
Because slaves are big at 5 m3 each, and I need space to move all my exotic dancers in one shot. |
Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
509
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 20:54:00 -
[396] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote: So training this line is if you want specialized cargo hauling. Others if you want other benefits. It is balanced in that approach.
Except none of the Industrials have any sort of bonus or base skill that makes them really stand out except for the huge specialized bays for Gallente.
The Bestower gets only 2000m3 more for maxed out cargo. The tank on all of them is still mostly meaningless outside of bait fits for guys with lots of level V skills. They all get the same bonuses and there is no real variation or racial flavor or anything unique, aside from the special bays, which the recent edits to the OP show are being nerfed, and the Hoarder is getting to the point of being straight broken.
And I really don't care if the Mammoth gets a probe bonus or not. It's just an idea. I'm sure wormhole guys wouldn't mind a cargo ship that could find its own way out a bit easier. At least it is more of a noticeable difference than 20m/s fast for 2700m3 less cargo, or what ever minor difference is has from a Bestower or Iteron V.
It is still flat out tiers of hauls less and hauls more with little other variation, except Gallente with huge special bays for actually useful materials. I know Industrials aren't the sexiest ships, and giving them a battleship tank or interceptor speed or battlecruiser DPS would be bad. But there has to be other reasons to use other ships besides being shut out of hauling certain things through restricted cargoholds. |
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
852
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 20:59:00 -
[397] - Quote
Ok it cool now, it done.
Now start working on the important T2 ship rebalance. The Tears Must Flow |
Sol Trader
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 21:06:00 -
[398] - Quote
Keep in mind that the ships with bays have free low slots. The bay size needs to be toned down or the lows reduced to make them better but not outrageous. |
Zorya Antaram Porphyrogena
Medical Leeches First Come First Served
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 21:09:00 -
[399] - Quote
Any chance that it would be possible to stash contracted goods into special bays as long as the packages contain only ore, PI or ammo? |
Endeavour Starfleet
897
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 21:15:00 -
[400] - Quote
Sol Trader wrote:Keep in mind that the ships with bays have free low slots. The bay size needs to be toned down or the lows reduced to make them better but not outrageous.
No
They are specialized haulers and are not unbalanced. The bay is for hauling specialized items and can't be affected by mods. That balances them out with the limited tank. |
|
Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
509
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 21:33:00 -
[401] - Quote
Wait, so the special bays are a fixed size? Which mean you can fit a huge amount of specific items, and then fit a tank, warp core stabilizers, nanofibers and stuff in the lows. And no need for cargo rigs either.
Wow, that makes the specialized hauler flat out better than everything else, so long as you are either hauling ore, minerals or planet stuff.
That makes Gallente flat out overpowered with biggest cargo and room in mids, lows and rigs for stuff to make it more survivable. The 'balance' is restricted cargo holds, but Gallente get 3 ships with the 3 most common materials to transport in bulk.
No wonder everyone is loving this idea. Train just 1 level of Gallente Industrial, and you get 3 ships that can haul more ore/minerals/PI than anything else with low slots full of warp core stabilizers and agility mods. |
Cerlestes
Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance
77
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 21:41:00 -
[402] - Quote
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote: That makes Gallente flat out overpowered with biggest cargo and room in mids, lows and rigs for stuff to make it more survivable. The 'balance' is restricted cargo holds, but Gallente get 3 ships with the 3 most common materials to transport in bulk.
Gallente has always been overpowered in terms of hauling. They're just a race that likes hauling vOv |
Endeavour Starfleet
897
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 21:45:00 -
[403] - Quote
You only think its overpowered because you are think of these ships like they are normal haulers instead of specialized ships meant for ONE task. You simply don't understand how they are balanced in my opinion.
Yeah it means noobs have a far better chance now of getting into nullsec and actually being able to do something without training into ships that are not meant for the jobs they end up doing like freighters. And you don't like that do you?
Only a few whiners who in my opinion never had to spend hours hauling back a hauler spawn. Never had to use a crap ship to do PI. Always had a corp or alliance freighter or orca on call to haul back cans of ore. Those are the whiners who simply do not get that these are SPECIALIZED ships and that the other haulers are for DIFFERENT benefits. Tho in my opinion it's more that some of the advantage of being a large alliance that has very detailed logistics is geting dialed back now that newer players have a far better chance to be relevant.
Get over yourselves. |
Adunh Slavy
1055
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 21:46:00 -
[404] - Quote
So, how long till someone stuffs their mineral hauler full? One hold of pyer is in the tornado price range. |
Endeavour Starfleet
897
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 21:51:00 -
[405] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:So, how long till someone stuffs their mineral hauler full? One hold of pyer is in the tornado price range.
If a person is silly enough to actually do that in hisec. They are going to learn real fast why that is a bad idea.
BTW in B4 "NERF TORNADO NAO!" |
Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
509
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 22:15:00 -
[406] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote: Only a few whiners who in my opinion never had to spend hours hauling back a hauler spawn. Never had to use a crap ship to do PI.
Been there, done that. Hauler spawns, 5 PI characters, manufacturing. I'm a space trucking nerd living full time in nullsec.
I was hoping the Industrial rebalance would do more to add variety in terms of bigger cargo space and more survivability. Maybe some other abilities so that they get used for more than just 'warp to 0'.
This isn't balance. It is a massive buff to people who want to haul those specific items, and it is all in Gallente Industrial. Everyone else is just more of the same small/fast and big/slow. |
Nullshadow
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 22:28:00 -
[407] - Quote
I will be grinning from ear to ear if we finally get the "missing" hauler hulls filled in for Caldari and Amarr in a year or two and they turn out to be the specialized POS fuel/moon goo/isotope/ship hauling hulls everyone is asking for... and everyone starts complaining about how terrible that is and how you have to crosstrain into those or you'll be useless, etc.
I don't expect it, but with this precedent set it starts looking possible. |
Zaxix
Long Jump.
144
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 22:33:00 -
[408] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote:Honestly I want a special amarr hauler that can hold 1,000,000 m3 of livestock.
Because slaves are big at 5 m3 each, and I need space to move all my exotic dancers in one shot. I second this. I will become a very rich man if there is a specialized slave moving hauler. Seriously. You Curse residents know what I'm talking about. ***Prodigal Frog***
|
Utremi Fasolasi
The Jagged Edge Rebel Alliance of New Eden
263
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 22:39:00 -
[409] - Quote
Ellahan Vhektor wrote:if gall an min get "special ships " so should amarr and caldari anything else would be unbalanced and as far as i can remember this was about ship balancing and this would be an unbalancing i really wanted a badger mark 3,4 and 5 too anything else would be unfair plus a badger mk5 would be awesome
Having some reasons to cross train occasionally is a good thing. |
Eladaris
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
337
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 22:59:00 -
[410] - Quote
Zifrian wrote:On thing I was wondering though, wouldn't it be a better idea to move the itty 2,3,4 and hoarder to ORE? People would still have to train another skill, but now they seem to have unique roles. Ore could buy/steal the plans to the ships. But it's just a thought for storyline.
Technically everyone already has Gal. Indy trained... no? Post the Itty V skill req. removal I can't imagine many people who don't have it trained. And if they moved it to Ore, you'd have a WHOLE RAFT of people who'd magically get new SP. Maybe that's why people have been screaming for it? Except, CCP would probably have to announce the swap half a year in advance (they did that for Destroyers / BC's) and we'd be stuck twiddling our thumbs until then.
I'm fine with this solution. It's tidier. I would like to see new T2 variants though. POS Module bays, POS Fuel bays, etc. The current T1 indy's carry standard newbie stuff, but a hauler for a the space rich to haul more advanced stuff would be keen.
Elder Ozzian wrote:How about fuel ? What ship I am supposed to use for hauling... 1. Jump fuel, 2. Pos fuel, 3. Siege/Triage/Industrial Core fuel?
Yup, 'dat.
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.
Funny notion, you can train all four races to IV, in about the same time you train Gal. to V... and reap ALL the benefits of all the races. It's not like everyone trains one Indy to V and leaves the others completely untrained.
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:That makes Gallente flat out overpowered with biggest cargo and room in mids, lows and rigs for stuff to make it more survivable. The 'balance' is restricted cargo holds, but Gallente get 3 ships with the 3 most common materials to transport in bulk.
No wonder everyone is loving this idea. Train just 1 level of Gallente Industrial, and you get 3 ships that can haul more ore/minerals/PI than anything else with low slots full of warp core stabilizers and agility mods.
Train it to IV, and when you need to haul your specific thing you can break out that specific ship and haul that specific thing. Most pilots can do that in 3-4 days without having to break the bank on an Indy V skill. It gives folks a reason to cross-train. Anyone looking for a max hauler isn't going to train Gal. to V, they'll train whatever race offers what they need, and then train Gal. Indy to IV and buy whichever of the specialized bays offer what they need.
|
|
Endeavour Starfleet
898
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 23:12:00 -
[411] - Quote
Nullshadow wrote:I will be grinning from ear to ear if we finally get the "missing" hauler hulls filled in for Caldari and Amarr in a year or two and they turn out to be the specialized POS fuel/moon goo/isotope/ship hauling hulls everyone is asking for... and everyone starts complaining about how terrible that is and how you have to crosstrain into those or you'll be useless, etc.
I don't expect it, but with this precedent set it starts looking possible.
Personally I hope that they make a Tech 2 rebalance that combines POS and Capital ship tending into one hold with a very good sized bay. I am not quite sure if doing it with T1 is the best idea in the world but hopefully CCP can share their thoughts on that later on.
But yes crosstraining. I love how people that are likely on ship and combat training attributes with implants are complaining about having to training into what Gal III? The change to 10 percent harms newer players so thats why I am personally against that change. Yet people complaining about having to do a TINY amount of crosstraining is beyond silly. A little time lost on their current training plan is nothing to time lost for a noob with his first Venture.
Now I suspect that in the far future these hull will be moved to ORE. And that ORE will have a full lineup of HIGHLY specialized one task ships for the game. But that is well after many things that need to be fixed and rebalanced first and for now. These new ships will solve quite a few issues that keeps newer players and corps out of nullsec.
|
Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
509
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 23:18:00 -
[412] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote: These new ships will solve quite a few issues that keeps newer players and corps out of nullsec.
It does nothing really noteworthy for people in nullsec. These ships will still die 10 seconds after landing in a bubble. |
Tiber Ibis
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
63
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 23:25:00 -
[413] - Quote
Abus Finkel wrote: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. For a new player they can spend around 23d 16h to get Gallente Industrial V and get 37152m3 general purpose cargo 64500m3 minerals 67500m3 PI 63000m3 Ore Or they can spend the same time getting for example Amarr Industrial V and get 2049m3 more general purpose cargo 25299m3 less minerals 28299m3 less PI 23799m3 less Ore Choosing anything other than Gallente seems like a waste of time to me. This is why they will need to release new racial industrials to transport various materials sometime in the future. |
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
56
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 23:27:00 -
[414] - Quote
Eladaris wrote:Funny notion, you can train all four races to IV, in about the same time you train Gal. to V... and reap ALL the benefits of all the races. What benefits from the other races? Gallente is the only winner here.
Eladaris wrote:It's not like everyone trains one Indy to V and leaves the others completely untrained. This is exactly what people do, why would anyone want to be able to fly more than one race's industrial when they're all supposed to do the same thing? |
Eladaris
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
337
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 23:28:00 -
[415] - Quote
Tiber Ibis wrote:Abus Finkel wrote:Choosing anything other than Gallente seems like a waste of time to me. This is why they will need to release new racial industrials to transport various materials sometime in the future. If you really want more homogenization, please read the first thread with 30+ pages of people screaming about not wanting homogenization.
I hope they release T2 hauler's with specialized bays for special products (Fuel, POS modules, etc), but I hope they take their sweet time doing it, because those ships have hefty entry requirements and they would be contingent upon properly balanced and useful DST's. |
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
56
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 23:30:00 -
[416] - Quote
Tiber Ibis wrote:This is why they will need to release new racial industrials to transport various materials sometime in the future. That's the problem. With this "re-balance" move they are effectively creating a larger imbalance than what we have now, and rather than make a simple fix to improve the imbalance, they are creating a pretty big gap between the races that will require huge efforts from the design and art group to create 8 new ships to fill.
They should have stuck with their simple fix and moved on to bigger and better projects, like HACs and Command Ships. |
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
56
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 23:35:00 -
[417] - Quote
Eladaris wrote:If you really want more homogenization, please read the first thread with 30+ pages of people screaming about not wanting homogenization.. The first thread went 42 pages in 7 days before Rise announced he would redo the whole thing. This thread is at 21 pages in 1 day; if the number of pages of people calling foul is any indication of how good a rebalance is then we should just go back to the first idea.
edit; add to that the fact that a good chunk of the posts in the other thread were complaining about the mammoth model not sticking around as top minmatar hauler, which we don't have here. |
Eladaris
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
337
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 23:39:00 -
[418] - Quote
Edward Pierce wrote:Eladaris wrote:Funny notion, you can train all four races to IV, in about the same time you train Gal. to V... and reap ALL the benefits of all the races. What benefits from the other races? Gallente is the only winner here. Eladaris wrote:It's not like everyone trains one Indy to V and leaves the others completely untrained. This is exactly what people do, why would anyone want to be able to fly more than one race's industrial when they're all supposed to do the same thing? We don't have homogenization in any other class of ship in Eve. Why should we have it in haulers? I personally trained one race's indy to V (Minnie) for their BR. I wanted a faster aligning freighter, because who needs all that cargo space if it takes forever to get there. The cargo bays were adequate, and the ships were fast.
I trained everything else to 3, because hell, what's two days to unlock a ton of other ship options. Now that I can fly everything with a I in the skill, you could just do that. Maybe someday you'll find a Itty V full of stuff somewhere in space, and want to 'borrow' it. Being able to actually hop in the pilot's seat sort of makes sense. Heck, some pilots have probably unlocked the Orca on the rare chance they find a solo miner dual-shipping an Orca / Hulk back in the day.
In lots of cases it's as cut and dried as "This ship hauls the most, so it wins". In that case it's another Amarr Victory. In some cases it's a whole fleet of ships to carry some things better, so it's another Gall. win, but they've always been the top haulers. And some people have quirky weird needs, like the ability to fit a launcher and a cloak on their BR. |
Tiber Ibis
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
63
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 23:49:00 -
[419] - Quote
I like the changes but Gallente seem a little too good. I like the direction you went with Caldari having the best base stats, and the amarr being the kings of potential capacity. I think Caldari should at least match Gallente though in terms of the max potential capacity. And then Minmatar are a little lacking with the lowest capacity, and also an ammo/charge bay.
I don't know if this is because I haven't thought this through thoroughly, and their may be some awesome way to get great mineral capacity by manufacturing ammo and then refining it at destination. But then it seems if there was that slight meta edge you just nerfed it anyway by making the ship much larger than the others to transport. Why not give the minmatar a module bay, or something a little more useful.
(EDIT) Better yet, why not make all the gallente industrials specialised in some way. They would be the best in their area at transporting the largest amount, although the price you pay is a MUCH smaller standard bay. I really like the direction you are going here Rise, but I think it just needs another look at to get the balance right. |
Ellahan Vhektor
DIVERGENT PROXY
9
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 00:01:00 -
[420] - Quote
dont care just give me a bager mk5 plz GòöGòùGòæGòæ GòöGòùGòæGòæGòª Gòª-áGòªGòªGòöGòù GòöGòù GòªGòöGòùGòöGòùGòöGòù GòæGòæGòáGòú GòÜGòùGòáGòúGòæ Gòæ-áGòæGòæGòÜGòù GòáGòú GòæGòáGòúGòáGòúGòáGò¥ GòÜGò¥GòæGòæ GòÜGò¥GòæGòæGò¬ Gòæ-áGò¬GòæGòÜGò¥ GòæGòæ GòæGòæGòÜGòæGòæGòæ
|
|
Ellahan Vhektor
DIVERGENT PROXY
9
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 00:04:00 -
[421] - Quote
maybe caldari and amarr should get bigger bays to make up for the fact that they dont have special bays i don't get the point of the special bays any way you can still put ore/ice in a normal bay unless they were much larger than normal bays ofc GòöGòùGòæGòæ GòöGòùGòæGòæGòª Gòª-áGòªGòªGòöGòù GòöGòù GòªGòöGòùGòöGòùGòöGòù GòæGòæGòáGòú GòÜGòùGòáGòúGòæ Gòæ-áGòæGòæGòÜGòù GòáGòú GòæGòáGòúGòáGòúGòáGò¥ GòÜGò¥GòæGòæ GòÜGò¥GòæGòæGò¬ Gòæ-áGò¬GòæGòÜGò¥ GòæGòæ GòæGòæGòÜGòæGòæGòæ
|
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
56
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 00:07:00 -
[422] - Quote
Eladaris wrote:We don't have homogenization in any other class of ship in Eve. Why should we have it in haulers? I personally trained one race's indy to V (Minnie) for their BR. I wanted a faster aligning freighter, because who needs all that cargo space if it takes forever to get there. The cargo bays were adequate, and the ships were fast.
CCP Rise wrote:For people focused on homoginization: The problem here is that we don't have a complex purpose that we are lazily fulfilling by having every ship do it the same way, what we have is a very simple purpose and far too many ships meant to fulfill it. I think the division between the 2 roles outlined here is functional, and adds a bit of depth to a relatively straight forward job, but what many of you are asking for is basically new jobs. As some have mentioned above, adding entirely new purposes to t1 industrials, or subdividing the current one adds a lot of complexity and doesn't even approach the issue of balance within the class we already have and use.
We talked about specialized bays and other unique purposes, but ultimately decided that, for now, it was important to make sure that pilots from races other than Gallente weren't compelled to cross train for an Iteron 5, and also that there was at least one reasonable alternative within your race depending on what purpose you had in mind. We want to improve on industry in general, but that is a much bigger proposition and I don't think t1 industrials is the right starting point. That's why this class needs homogenization.
I have hauling PI commodities on my Caldari character in mind Rise, what's my reasonable alternative post-rebalance? You sent me from having to cross-train for the Iteron V to having to cross-train to the Iteron III, and this has taken you how long?
Eladaris wrote:I trained everything else to 3, because hell, what's two days to unlock a ton of other ship options. Now that I can fly everything with a I in the skill, you could just do that. Maybe someday you'll find a Itty V full of stuff somewhere in space, and want to 'borrow' it. Being able to actually hop in the pilot's seat sort of makes sense. Heck, some pilots have probably unlocked the Orca on the rare chance they find a solo miner dual-shipping an Orca / Hulk back in the day. If by a 'ton of other ships' you mean 2 for Caldari, 2 for Amarr or 3 for Minmatar, you should check out frigates and cruisers, those open up a 'gazillion' options!!!
If you're seriously saying people should cross train into flying other racial ships for the off chance that they find an unpiloted ship some time, then you should really re-evaluate your training plans...
Eladaris wrote:In lots of cases it's as cut and dried as "This ship hauls the most, so it wins". In that case it's another Amarr Victory. In some cases it's a whole fleet of ships to carry some things better, so it's another Gall. win, but they've always been the top haulers. And some people have quirky weird needs, like the ability to fit a launcher and a cloak on their BR. The problem here is that the "rebalancing" effort for Industrials is actually leaving them even more unbalanced than they are now. Yes it's another Gallente victory, after a rebalancing effort that has been in discussion for more than a week (original thread started on the 19th) we are back in a position where there is only 1 race that is coming out the clear winner. |
Haifisch Zahne
Hraka Manufacture GmbH
202
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 00:08:00 -
[423] - Quote
Clearly, there is no point writing anything.
CCP Rise wrote:Looking forward to your feedback, but please don't expect version 3, I have to get on with my life at some point
CCP Rise wrote:First page all positive, I'm outta here Cool |
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
56
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 00:16:00 -
[424] - Quote
Ellahan Vhektor wrote:maybe caldari and amarr should get bigger bays to make up for the fact that they dont have special bays i don't get the point of the special bays any way you can still put ore/ice in a normal bay unless they were much larger than normal bays ofc Are you even reading this thread?
At industrial level 5 the Iteron M. IV can haul 63,000 in Ice, Ore and Gas, without sacrificing any lows; this means they can go around with 4 warp core stabs and align speed rigs.
At industrial level 5 the Badger M. II using all lows and rig slots for cargo expanding can carry 36,674.
That's a 71.7% hauling capacity advantage and the ship still has all its fitting slots available for other stuff. |
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
56
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 00:18:00 -
[425] - Quote
If you really want to add some racial variety, remove the Iteron M. V so that Gallente don't have a general hauler option.
All the pro-variety people should be cool with that right? Since cross-training is no big deal. |
Omnathious Deninard
The Scope Gallente Federation
1216
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 00:33:00 -
[426] - Quote
Edward Pierce wrote:If you really want to add some racial variety, remove the Iteron M. V so that Gallente don't have a general hauler option.
All the pro-variety people should be cool with that right? Since cross-training is no big deal. No ships left behind, but to change the iteron mark v to another specialized hauler, that would be ok with me. Then we could get that pos fuel hauler people have been asking for. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Eladaris
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
337
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 00:43:00 -
[427] - Quote
Edward Pierce wrote:Ellahan Vhektor wrote:maybe caldari and amarr should get bigger bays to make up for the fact that they dont have special bays i don't get the point of the special bays any way you can still put ore/ice in a normal bay unless they were much larger than normal bays ofc Are you even reading this thread? At industrial level 5 the Iteron M. IV can haul 63,000 in Ice, Ore and Gas, without sacrificing any lows; this means they can go around with 4 warp core stabs and align speed rigs. At industrial level 5 the Badger M. II using all lows and rig slots for cargo expanding can carry 36,674. That's a 71.7% hauling capacity advantage and the ship still has all its fitting slots available for other stuff.
At Indy V the Badger can rig and fit for max. cargo capacity and carry 36k m3 of anything. That same pilot can then spend 19 minutes training time, two million ISK, and fly a Itty IV and carry 43k of Ice / Ore / Gas without sacrificing anything. For less than an additional day of training time he can fly that same Itty IV with something akin to ~51k (napkin math, probably wrong) of Ice / Ore / Gas.
Really... doesn't seem that bad to me? Sorry, I don't see an issue with spending less than a day to fly a certain ship. The nooblets will probably be guided into Gal Indy's, but they've been doing that for years now. |
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
56
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 00:50:00 -
[428] - Quote
Eladaris wrote:At Indy V the Badger can rig and fit for max. cargo capacity and carry 36k m3 of anything. That same pilot can then spend 19 minutes training time, two million ISK, and fly a Itty IV and carry 43k of Ice / Ore / Gas without sacrificing anything. For less than an additional day of training time he can fly that same Itty IV with something akin to ~51k (napkin math, probably wrong) of Ice / Ore / Gas. Or that same pilot can train Gallente indy to V instead of Caldari Indy to V, buy an Iteron M. V and carry 37,152 m3 of anything (yes that's more than the Badger M.II) on top of which they can also carry 63k m3 of ore in an Iteron M. IV without training a single extra day. That Caldari character just spent about 24 hours training and achieved nothing over what the Gallente character has.
Eladaris wrote:Really... doesn't seem that bad to me? Sorry, I don't see an issue with spending less than a day to fly a certain ship. The nooblets will probably be guided into Gal Indy's, but they've been doing that for years now. Really doesn't seem bad? It doesn't bother you that after a rebalancing effort whose sole purpose is to make sure no one race is superior to the others we are coming out with one race being superior to the others? |
Ehcks Argentus
EVE University Ivy League
8
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 00:50:00 -
[429] - Quote
Edward Pierce wrote:Tiber Ibis wrote:This is why they will need to release new racial industrials to transport various materials sometime in the future. That's the problem. With this "re-balance" move they are effectively creating a larger imbalance than what we have now, and rather than make a simple fix to improve the imbalance, they are creating a pretty big gap between the races that will require huge efforts from the design and art group to create 8 new ships to fill. They should have stuck with their simple fix and moved on to bigger and better projects, like HACs and Command Ships.
The old imbalance was that Gallente had the best industrial ship. No plural. If you cared about hauling at all you trained Gallente Industrial V for the Iteron V. And nothing else. It was the best industrial in every way.
Now there are five largest cargoholds depending on what you carry. Gallente have three of them, but they only require Industrial I now. And then there are multiple other "bests" if you don't care about maximum cargo hold. |
Oraac Ensor
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
254
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 00:55:00 -
[430] - Quote
LtCol Laurentius wrote:This is a much better version of the changes than the original proposal. One thing i dont get is that you avoid giving a ship a ship maintenance array usable for moving rigged ships (a relocation ship) because "it have broken the boundaries of Tech 1 specialization" Well, all ships currently equipped with ship maintenance arrays are Tech 1 mate And to use the hoarder as a relocation ship with - say - the capability to move up to a rigged battlecruiser would be infinitly more worth it to the players than a ammo ship. Just my 2 cents anyway. To do that they would need a new hull model for the Hoarder. The present one is a collection of individual boxes bolted onto an open frame. How could that arrangement hold a battle cruiser?
I know that we can't be too pedantic about such things but that would stretch credulity a bit too far for me. Frigates - yes, destroyers - maybe, battle cruisers - no.
I just wish the Hoarder could be the PI hauler 'cos I'm going to end up with a PI alt with a useless cargo-rigged ammo ship. |
|
Bjurn Akely
Knights of Nii The 20 Minuters
14
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 00:56:00 -
[431] - Quote
Sure, why the hell not.
Personally I'm not overly bothered by the changes even though I trained Gallente to be able to haul the most with an Iteron V. Id much rather have some distinguishing flair and difference between the different models. Basically that means one can pick and choose for the task at hand.
|
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
56
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 01:01:00 -
[432] - Quote
Ehcks Argentus wrote:The old imbalance was that Gallente had the best industrial ship. No plural. If you cared about hauling at all you trained Gallente Industrial V for the Iteron V. And nothing else. It was the best industrial in every way. So before everyone had to train Gallente Industrial V for the only good industrial, now everyone needs to train Gallente Industrial V because they have an the Iteron M. V that equals the best of every other race and they get another 3 specialized ships that have no equivalent in the other races.
Ehcks Argentus wrote:Now there are five largest cargoholds depending on what you carry. Gallente have three of them, but they only require Industrial I now. And then there are multiple other "bests" if you don't care about maximum cargo hold. There are 4 specialized cargo holds and a regular cargo hold, Gallente has the 3 useful specialized holds and the second best general hold.
As for the new ships only requiring Industrial I now, you do realize they get double the benefit to capacity than the regular industrials do right? And the only way to improve capacity of specialty holds is through the skill since no modules increase them?
Rise just spent a week revisiting his original proposal to come up with a "solution" where Gallente are the only industrial skill worth training. How can you people not see the problem here? |
Endeavour Starfleet
899
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 01:20:00 -
[433] - Quote
So more goons and large alliances come out of the woodwork against the specialized haulers. Prime example of how large alliances in this game try to derail good ideas that would benefit newer players at the slight expense of their freighters orcas and rorqs not being perfect lords of the belts in my opinion.
For those of you that are confused by their BS. They keep trying to compare them to the other haulers that have DIFFERENT Benefits. and a DIFFERENT task.
These specialized ships are meant for single tasks. They get a good bay for it because it is a single task with a small range of products. What they are whining about is that they are realizing that newer players can now haul the ore themselves and that is going to help newer players and corps sustain themselves in lowsec and nullsec.
The complaints about making these ships mostly gal are not based on any reason. Only newer players will actually see any slowdown from having to train the skill to maybe III (Which is why I hope they reverse today's changes and go back to higher base and 5 percent per level) Everyone else in the game will not be remotely slowed down training that if they have not already trained Gal Industry to V anyway.
|
Eladaris
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
337
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 01:22:00 -
[434] - Quote
Edward Pierce wrote:Eladaris wrote:Really... doesn't seem that bad to me? Sorry, I don't see an issue with spending less than a day to fly a certain ship. The nooblets will probably be guided into Gal Indy's, but they've been doing that for years now. Really doesn't seem bad? It doesn't bother you that after a rebalancing effort whose sole purpose is to make sure no one race is superior to the others we are coming out with one race being superior to the others?
Yup, it doesn't seem that bad. Wasn't the goal of rebalancing to provide options? So it wasn't always that one ship? After rebalancing, isn't it always that one ship that isn't the one before? The crown moves, but there's ALWAYS a crown... Ironically there's always a top ship. In many cases the new top ship isn't the old top ship, and that seems to be the case here as well. What's the problem? The min/maxers always find the optimal ship, and that wears the crown. After this change the Bestower, previously it was the Itty V. And that Amarr Indy V pilot is going to have some Gal. Indy skills, because he previously trained Gal. Indy to V.
Gal was always the king of the haulers... but I never trained any alt with sufficient skills to unlock the Itty V, because there are more important things than max cargo size. All PI alts will train Gal. Indy to somewhere between II and IV, depending on how much training time they spend on haulers.
Today we have a valid reason to train more than one race's indy, and that seems like a perfectly viable result of re-balancing to me. |
Endeavour Starfleet
899
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 01:25:00 -
[435] - Quote
Edward Pierce wrote:Rise just spent a week revisiting his original proposal to come up with a "solution" where Gallente are the only industrial skill worth training. How can you people not see the problem here?
The only "problem" I see here is goons and other alliances again trying to derail a change that finally gives newer players something against the dominance of Freighters, Orcas and Rorq.
Now MUCH LATER on and assuming POS and other aspects of the game are fixed. THEN is the time to move these ships into the ORE line and give them awesome visuals. But that is an art and gameplay reason to encourage newer players to train towards a noctis which will help keep them useful in nullsec. Not because large alliances are fearing that smaller operations will get a boost thanks to this good change to the Inty 2-4 |
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
56
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 01:40:00 -
[436] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:So more goons and large alliances come out of the woodwork against the specialized haulers. Prime example of how large alliances in this game try to derail good ideas that would benefit newer players at the slight expense of their freighters orcas and rorqs not being perfect lords of the belts in my opinion. This is true, Rise is breaking our mining empire by giving newbies the tools to haul the ore themselves.
Curse you Endeavour Starfleet! |
Arrendis
Hephaestus LLC Fatal Ascension
17
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 01:56:00 -
[437] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Edward Pierce wrote:Rise just spent a week revisiting his original proposal to come up with a "solution" where Gallente are the only industrial skill worth training. How can you people not see the problem here? The only "problem" I see here is goons and other alliances again trying to derail a change that finally gives newer players something against the dominance of Freighters, Orcas and Rorq.
Well, as a member of a not-insignificant-sized alliance that fights alongside goons, lemme say that you're seeing conspiracy where none exists. If you really think Goon posters are expressing themselves here because they want to keep the little guy down, you're nuts. If anything, goons likely want to see the little guy flying specialized haulers like this. Specialized haulers full of specialized hauler cargo that won't be in a GSC when the CFC's roaming gangs swing through and kill them.
If you're flying smart, they/we won't kill you - you'll be docked up or cloaked as soon as you see people coming into system, regardless of what you're flying.
So what you're seeing here? It's individuals expressing their personal opinion. I can see a lot of new players focusing on Gallente Industrials - the Bestower's hold isn't that much bigger, after all. But I can also see others saying 'I don't need to worry about the new stuff, I want to do market trading and move things other than just ore/minerals/PI, so I'm training Amarr'.
Me, I already fly multiple races of T2 hauler. I'm looking forward to these changes. One of the things I see happening is the Hoarder being given a Large Shield Extender II, DCU, 2 PDS, and then invulns and a cloak, and being used as off-grid ammo truck for DBRB's structure grinds. It doesn't need to warp cloaked - it can just travel with the fleet and set up on at a safe.
'Hey, guys, we've got enough ammo with us tonight, we can shoot EVERY STRUCTURE IN NULL!'
It'll also make C3-4 W-space sieges a lot more viable, too, for exactly the same reason. If you're willing to stay in-system, you can leave your battleships in the target system and not worry about running out of ammo/cap boosters/paste a lot longer.
That's where I see the new Hoarder shining: fleet logistics (as opposed to being a Logistics ship). |
Vayn Baxtor
Community for Justice
57
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 02:04:00 -
[438] - Quote
I wouldn't mind seeing more Mark-x/cloned hulls for other factions. But clearly, different hulls as well as names would be cool.
I won't toss in all my thoughts just yet about the debate as I have to digest these recent desired changes. They're good and it is going the right way - and I don't give a frakking yotz about what other big allies have to say about it.
But here's something that could be of interest maybe:
We had a "draw a combat ship etc" contest... How about a "Draw/submit Industrial vessel designs" contest for a change, for the respective races or other factions?
We could see some diversity and EVE'lings like to help out on artsy stuff. Should help so we wouldn't have to see Mammoth Mk IV, though I don't have any problem with such. Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all. |
Endeavour Starfleet
899
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 02:09:00 -
[439] - Quote
Edward Pierce wrote:Endeavour Starfleet wrote:So more goons and large alliances come out of the woodwork against the specialized haulers. Prime example of how large alliances in this game try to derail good ideas that would benefit newer players at the slight expense of their freighters orcas and rorqs not being perfect lords of the belts in my opinion. This is true, Rise is breaking our mining empire by giving newbies the tools to haul the ore themselves. Curse you Endeavour Starfleet!
They are tools. Single task tools that do not work the same as the other haulers. For PI I take out the ship. Do the PI and grab another ship for a different task. I get a hauler spawn I grab the II version and not spend all night hauling back to station because I don't have a massive pimped out spacerich ship with max skills. Notice a trend? A newer player has to have a number of ships. But he or she now has the tools to do what they need to do. And they are doing the job with tools that are specifically designed for such.
No this wont break any alliances mining efforts at all. Its also not likely to seriously dent mineral prices. Ventures are awesome but not that awesome. What it will do is help smaller groups get established in the game. Help other alliances without strict recruitment polices get an advantage over those who do. And those alliances will have newer members that can actually do something besides fly a venture and tackle. And I say help. It wont solve all the issues that gives unbalanced advantages to large spacerich alliances. But it will help. |
Endeavour Starfleet
899
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 02:18:00 -
[440] - Quote
Vayn Baxtor wrote:I wouldn't mind seeing more Mark-x/cloned hulls for other factions. But clearly, different hulls as well as names would be cool.
I won't toss in all my thoughts just yet about the debate as I have to digest these recent desired changes. They're good and it is going the right way - and I don't give a frakking yotz about what other big allies have to say about it.
But here's something that could be of interest maybe:
We had a "draw a combat ship etc" contest... How about a "Draw/submit Industrial vessel designs" contest for a change, for the respective races or other factions?
We could see some diversity and EVE'lings like to help out on artsy stuff. Should help so we wouldn't have to see Mammoth Mk IV, though I don't have any problem with such.
When the time comes that these ships get moved to the ORE lineup. (A LOT of changes in EVE need to happen first) I would love to see a contest like that. The Tier 3 battlecruisers look amazing and they likely would have looked even better as the battleships there were drawn as.
These are ships future EVE players will get into quickly. A WOW factor to how they look would help keep them in the game. Like how awesome the noctis looks. |
|
Van Kuzco
Stryker Industries Ocularis Inferno
68
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 02:23:00 -
[441] - Quote
I love the changes and specialized haulers but I think they should have a max of 2 low slots. |
Endeavour Starfleet
899
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 02:54:00 -
[442] - Quote
Van Kuzco wrote:I love the changes and specialized haulers but I think they should have a max of 2 low slots.
No. That would gimp them for no valid reason. They are balanced by the fact that they are specialized and cant be used like the other types of haulers which have their own aspects and use. |
Arrendis
Hephaestus LLC Fatal Ascension
17
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 04:16:00 -
[443] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Van Kuzco wrote:I love the changes and specialized haulers but I think they should have a max of 2 low slots. No. That would gimp them for no valid reason. They are balanced by the fact that they are specialized and cant be used like the other types of haulers which have their own aspects and use.
Well, if they drop to 2 lows, if the resists remain as they are, the Hoarder's use as a fleet tender wouldn't be compromised at all. It'll have about the same EH shield tanked as a scimitar (a little less, but not much). I suspect the other specialist hulls will look much the same.
Armor-tanked, it's a different story, but then, they're already looking like they'd be about as durable as kleenexGäó when armor-tanked. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
328
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 04:21:00 -
[444] - Quote
Edward Pierce wrote:I have hauling PI commodities on my Caldari character in mind Rise, what's my reasonable alternative post-rebalance? You sent me from having to cross-train for the Iteron V to having to cross-train to the Iteron III, and this has taken you how long? I don't know. If I were Rise, I'd probably ask you what you use now to pick up your PI goods, then I'd remind you that the proposed Badger Mk. II carries 36,674 m3 compared to your Badger Mk. II on TQ, clocking in at a MAX (with T2 rigs) at 21,586 m3--a whopping 42% more.
Then I'd suggest that you could use the new Badger, since its now going to haul THE MOST of the fast and tanky haulers, coming at 19,593 m3, itself a 33% improvement and within ~10% of the LARGEST Caldari Industrial currently available on TQ.
Then I'd ask that if your PI haul is *so* much more than even those two figures, I'd ask why you haven't ALREADY trained Gallente Industrial V, since you apparently need the roughly ~13% more space a max (T2 rigged) Iteron V can deliver on TQ, which completely invalidates your crying about "having" to train Gallente in order to possibly do anything with PI post-changes.
Seriously, your arguments are so bad and your tears are so great. Stop trying to sell homogenization because you are cross that the Badger Mk. II will hold ~42% more than it does now or the Badger will nearly match the Mark II on live currently and will have a strong tank, align and warp speed to boot.
|
Arrendis
Hephaestus LLC Fatal Ascension
17
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 04:31:00 -
[445] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote: Seriously, your arguments are so bad and your tears are so great. Stop trying to sell homogenization because you are cross that the Badger Mk. II will hold ~42% more than it does now or the Badger will nearly match the Mark II on live currently and will have a strong tank, align and warp speed to boot.
I tend to think you're missing his point. To me, it seems like what Pierce is saying is: 'Hey, if this is supposed to fix the 'everyone just trains Gallente Industrials cuz duh, Itty V' tendency, it won't. Your average Joe Hauler, who's just schlepping around hi-sec being a Bad, is still going to say 'hey, I haul Ore, I should train Gallente'. And when he trains up the refining skill, he'll say 'Now I haul minerals, I guess I should train... oh, Gallente, cool.' And if he gets into PI, he'll say 'Damn, these loads of Toxic Metals are huge, I should train... huh. Gallente.''
And the trade-off for just training Gallente is... you don't have access to the ammo hauler, and your big general-purpose hauler is like 2k smaller than the biggest one. Really, not enough to worry about.
He's not upset that he's losing anything - for the love of Mittens, he's already said he can fly anything he needs to fly. What he's saying is:
'Hey, you have said part of your reasoning is to fix Problem X. This will not fix Problem X. Be aware of that.'
And he's right. It won't fix the 'everyone just trains Gallente' problem. Not by itself. Personally, I tend to think that it sets the stage for later work that will. |
Endeavour Starfleet
899
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 04:48:00 -
[446] - Quote
Except that now you wont have to train up Gal V to be useful in these specialized roles. Most will have III good enough. Leaving plenty of training time going towards the other races for their different aspects.
Far FAR better than today where its. "Train Gal V and little else" |
Arrendis
Hephaestus LLC Fatal Ascension
17
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 05:06:00 -
[447] - Quote
Sure. Or time for training things other than hauling - like industry and refining, or PI skills. Or even Accounting and Broker Relations. After all, what makes those other racial Industrial piloting skills more 'must-have' than the skills that directly impact your bottom line? |
Vayn Baxtor
Community for Justice
57
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 05:06:00 -
[448] - Quote
Quote:When the time comes that these ships get moved to the ORE lineup. (A LOT of changes in EVE need to happen first) I would love to see a contest like that. The Tier 3 battlecruisers look amazing and they likely would have looked even better as the battleships there were drawn as.
These are ships future EVE players will get into quickly. A WOW factor to how they look would help keep them in the game. Like how awesome the noctis looks.
Yeah, I like that idea with ORE concept taking over all the industrial matters or whatnots. I do not like however that the Orca has too many "too awesome" features, making it way too good for anything. *dreams on to see the industrial ship hulls for combat :>
Nevertheless, these mentioned changes are awesome.
Now that you reminded me, I'm not sure if I'm the only one but I really wanted to see the Noctis hull be the specialized PI-vesel as it really has the aestethics(spelling) for that task.
It is unfortunate of course that Gallente would more likely become the "thang" to skill as those ships would have the distinct attributes. But I find though that "it can't THAT bad to skill it". I just think that the others just need to have some more emphasis on their traits and other nifty things. Drones on Iteron sounds cool, somewhat what I've been hoping for a long while.
I just find it should not be gimmicks. There should be a nifty "all in" sort of implementation for each vessel, if possible. Not easy to suggest or explain unique things as there are constrains in gameplay and balance though. Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all. |
Endeavour Starfleet
899
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 05:22:00 -
[449] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:Sure. Or time for training things other than hauling - like industry and refining, or PI skills. Or even Accounting and Broker Relations. After all, what makes those other racial Industrial piloting skills more 'must-have' than the skills that directly impact your bottom line?
You choose what you want to train for in EVE. Those other ships now have roles and aspects that are useful for a large amount of pilots. As opposed to today where they are mostly just ships that sit in a hangar collecting dust from years ago where you decided that flying a hauler that looked cool isn't the best thing to do in EVE.
The point is you don't have to say. Okay I want to haul something big. Okay just got to spend the better part of a month training Gal V and I'm good to go! If you have to move one of the listed types you can say. Okay I just need Gal or mimmy II or III. Do I need to move other items? Do I need more tank to move this awesome find? Would a few drones help?
It is all far more balanced now. And the specialized ships are going to REALLY help newer players get their first big start in EVE. Especially if they can get into Nullsec doing that. |
Arrendis
Hephaestus LLC Fatal Ascension
17
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 05:27:00 -
[450] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote: You choose what you want to train for in EVE. Those other ships now have roles and aspects that are useful for a large amount of pilots.
. . .
It is all far more balanced now. And the specialized ships are going to REALLY help newer players get their first big start in EVE. Especially if they can get into Nullsec doing that.
Right. Those other ships - 'Large Hauler X' and 'Small Hauler X' have roles and aspects that are useful for a large amount of pilots.
And you get one of each with Gallente Industrials I. Now, maybe you don't get the best in their class of each - but unless you're training up to skill V, you're not getting that, anyway.
You also get 3/4 of the specialized ships.
So, in terms of pure return on the time invested - if you're a newbie, which Racial Industrial skills do you train?
Gallente, maybe Minmatar after that. And now you have all 6 roles. If you don't train Minmatar? You have 5 of the 6 roles.
And keep in mind, I'm saying this as someone who can fly almost ever sub-capital in the game, for exactly the reason Pierce derided - I've stolen quite a number of them when my old WH corp found them floating in space...
... in someone's POS...
... which we blew up...
|
|
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
58
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 05:31:00 -
[451] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote: Seriously, your arguments are so bad and your tears are so great. Stop trying to sell homogenization because you are cross that the Badger Mk. II will hold ~42% more than it does now or the Badger will nearly match the Mark II on live currently and will have a strong tank, align and warp speed to boot.
I tend to think you're missing his point. To me, it seems like what Pierce is saying is: 'Hey, if this is supposed to fix the 'everyone just trains Gallente Industrials cuz duh, Itty V' tendency, it won't. Your average Joe Hauler, who's just schlepping around hi-sec being a Bad, is still going to say 'hey, I haul Ore, I should train Gallente'. And when he trains up the refining skill, he'll say 'Now I haul minerals, I guess I should train... oh, Gallente, cool.' And if he gets into PI, he'll say 'Damn, these loads of Toxic Metals are huge, I should train... huh. Gallente.'' And the trade-off for just training Gallente is... you don't have access to the ammo hauler, and your big general-purpose hauler is like 2k smaller than the biggest one. Really, not enough to worry about. He's not upset that he's losing anything - for the love of Mittens, he's already said he can fly anything he needs to fly. What he's saying is: 'Hey, you have said part of your reasoning is to fix Problem X. This will not fix Problem X. Be aware of that.' And he's right. It won't fix the 'everyone just trains Gallente' problem. Not by itself. Personally, I tend to think that it sets the stage for later work that will. These scrubs think a goon like me would ever need to fly a T1 hauler, heh.
I've been in this game long enough to either haul my stuff in Freighters or just pay scrubs like you all to move it for me. I have absolutely nothing to gain or lose with these changes, I'm simply pointing out bad design when I see it.
Arrendis, I'm glad someone was able to get the gist of the problem, I was beginning to worry I was really being that terrible at driving the point across; I was right though, it's not that me, its eveo.
This is probably the last time I flew a T1 industrial, good times.
I'm done arguing this point, I'll just leave this little gem here for CCP Rise to explain to CCP Rise why this proposal is bad.
CCP Rise wrote:For people focused on homoginization: The problem here is that we don't have a complex purpose that we are lazily fulfilling by having every ship do it the same way, what we have is a very simple purpose and far too many ships meant to fulfill it. I think the division between the 2 roles outlined here is functional, and adds a bit of depth to a relatively straight forward job, but what many of you are asking for is basically new jobs. As some have mentioned above, adding entirely new purposes to t1 industrials, or subdividing the current one adds a lot of complexity and doesn't even approach the issue of balance within the class we already have and use.
We talked about specialized bays and other unique purposes, but ultimately decided that, for now, it was important to make sure that pilots from races other than Gallente weren't compelled to cross train for an Iteron 5, and also that there was at least one reasonable alternative within your race depending on what purpose you had in mind. We want to improve on industry in general, but that is a much bigger proposition and I don't think t1 industrials is the right starting point.
|
Endeavour Starfleet
899
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 05:37:00 -
[452] - Quote
If you are a newbe who is doing anything related to mining then yes Gallente Industrial for a few levels is the way to go. Now personally I believe if CCP had the assets now and we did not have the other awful issues in EVE. Then moving those ships into ORE would be the best for newer players as they would then train towards a Noctis as well.
They don't and for the time being not being able to not completely remove "Train Gal nao" in order to give newer players an awesome way to be effective in EVE and to fix some of the issues of nullsec living. Is completely worth it.
That change can come later. And by that time EVE hopefully will be an even better game for newer pilots. |
Endeavour Starfleet
899
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 05:50:00 -
[453] - Quote
Edward Pierce wrote:
I'm done arguing this point, I'll just leave this little gem here for CCP Rise to explain to CCP Rise why this proposal is bad.
...
Simple. He said "For now" The community said they want CCP to actually do something with these hulls and they did. They are implementing the specialized ships. I doubt they were even thinking about Hauler spawns or PI headaches or the issues that give large alliances an unfair advantage for mining when the idea of specialized holds was mentioned just. "These poor ships will continue to collect dust"
The community has found a use for these ships. Large alliances will discover what the community has suggested and they will whine and scream "OVERPOWERED!" While they continue to use lord of the asteroid belts orcas, rorqs, and freighters to solve any pesky hauler spawn or miners with tons of bonuses. Use spacerich pimped hulls for no PI trouble while setting up contracts to bring in more covert ops cloaks.
|
Arrendis
Hephaestus LLC Fatal Ascension
17
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 05:59:00 -
[454] - Quote
Personally, I agree with you - I think that this lays the groundwork for future development in assets that can make the other two races just as 'you want this' as gallente will be for industrialists, and minmatar will be for extended fleet operations.
The Amarr, IMO, should be the last ones to get a special bay - they're not innovators. They're very traditional in their approaches, and they wait to see what other folks are doing before they say 'ok, we'll do that, but better (we think)'. That's why they were late to the missile/drone games.
The Caldari, though - they're capitalists. They'll innovate, and they'll likely make it something fairly adaptable. I can conceivably see the Caldari being the ones to first say 'you know what, those are all lovely little specialist hulls. Let us introduce you to the Badger III. For Tech III. Variable subsystem configuration. It can have any of four specialized bays, or a standard cargo configuration. Same ship, purpose-fitted for the mission you're flying today. Takes the place of all six haulers, only costs five times as much. What a deal, huh?'
But that's not now. And right now? Right now, Pierce is right about whether it will solve the problem. So even if he's wrong about it being a bad idea - and I think he is - he's not wrong about it being bad design from the perspective of solving the problem CCP Rise has said it's intended to solve. |
Caitlyn Tufy
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
346
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 06:08:00 -
[455] - Quote
Edward Pierce wrote:I have hauling PI commodities on my Caldari character in mind Rise, what's my reasonable alternative post-rebalance? You sent me from having to cross-train for the Iteron V to having to cross-train to the Iteron III, and this has taken you how long?
Guess what - if you want a drone boat, you can't skill minmatar cruiser either.
If you want to use the Badger to move PI, you can do so, you'll still do better than most options you have on TQ right now. In fact, I suspect most low sec people will still use Blockade Runners for PI, which have considerably lower cargo space, but a covert cloak. What Iteron III allows you to do is more or less skip Orca if you're running high sec industrial planets - still, any cargo hauler won't do much worse at it, as long as you know what you're doing. What the Iteron III doesn't allow you to do is load up PI + salvage or whatever and run for the market, which is a severely limiting factor - it's literally just a local boat to manage PI, that's it. You need it? Then you'll simply have to sacrifice that day of training time. You don't need it? Feel free to never skill for it in your entire career. |
Endeavour Starfleet
899
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 06:10:00 -
[456] - Quote
What about Tech 2 Caldari? This should be in another topic but I had a thought and as you brought them up perhaps I could offer a solution of sorts?
Gal gets the T1 love for specialization right?
What about Caldari T2 love for operations?
Bustard as a POS operations ship. (Hold for all pos structures, fuelblocks, and other items POS related) This could be part of the potential of modular POS ideas.
The crane could be the capital ship tender. Designed to carry plain fuel, Drones of all kinds, etc.. And do so with the cov ops cloak so that it can serve cut off capital ships.
This is just an early idea I had and I don't claim it's balanced. |
Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
509
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 06:11:00 -
[457] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:So more goons and large alliances come out of the woodwork against the specialized haulers. Prime example of how large alliances in this game try to derail good ideas that would benefit newer players at the slight expense of their freighters orcas and rorqs not being perfect lords of the belts in my opinion.
Why are you even going there?
Want me to play the part of the Evil Goon?
Love the specialized bays! Can't can or plastic wrap anything in them so we can cagro scan and gank the ones we know are worth it. And they are over twice as worth it as before with that massive hold. Did you know you can pack over 200mil isk worth of stuff in a PI hauler, and it will die to maybe 50mil worth of catalysts or thrashers? Awesome job making sure all the general haulers will still be fitting nothing but max cagro mods. Makes it easy to blap them with week old newbees the next time we do Burn Jita.
And the ore only version? Thanks CCP! I'm going to toss a few unfitted ones in Rorqual's ship hanger. Double my ore hauling capability. And you thought this change was sticking it to the space rich? Ha! Watch me use my wealth to jump an entire Rorqual and 4 ore Iterons full of crokite right past those wretched poors.
Now back to reality, where I build and hand out Industrials for PI kits, answer newbee questions everyday, hear endlessly about them dying to the same old gate camp. Where I fly around nullsec hauling billions worth of stuff in T1 Industrials, blockade runners, Orcas and Rorquals.
If this was all about helping the little guy, then just double the max possible cargo holds on all of them. How about we just get past the cargo expansion modification idea, and just give all of them a big separate bay. Quit assuming that it should just be a slow moving container with no other noteworthy traits.
If we are going to have restricted bays, then spread them around to all the races. You may think the ore only bay is really innovative and an addition to the line up, but as some one who has been living with restricted bays for awhile, they are a restriction. It isn't there to let you do more stuff, it is there to limit what you can do. I'd rather pick up my planet goo and a hauler spawn with the same ship than have to keep half a dozen ships that more or less hold equal volume of specific item types. And if I'm picking up hauler spawns, how about giving me something so that getting tackled by rats isn't a sure death.
You want to talk about newbees in Industrials flying around nullsec? They die quickly to gate and belt rats. Our advice if they land in a bubble is "welp". We treated racial Industrial as a prereq in training plans because training it to buff up garbage T1 Industrials was pointless. I guess we were trend setters, telling newbees not to train more than a couple levels of racial Industrial unless they had plans of blockade runners of jump freighters. Now our advice can be even simpler; a couple levels of Gallente Industrial is all that should be trained, and guys on the production/import end only have to bother with stocking Iterons II though V.
|
Arrendis
Hephaestus LLC Fatal Ascension
17
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 06:13:00 -
[458] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote: The community has found a use for these ships. Large alliances will discover what the community has suggested and they will whine and scream "OVERPOWERED!" While they continue to use lord of the asteroid belts orcas, rorqs, and freighters to solve any pesky hauler spawn or miners with tons of bonuses. Use spacerich pimped hulls for no PI trouble while setting up contracts to bring in more covert ops cloaks.
See, this is where I think you're running into trouble - Pierce isn't at all saying 'this is overpowered' from the viewpoint of 'I'm spacerich, how dare you little bastards try to compete'.
Large alliance already know what's going on. I've already worked up a fleet tender fitting for the proposed Hoarder. Pierce is in Goonswarm, as you've pointed out more than once. Do you think he's the only Goon watching this? It's been reported on TMDC, for crying out loud.
Large alliances don't get big (or stay big) by crying about the up-and-comers having tricks they didn't have when they started. They say 'hey, we have those tricks now, too'. And they use them.
And we will most definitely use them.
Example:
The Hoarder's not going to be useful for mineral compression. Oh noez. But the Iteron II will still hold (at max skills) 64,500m3 of minerals. It's 245,000m3 unpacked. That means 4 of them can fit into a carrier's hangar.
Currently, a Black Ops Battleship can be placed into a carrier's hangar with fuel in the fuel bay. If the new specialized bays exhibit the same behavior, this means that a carrier can haul 258,000m3 of minerals - comparable (not quite AS good, but comparable) to a jump freighter. And it'll do it for lower fuel costs, with better jump range, and the ability to be fitted, mount its own cyno if it runs into trouble, even fight back and run local reps, all of which a freighter can't do.
You think the large alliances haven't spotted that? You think the CFC - the Goons, FA, FCON, RZR, etc, hasn't spotted that?
The large alliances aren't worried about the little guy being able to handle a hauler spawn. Are you kidding? It means our newbies can handle hauler spawns more easily, too. So if someone from one of the big alliances is saying 'hey, I don't think this does what you think it does', it's not because we're looking down our noses at opportunities for the little guy - it's because looking for the loopholes and the unintended consequences is kinda what we do. |
Endeavour Starfleet
899
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 06:23:00 -
[459] - Quote
Mineral compression and ease of transport is an issue that they are working to resolve. (Changes to hoarder's unpackaged volume.) And they can hopefully make it so that these ships with items in the holds cant be loaded into a carrier. That is where I would personally say overpowered as it has gone beyond newer players having a good single ship to something getting abused to turn carriers into uber mineral haulers.
Do large alliances really think CCP will let that happen for very long? No. That will be stopped and quick and these ships will go back to being good specialized task ships. |
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
1152
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 06:34:00 -
[460] - Quote
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:If this was all about helping the little guy, then just double the max possible cargo holds on all of them. How about we just get past the cargo expansion modification idea, and just give all of them a big separate bay. Quit assuming that it should just be a slow moving container with no other noteworthy traits. these industrials are designed around what can be acheived with max expanders and cargo rigs, which leaves them with a small base bay and basically makes them require cargo expanders and rigs
but they have to be considering that your cargo increases exponentially with expanders/rigs which makes a lot of expanders/rigs pretty much the only option when fitting
if they all had bigger starting bays and cargo expanders increased cargo by a set amount, could this allow more design freedom where it came to slots/bonuses and therefore more interesting ships and fitting options without having to resort to specialist bays?
noone armour tanks an indy, even bestower/iteron, it's all shield tank |
|
Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
509
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 06:41:00 -
[461] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Mineral compression and ease of transport is an issue that they are working to resolve. (Changes to hoarder's unpackaged volume.) And they can hopefully make it so that these ships with items in the holds cant be loaded into a carrier. That is where I would personally say overpowered as it has gone beyond newer players having a good single ship to something getting abused to turn carriers into uber mineral haulers.
Do large alliances really think CCP will let that happen for very long? No. That will be stopped and quick and these ships will go back to being good specialized task ships.
Still doesn't change the fact that it is way unbalanced.
Hey newbee, want to pick up a hauler spawn?
Gallente Industrial.
Want to grab your jetcans from the ice anom?
Gallente Industrial.
Want to pick up all your planet goo in 1 run?
Gallente Industrial.
Want to just generally haul stuff?
Well, you already have Gallente industrial for the awesome specialized ships, so keep with it and get an Iteron V.
Want to truck ammo to a combat site?
The current doctrine is blockade runner and blops bridge. Maybe a basic cyno alt with Minmatar Industrial I, and don't expect it to come back because it will die for no other reasons than being a Hoarder near ships with guns.
|
Endeavour Starfleet
899
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 06:46:00 -
[462] - Quote
Benny Ohu wrote:Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:If this was all about helping the little guy, then just double the max possible cargo holds on all of them. How about we just get past the cargo expansion modification idea, and just give all of them a big separate bay. Quit assuming that it should just be a slow moving container with no other noteworthy traits. these industrials are designed around what can be acheived with max expanders and cargo rigs, which leaves them with a small base bay and basically makes them require cargo expanders and rigs but they have to be considering that your cargo increases exponentially with expanders/rigs which makes a lot of expanders/rigs pretty much the only option when fitting if they all had bigger starting bays and cargo expanders increased cargo by a set amount, could this allow more design freedom where it came to slots/bonuses and therefore more interesting ships and fitting options without having to resort to specialist bays? noone armour tanks an indy, even bestower/iteron, it's all shield tank
The issue with changing cargo expanders is that it would not only massively change the T1 lineup but the T2 lineup as well. Also don't forget about smaller ships that sometimes fit those.
It is an interesting point. Just in my opinion beyond the scope of the current changes. Before that happens the T2 line needs to change into specialized roles instead of just "Trained up so I can fly a ship with moar cargo or a ship with a cov ops cloak" |
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
1152
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 06:51:00 -
[463] - Quote
well. the dst could have been interesting except for ccp putting the unscannable hold on the blockade runner
and also the armour dst concept is kinda ruined by the whole 'needs cargo expanders' bit because of 'give it a small bay because people are going to cargo expand everything anyway' bit because of the 'cargo expanders stack exponentially bit'
well that's the way imma seein it atm
when it comes to combat ships fitting a cargo expander that has a fixed bonus... i'm pretty ok with that considering they lost a slot
yeah there's an issue with frigates getting holyshit how much cargo does your tiny ship have. i can see [s]highsec[s/] everywhere magnate/atron haulers everywhere |
Endeavour Starfleet
899
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 06:54:00 -
[464] - Quote
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Mineral compression and ease of transport is an issue that they are working to resolve. (Changes to hoarder's unpackaged volume.) And they can hopefully make it so that these ships with items in the holds cant be loaded into a carrier. That is where I would personally say overpowered as it has gone beyond newer players having a good single ship to something getting abused to turn carriers into uber mineral haulers.
Do large alliances really think CCP will let that happen for very long? No. That will be stopped and quick and these ships will go back to being good specialized task ships. Still doesn't change the fact that it is way unbalanced. Hey newbee, want to pick up a hauler spawn? Gallente Industrial. Want to grab your jetcans from the ice anom? Gallente Industrial. Want to pick up all your planet goo in 1 run? Gallente Industrial. Want to just generally haul stuff? Well, you already have Gallente industrial for the awesome specialized ships, so keep with it and get an Iteron V. Want to truck ammo to a combat site? The current doctrine is blockade runner and blops bridge. Maybe a basic cyno alt with Minmatar Industrial I, and don't expect it to come back because it will die for no other reasons than being a Hoarder near ships with guns.
Except generally haul stuff is different now. It is more about what and how risky it is to haul the general cargo.
How about I list some things I think should not be a specialized ship.
Capital Construction parts bay Tech 2 production items that cant fit in the other line of holds. Self Destruct hold (Sorry folks I can't really support this anymore as I believe the moving towards a lower cargo higher EHP would do better for this type of carrying)
For stuff like that. (Or other items) You need to pick the ship that works right for you. And that isn't always going to be an Inty 1 or 5
|
Arrendis
Hephaestus LLC Fatal Ascension
17
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 06:55:00 -
[465] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Mineral compression and ease of transport is an issue that they are working to resolve. (Changes to hoarder's unpackaged volume.) And they can hopefully make it so that these ships with items in the holds cant be loaded into a carrier. That is where I would personally say overpowered as it has gone beyond newer players having a good single ship to something getting abused to turn carriers into uber mineral haulers.
Do large alliances really think CCP will let that happen for very long? No. That will be stopped and quick and these ships will go back to being good specialized task ships.
Edit: To make it clear I personally want CCP to have different build and reprocess values so railguns and ammo are not used for mineral compression. I don't want things easier for large alliances to build supers.
I don't know, CCP doesn't seem to have a problem letting me stick a pair of Panthers into the ship maintenance array of my nidhoggur to more or less double its fuel capacity.
But see, now you're the one crying 'overpowered' because the 'large alliances' are thinking of ways to use these ships that are advantageous to them, but not to the little guy. I'm afraid I have bad news:
The large alliances will always find ways to take advantage of opportunities the little guy doesn't have. Mostly, it'll be in the form of things like 'we have enough dudes to do this' or 'we have enough money to do this' - which is really the same thing, because you only have the money if you have the dudes to make the money or hold the space needed to make the money.
If you think CCP is going to level that playing field, you really should look back over the history of EVE and consider the concepts of 'sandbox' and 'emergent gameplay' more.
As for making it easier for large alliances to make supers goes... do you know what the only real checks on the production of supercapitals really are? It's really two things. 1)how long is going to take? (because let's face it, you can only crank them out so fast, and nobody has infinite production facilities), and 2)is someone else trying to kill it in the womb? Because everyone has enemies, and if your enemies know one is aborning, they'll likely take the shot if they can.
Minerals? Resources? Logistical workload? Yeah, those are headaches. But what makes the large alliances successful in general is their level of organization and ability to get large jobs done. So that's already playing to their strengths.
Ultimately, that's the real root of the 'unbalance' that larger alliances enjoy: larger alliances only got larger because they solved their organization problems. And that gives them the ability to leverage something far more powerful than game mechanics - manpower. |
Arrendis
Hephaestus LLC Fatal Ascension
17
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 06:56:00 -
[466] - Quote
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote: Want to truck ammo to a combat site?
The current doctrine is blockade runner and blops bridge. Maybe a basic cyno alt with Minmatar Industrial I, and don't expect it to come back because it will die for no other reasons than being a Hoarder near ships with guns.
Yeah, probably, heh. I'm actually thinking you can have it moving with the fleet and then cloaking up at safe spots, like off-grid command ships do if there's no safe pos in-system. Though obviously, they have to uncloak and watch d-scan for the fight, the truck should, in theory, just have to cloak up and then keep moving at sublight to be reasonably safe. |
Endeavour Starfleet
899
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 06:58:00 -
[467] - Quote
Benny Ohu wrote:well. the dst could have been interesting except for ccp putting the unscannable hold on the blockade runner
and also the armour dst concept is kinda ruined by the whole 'needs cargo expanders' bit because of 'give it a small bay because people are going to cargo expand everything anyway' bit because of the 'cargo expanders stack exponentially bit'
well that's the way imma seein it atm
when it comes to combat ships fitting a cargo expander that has a fixed bonus... i'm pretty ok with that considering they lost a slot
yeah there's an issue with frigates getting holyshit how much cargo does your tiny ship have. i can see [s]highsec[s/] everywhere magnate/atron haulers everywhere
A solution to that would be "These modules only fit on industrial craft" but then it is unfair to those who use these frigs for hauling today. Again something to look at in the future but I think many will agree with me that we need other things in EVE changed first. |
Endeavour Starfleet
899
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 07:03:00 -
[468] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote: Want to truck ammo to a combat site?
The current doctrine is blockade runner and blops bridge. Maybe a basic cyno alt with Minmatar Industrial I, and don't expect it to come back because it will die for no other reasons than being a Hoarder near ships with guns.
Yeah, probably, heh. I'm actually thinking you can have it moving with the fleet and then cloaking up at safe spots, like off-grid command ships do if there's no safe pos in-system. Though obviously, they have to uncloak and watch d-scan for the fight, the truck should, in theory, just have to cloak up and then keep moving at sublight to be reasonably safe.
And that is a great thing. For newer players it means being able to be an actively helpful part of the fleet. Not to mention learn about cloaking and safespot mechanics early in the game. For a reasonable training cost. |
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
1152
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 07:04:00 -
[469] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:A solution to that would be "These modules only fit on industrial craft" but then it is unfair to those who use these frigs for hauling today. Again something to look at in the future but I think many will agree with me that we need other things in EVE changed first. no, -if- cargo expanders are an issue they need to be looked at at the same time as industrials because of the close connection (especially if cargo expander mechanics are limiting design freedom on industrial balancing)
it's like balancing a titan without considering bridges or doomsdays |
Arrendis
Hephaestus LLC Fatal Ascension
17
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 07:07:00 -
[470] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote: And that is a great thing. For newer players it means being able to be an actively helpful part of the fleet. Not to mention learn about cloaking and safespot mechanics early in the game. For a reasonable training cost.
Nah, much like the current BLOPS trucks, it'd be a 'do this with your alt, nerd' situation - the new pilot is already useful in fleets by flying fast tackle frigates, and they'll learn a lot more that way. |
|
Endeavour Starfleet
899
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 07:08:00 -
[471] - Quote
Arrendis wrote: But see, now you're the one crying 'overpowered' because the 'large alliances' are thinking of ways to use these ships that are advantageous to them, but not to the little guy. I'm afraid I have bad news:........
No I am saying overpowered because it is using the ship as a giant mineral can in a carrier which as far as I am aware not what was in the topic. And doing so gives a big advantage to those who already have too much.
As opposed to the ships themselves which were designed with these specific roles which was listed in the topic. |
Arrendis
Hephaestus LLC Fatal Ascension
17
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 07:10:00 -
[472] - Quote
Benny Ohu wrote: it's like balancing a titan without considering bridges or doomsdays
Well, to be fair, only one of the titans is really unbalanced. Sure, the Erebus is a bit front-heavy, but it's nothing compared to the huge amount of mass on the bow of the Ava-...
Huh? He meant... oh. Oh. Ohhhhhhh.
Nevermind. |
Endeavour Starfleet
899
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 07:13:00 -
[473] - Quote
Benny Ohu wrote:Endeavour Starfleet wrote:A solution to that would be "These modules only fit on industrial craft" but then it is unfair to those who use these frigs for hauling today. Again something to look at in the future but I think many will agree with me that we need other things in EVE changed first. no, -if- cargo expanders are an issue they need to be looked at at the same time as industrials because of the close connection (especially if cargo expander mechanics are limiting design freedom on industrial balancing) it's like balancing a titan without considering bridges or doomsdays
Many people argue that titan bridges are overpowered. But the last change to it was to the tracking if I recall.
To change expander means they have to do T2 right now as well. That has got to be well beyond the scope of what they intended.
The specialized ships are solutions to ships that never get used and glaring differences in mining and PI tasks. That was a separate issue that got solved in this pass without having to bring in art assets and other delaying factors. |
Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
509
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 07:15:00 -
[474] - Quote
Benny Ohu wrote:Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:If this was all about helping the little guy, then just double the max possible cargo holds on all of them. How about we just get past the cargo expansion modification idea, and just give all of them a big separate bay. Quit assuming that it should just be a slow moving container with no other noteworthy traits. these industrials are designed around what can be acheived with max expanders and cargo rigs, which leaves them with a small base bay and basically makes them require cargo expanders and rigs but they have to be considering that your cargo increases exponentially with expanders/rigs which makes a lot of expanders/rigs pretty much the only option when fitting if they all had bigger starting bays and cargo expanders increased cargo by a set amount, could this allow more design freedom where it came to slots/bonuses and therefore more interesting ships and fitting options without having to resort to specialist bays? noone armour tanks an indy, even bestower/iteron, it's all shield tank
It is sort of circular that Industrials are designed around a specific fit.
I don't know about changing the way expanders work. That would probably break a lot of other common fits outside of T1 Industrials.
But separate bays that aren't effected by cargo expanders means we could get out of the rut of balancing Industrial ships under the assumption they will all be fit with 3 T1 cargo rigs and a T2 expander in every low slot. Just use the racial industrial skill to increase Industrial bay size. That way, ships can be given a balancing pass where the cargo capacity is one thing, and classifying the ship as being best HP, speed, or agility can be done with all available fitting space on the table.
|
Arrendis
Hephaestus LLC Fatal Ascension
17
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 07:18:00 -
[475] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote: No I am saying overpowered because it is using the ship as a giant mineral can in a carrier which as far as I am aware not what was in the topic. And doing so gives a big advantage to those who already have too much.
As opposed to the ships themselves which were designed with these specific roles which was listed in the topic.
No, see, that's just it: it really doesn't give us all that much of an advantage over what we already have. The real advantages we have in that scenario are:
1)We can get that much in minerals. How do we get them? Well, it's probably not one guy selling that. It's one guy selling it for a corp, or alliance. Or, more likely, buying it in hi-sec for a corp/alliance project. So that money being spent is already an aggregation of the benefits of manpower.
2)We can move that much via jumpship - carrier or freighter, it doesn't matter, we've got the infrastructure, be it cyno alts or beacons - and beacons actually represent more of our advantage when used right, because to safely jump to a beacon means you need eyes in the system. Jumping to a cyno alt, the alt provides those eyes. Jumping to a static beacon, either you need to move someone there, which is the same as a cyno alt, or your alliance needs to generally have people there who can let you know 'it's safe' - and then you need to have the communications infrastructure to send the request and get a response. And that means intel channels, because let's face it, Alliance chat gets pretty spammy sometimes.
And those advantages? That's organization, and personnel again. Because really, the carrier move? It saves a little time, and a little money, but the far more important and advantageous step in the process is the ability to bypass gates by traveling back and forth via jump-drive in the first place. |
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
1152
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 07:28:00 -
[476] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Many people argue that titan bridges are overpowered. But the last change to it was to the tracking if I recall.
To change expander means they have to do T2 right now as well. That has got to be well beyond the scope of what they intended.
The specialized ships are solutions to ships that never get used and glaring differences in mining and PI tasks. That was a separate issue that got solved in this pass without having to bring in art assets and other delaying factors. vOv tracking is guns which are mods. that's beside the point anyway
i see no reason t2 haulers would have to be balanced next to expanders. they'd suffer the same percieved problems t1 would anyway. besides, if something is broken you fix it, you don't keep building your house on sand. even if t2 had to be balanced at the same time, so be it.
that's really a meaningless argument to make - if you do not like the implications of the concept imma putting out there (that expanders might be a cause for difficulty in balancing industrials) you should address the concept, not minor issues like having to consider t2s
i mean all t1 ships/mods balancing is made with a general idea of how they'll fit alongside t2 stuff yet to be balanced |
Endeavour Starfleet
899
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 07:32:00 -
[477] - Quote
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
......
I don't know about changing the way expanders work. That would probably break a lot of other common fits outside of T1 Industrials.
But separate bays that aren't effected by cargo expanders means we could get out of the rut of balancing Industrial ships under the assumption they will all be fit with 3 T1 cargo rigs and a T2 expander in every low slot. Just use the racial industrial skill to increase Industrial bay size. That way, ships can be given a balancing pass where the cargo capacity is one thing, and classifying the ship as being best HP, speed, or agility can be done with all available fitting space on the table.
You know thinking about this I got to say this is an aspect that would be interesting to look at in the future. It would give more meaning to moving the specialized haulers to ORE and then doing a new balance pass to incorporate that into the standard lineup.
I am agreeing with a goon? In this topic? WHAT!? |
Arrendis
Hephaestus LLC Fatal Ascension
17
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 07:34:00 -
[478] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote: I am agreeing with a goon? In this topic? WHAT!?
Goons aren't always the bad guys.
Or even the Bad at EVEGäó guys. |
Arrendis
Hephaestus LLC Fatal Ascension
17
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 07:43:00 -
[479] - Quote
Benny Ohu wrote: i see no reason t2 haulers would have to be balanced next to expanders. they'd suffer the same percieved problems t1 would anyway. besides, if something is broken you fix it, you don't keep building your house on sand. even if t2 had to be balanced at the same time, so be it.
that's really a meaningless argument to make - if you do not like the implications of the concept imma putting out there (that expanders might be a cause for difficulty in balancing industrials) you should address the concept, not minor issues like having to consider t2s
i mean all t1 ships/mods balancing is made with a general idea of how they'll fit alongside t2 stuff yet to be balanced
I think the difference between 'balancing cargohold expanders' vs 'balancing T1 cruisers' is that changing T1 cruisers didn't change T2 cruisers at all. My scythe being a valid logi hull doesn't make my scimitar into a mining cruiser. But if you balance the T1 haulers by crippling the Expanded Cargoholds, or the Cargohold Optimization Rigs, then until you get to the 'yet to be balanced' point in time, the T2 haulers are crippled.
So the T2 haulers would need to have the same fix applied at the same time, in order to offset any change to the modules and rigs that both ships have in common. Because they'd need the same offsets, just to be - in effect - unchanged. |
Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
509
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 07:46:00 -
[480] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote: Want to truck ammo to a combat site?
The current doctrine is blockade runner and blops bridge. Maybe a basic cyno alt with Minmatar Industrial I, and don't expect it to come back because it will die for no other reasons than being a Hoarder near ships with guns.
Yeah, probably, heh. I'm actually thinking you can have it moving with the fleet and then cloaking up at safe spots, like off-grid command ships do if there's no safe pos in-system. Though obviously, they have to uncloak and watch d-scan for the fight, the truck should, in theory, just have to cloak up and then keep moving at sublight to be reasonably safe.
If it was a fleet hanger instead of an ammo only bay, that would give it some serious utility near a battlefield.
With the current mechanics, all the ammo Hoarder could do is drop a jetcan of ammo for others to loot. Not ideal when jet cans die easily to bombs, smart bombs, or even newbees in slashers. There are limits on how often it can make a jet can. It can't sit cloaked next to a jet can and still pick it up quickly. The cloaks it could fit have limits as well, like time to re-cloak and slowing down an already very slow ship. All in all, the ship isn't all that great, and is only good for the fleet as something that makes a jetcan.
If CCP is really thinking of an ammo truck role, a fleet hanger with refit would make putting a Hoarder near a battlefield a much less painful idea. Already setup to toggle fleet and corporation access. Allows for other useful battlefield materials, like drones and liquid ozone. A much nicer option than trying to defend a jetcan with a Hoarder on a nullsec battlefield. |
|
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
1152
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 07:47:00 -
[481] - Quote
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:It is sort of circular that Industrials are designed around a specific fit.
I don't know about changing the way expanders work. That would probably break a lot of other common fits outside of T1 Industrials.
But separate bays that aren't effected by cargo expanders means we could get out of the rut of balancing Industrial ships under the assumption they will all be fit with 3 T1 cargo rigs and a T2 expander in every low slot. Just use the racial industrial skill to increase Industrial bay size. That way, ships can be given a balancing pass where the cargo capacity is one thing, and classifying the ship as being best HP, speed, or agility can be done with all available fitting space on the table. yeah i like your solution, because i wouldn't know how to 'fix' expanders without breaking them on other ships |
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
1152
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 07:54:00 -
[482] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:Benny Ohu wrote: i see no reason t2 haulers would have to be balanced next to expanders. they'd suffer the same percieved problems t1 would anyway. besides, if something is broken you fix it, you don't keep building your house on sand. even if t2 had to be balanced at the same time, so be it.
that's really a meaningless argument to make - if you do not like the implications of the concept imma putting out there (that expanders might be a cause for difficulty in balancing industrials) you should address the concept, not minor issues like having to consider t2s
i mean all t1 ships/mods balancing is made with a general idea of how they'll fit alongside t2 stuff yet to be balanced
I think the difference between 'balancing cargohold expanders' vs 'balancing T1 cruisers' is that changing T1 cruisers didn't change T2 cruisers at all. My scythe being a valid logi hull doesn't make my scimitar into a mining cruiser. But if you balance the T1 haulers by crippling the Expanded Cargoholds, or the Cargohold Optimization Rigs, then until you get to the 'yet to be balanced' point in time, the T2 haulers are crippled. So the T2 haulers would need to have the same fix applied at the same time, in order to offset any change to the modules and rigs that both ships have in common. Because they'd need the same offsets, just to be - in effect - unchanged. For exactly the same reason that you said: Quote: no, -if- cargo expanders are an issue they need to be looked at at the same time as industrials because of the close connection (especially if cargo expander mechanics are limiting design freedom on industrial balancing)
Because the T2 haulers are no less closely linked to the cargo expanders. yeah but what i meant by the 'house on sand' thing is that if there's a problem with expanders, they must be considered at the same time as t1 indies anyway. if t2 stuff needs to be tweaked or balanced at the same time, then it gets done at the same time. saying 'here's a problem, let's leave it how it is, build more broken stuff on top of it, and consider it later when we're looking at other broken stuff' just leads to a shitload of broken stuff and a terrible game, expecially when you get to more broken stuff it's easier to say 'we already build more broken stuff on top of broken stuff, balancing even more broken stuff is now easier to do on top of all of that instead of moving back and doing it all properly'
'more work' or 'this wasn't planned' are not reasons to build your house on sand instead of moving the site to stone |
Endeavour Starfleet
899
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 07:57:00 -
[483] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:Endeavour Starfleet wrote: I am agreeing with a goon? In this topic? WHAT!?
Goons aren't always the bad guys. Or even the Bad at EVEGäó guys.
As once can tell. I am generally just against large alliances having unfair advantages. Or forcing their way of life on others (When they descended on Incursion topics demanding nerfs to highsec group content) However I don't automatically just think one wants to destroy EVE over another.
For instance I will remember how the Goons leader went against the trend of so many in his alliance and actually defended incursion content.
And it is not just goons that keep saying "NERF LOCAL NAO!"
The issue I take is when those from large alliances keep comparing ships that wont beat an orca for short range ore or mineral hauling (Not to mention a freighter) to normal haulers which are used for different tasks.
One says he pays others to do his hauling. Fair enough but for someone who is spacerich this is like George HW Bush's Grocery store moment. |
Arrendis
Hephaestus LLC Fatal Ascension
17
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 07:57:00 -
[484] - Quote
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote: If it was a fleet hanger instead of an ammo only bay, that would give it some serious utility near a battlefield.
With the current mechanics, all the ammo Hoarder could do is drop a jetcan of ammo for others to loot. Not ideal when jet cans die easily to bombs, smart bombs, or even newbees in slashers. There are limits on how often it can make a jet can. It can't sit cloaked next to a jet can and still pick it up quickly. The cloaks it could fit have limits as well, like time to re-cloak and slowing down an already very slow ship. All in all, the ship isn't all that great, and is only good for the fleet as something that makes a jetcan.
If CCP is really thinking of an ammo truck role, a fleet hanger with refit would make putting a Hoarder near a battlefield a much less painful idea. Already setup to toggle fleet and corporation access. Allows for other useful battlefield materials, like drones and liquid ozone. A much nicer option than trying to defend a jetcan with a Hoarder on a nullsec battlefield.
Oh, a fleet hangar would be lovely.
No, I'm actually thinking 'grind down X number of structures, then everyone regroups w/the truck, and it kicks out the can of 27,000m3 ammo, and people pick it up, then the fleet moves to the next system' and you repeat the process X number of structures later. Now, getting 200 battleships to pick up ammo in an orderly fashion without people taking it all and leaving none for the next guy... that'll be harder. |
Arrendis
Hephaestus LLC Fatal Ascension
17
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 08:01:00 -
[485] - Quote
Benny Ohu wrote: yeah but what i meant by the 'house on sand' thing is that if there's a problem with expanders, they must be considered at the same time as t1 indies anyway. if t2 stuff needs to be tweaked or balanced at the same time, then it gets done at the same time. saying 'here's a problem, let's leave it how it is, build more broken stuff on top of it, and consider it later when we're looking at other broken stuff' just leads to a shitload of broken stuff and a terrible game, expecially when you get to more broken stuff it's easier to say 'we already build more broken stuff on top of broken stuff, balancing even more broken stuff is now easier to do on top of all of that instead of moving back and doing it all properly'
'more work' or 'this wasn't planned' are not reasons to build your house on sand instead of moving the site to stone
Agreed - but that's why the T2s would have to be done at the same time. So it might well be that the specialized bays are a 'right now' measure, and the final revamp to T1 industrials comes when the T2s are finally up for their turn. |
Endeavour Starfleet
899
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 08:03:00 -
[486] - Quote
+1 on the Fleet hangar idea for ammo trucks. Even if it means CCP will reduce the overall hold a bit. |
Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
509
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 08:06:00 -
[487] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
......
I don't know about changing the way expanders work. That would probably break a lot of other common fits outside of T1 Industrials.
But separate bays that aren't effected by cargo expanders means we could get out of the rut of balancing Industrial ships under the assumption they will all be fit with 3 T1 cargo rigs and a T2 expander in every low slot. Just use the racial industrial skill to increase Industrial bay size. That way, ships can be given a balancing pass where the cargo capacity is one thing, and classifying the ship as being best HP, speed, or agility can be done with all available fitting space on the table.
You know thinking about this I got to say this is an aspect that would be interesting to look at in the future. It would give more meaning to moving the specialized haulers to ORE and then doing a new balance pass to incorporate that into the standard lineup. I am agreeing with a goon? In this topic? WHAT!?
Well, not completely agreeing.
If they are going to do separate Industrial Bays as a way to break out of the 'max expanded' fitting rut, they should do it now. It's obviously on the table from the restricted bay idea. But if they do it halfway like the current ones, it means being horribly unbalanced, where Gallente get the choice hulls and the other races are still stuck in the old 'max expanded' way of doing things. The huge bays may be balanced by the restrictions, but then the scales tip because they can add low slot mods and rigs that would never be used on the other Industrials.
They should make the break to separate bays for the T1 industrials now. Leave cargo rigs/mods as is, and then give Transports the same treatment when it is their turn.
|
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
1152
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 08:08:00 -
[488] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:Benny Ohu wrote: yeah but what i meant by the 'house on sand' thing is that if there's a problem with expanders, they must be considered at the same time as t1 indies anyway. if t2 stuff needs to be tweaked or balanced at the same time, then it gets done at the same time. saying 'here's a problem, let's leave it how it is, build more broken stuff on top of it, and consider it later when we're looking at other broken stuff' just leads to a shitload of broken stuff and a terrible game, expecially when you get to more broken stuff it's easier to say 'we already build more broken stuff on top of broken stuff, balancing even more broken stuff is now easier to do on top of all of that instead of moving back and doing it all properly'
'more work' or 'this wasn't planned' are not reasons to build your house on sand instead of moving the site to stone
Agreed - but that's why the T2s would have to be done at the same time. So it might well be that the specialized bays are a 'right now' measure, and the final revamp to T1 industrials comes when the T2s are finally up for their turn. i was aware t2s might have to be done at the same time (even though i expressed doubt), i was just confronting starfleet's assertion that this would remove the option of a rethink of expanders
basically my post was kicking starfleet's post down a well
e: although there's other issues brought up by starfleet and shepard regarding changing expanders and i already said i liked shepard's cargo thing instead so can we get off this line of conversation now :( |
Endeavour Starfleet
899
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 08:09:00 -
[489] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:Benny Ohu wrote: yeah but what i meant by the 'house on sand' thing is that if there's a problem with expanders, they must be considered at the same time as t1 indies anyway. if t2 stuff needs to be tweaked or balanced at the same time, then it gets done at the same time. saying 'here's a problem, let's leave it how it is, build more broken stuff on top of it, and consider it later when we're looking at other broken stuff' just leads to a shitload of broken stuff and a terrible game, expecially when you get to more broken stuff it's easier to say 'we already build more broken stuff on top of broken stuff, balancing even more broken stuff is now easier to do on top of all of that instead of moving back and doing it all properly'
'more work' or 'this wasn't planned' are not reasons to build your house on sand instead of moving the site to stone
Agreed - but that's why the T2s would have to be done at the same time. So it might well be that the specialized bays are a 'right now' measure, and the final revamp to T1 industrials comes when the T2s are finally up for their turn.
This.
I would personally love if CCP had infinite resources and we could have the debate on what T2 ship becomes the POS hold and which one becomes the capital "Milk Cow" (U-Boats that serviced other U-Boats at sea in the 2nd world war) tender. And do it right now.
But they don't. And there are very big issues that need to be fixed first. ( Modular POS and NAO! ) Before they dive too deeply into this. |
Arrendis
Hephaestus LLC Fatal Ascension
17
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 08:14:00 -
[490] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote: One says he pays others to do his hauling. Fair enough but for someone who is spacerich this is like George HW Bush's Grocery store moment.
Well, keep in mind, that organizational capability I was talking about? In the larger alliances I've been part of/dealt with, that's included freight service - you set up a courier contract, and pay X isk/m3, with a minimum order size, and there you go.
It's actually a lot cheaper to use your alliance's logistics service than it is to buy a jump freighter of your own. So it's not necessarily an issue of 'I'm spacerich, I hire the little people to haul stuff' - though it might well be exactly that.
|
|
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
1152
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 08:23:00 -
[491] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:This.
I would personally love if CCP had infinite resources and we could have the debate on what T2 ship becomes the POS hold and which one becomes the capital "Milk Cow" (U-Boats that serviced other U-Boats at sea in the 2nd world war) tender. And do it right now.
But they don't. And there are very big issues that need to be fixed first. ( Modular POS and NAO! ) Before they dive too deeply into this. you're not getting this. this is the discussion on industrial balance. we will discuss industrial balance. what you've been saying is 'hey maybe doing it properly would take extra work'. it either takes extra work or they choose to do what they're doing now. that's fine. that's glaringly obvious to anyone posting. but it doesn't stop people discussing what they think might be problems or better ways of doing things. bringing up the idea that 'ccp can't do everything' as an argument against an idea is entirely pointless. as is 'you stupid rich goon i bet you're arguing something else because this change is bad for you'. neither actually addresses any argument or idea someone posts. you need to stop it because it's a waste of time and doesn't facilitate an actual discussion.
ccp is perfectly capable of prioritising their own work on the game. it doesn't and shouldn't stop us discussing industrial balance. |
Endeavour Starfleet
899
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 08:36:00 -
[492] - Quote
Benny Ohu wrote:Endeavour Starfleet wrote:This.
I would personally love if CCP had infinite resources and we could have the debate on what T2 ship becomes the POS hold and which one becomes the capital "Milk Cow" (U-Boats that serviced other U-Boats at sea in the 2nd world war) tender. And do it right now.
But they don't. And there are very big issues that need to be fixed first. ( Modular POS and NAO! ) Before they dive too deeply into this. you're not getting this. this is the discussion on industrial balance. we will discuss industrial balance. what you've been saying is 'hey maybe doing it properly would take extra work'. it either takes extra work or they choose to do what they're doing now. that's fine. that's glaringly obvious to anyone posting. but it doesn't stop people discussing what they think might be problems or better ways of doing things. bringing up the idea that 'ccp can't do everything' as an argument against an idea is entirely pointless. as is 'you stupid rich goon i bet you're arguing something else because this change is bad for you'. neither actually addresses any argument or idea someone posts. you need to stop it because it's a waste of time and doesn't facilitate an actual discussion. ccp is perfectly capable of prioritising their own work on the game. it doesn't and shouldn't stop us discussing industrial balance.
Benny Ohu wrote: e: although there's other issues brought up by starfleet and shepard regarding changing expanders and i already said i liked shepard's cargo thing instead so can we get off this line of conversation now :(
The whole thing got off topic anyway. Tech 2 transport rebalancing needs to be in it's own topic. That is likely to be an even more controversial as people have quite a bit of SP invested in those ships.
|
Minamel
Stardust Heavy Industries SpaceMonkey's Alliance
10
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 08:52:00 -
[493] - Quote
Like the changes so far..
What would i like as specialized Hauler Ship? What do i like most in my T3-¦s?
Interdiction Nullifier!! |
Arrendis
Hephaestus LLC Fatal Ascension
17
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 09:03:00 -
[494] - Quote
Benny Ohu wrote: ccp is perfectly capable of prioritising their own work on the game. it doesn't and shouldn't stop us discussing industrial balance.
Well, then let's discuss!
CCP's obviously decided they want haulers to handle 35-40k on the high end for general-purpose hauling, and about 50% more on the specialized holds. So, really, that's how they should simplify it down. Set the large haulers up for that range. So if they're looking at 6000m3 (for skill 1) to 37k for the Itty V, then you're looking at about increments of 7,750.
Which, of course, doesn't work - it's larger than the base 6k.
But these are the large haulers, so we have to assume you're talking about them anticipating full expansion even before skills. That would give us, I think... 31,000 for skill 1 w/full expansion?
So call it 30,000m3 + 5% per level of skill, and voila, a progression of 1,500m3 per level of skill.
Adjust up or down as wanted for racial variance.
Then you work on the other stuff like EH, align time, speed, etc.
Then for the T2s, you increase the capacity by a little bit by making the multiplier 7.5% per skill level, add a low slot to whatever layout you set for the T1s, and add back in the DST's +2 Warp Stability, and there you are. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
559
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 09:04:00 -
[495] - Quote
Two turrets on the Sigil. Processed ice products in the mineral bay. Call it perfect. |
Coriele Calec
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 09:20:00 -
[496] - Quote
Comments in no particular order.
Specialized haulers: The specialized haulers don't really need to carry more than 55 000 m^3. This is still better than the Bestower (witha maxfit of GSCs the Bestower weighs in somewhere around 50 700 m^3), but a much smaller difference. Given the fitting options of the specialized ships - rigs and lows that would otherwise be reserved - the ships will still have a clearly defined niche use worth pursuing. You could probably even dump it down to 50k flat without removing it as a serious contender for enough flight profiles to make it worth picking up.
Not average enough: The Iteron V could also do with losing another 1-1.5k worth of cargo capacity to make the choice more interesting. It doesn't look sufficiently average yet compared to the others.
Counting GSCs again: The Mammoth not breaching 36 000 m^3 also means it'll fit 11 GSCs, versus the Bestowers 13. Giving it another 800 m^3 would fix that. If this isn't viewed as a problem given the tradeoff of speed, then I'd argue that bumping the Iteron V below the 36k limit wouldn't be a problem either, as it would make the Amarr and Caldari lines look better.
Additional flavour: Personally, I'm also a Big Fan of a slight scanning bonus for the the Minmatar line. It adds flavour - similar to the drones on the Iteron - making it slightly more useful for certain applications, without in any way unbalancing anything. Especially not now that everyone has two highslots.
Misc: The tankier versions all look nice, yay for more hull tanking, yay for drones, yay for warpspeed increases (its not a lot of seconds, but Jita->Rens they add up a lot quicker than you'd like). Nice touch that the Wreath and Badger will be able to fit an additional GSC compared to their role mates for some extra carry capacity.
(So much better than the the first draft!)
I also have a request about the formatting in the OP though, could we get more numbers of cargo against skill (/expanders and rigs)? Right now, you're listing the regular cargo on the big haulers using lvl 5 skills, but the specialized haulers on the level I skills? (If that's not the case, I'd still like a more clear formatting on which numbers apply which skills sets!)
In particular, a "real" comparision is probably going to be a fully tanked specialized vessel against a fully cargo fit non-specialized vessel. Its less obvious than it should be how such a comparison would pan out the way we're currently getting the numbers, and I think that's degrading the quality of the feedback. |
Kaeden Dourhand
T.O.R.
5
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 09:28:00 -
[497] - Quote
Quote:Not average enough: The Iteron V could also do with losing another 1-1.5k worth of cargo capacity to make the choice more interesting. It doesn't look sufficiently average yet compared to the others.
seconding this, again. With the current numbers (not hatin' on the ideas, just the numbers), there is too little incentive for anyone to train amarr or caldari when they can just train gallente to 5 and have all the bays they need + a good hauler. |
Endeavour Starfleet
899
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 09:28:00 -
[498] - Quote
Well if you want to open pandoras box by looking at T2s in this topic...
In my opinion the Tech 2s should continue the trend started by the specialized T1s. One race ought to keep the classic Transport and covert hauler while the others become highly specialized ships.
Caldari - POS Ship with a hold designed for just about everything POS related. - Capital Ship tender with hold designed to jump fuel and drones (Fighters etc..)
Amarr - Super EHP with very little cargo for carrying those extremely precious items. - Paper tank. But can warp inside a bubble. Very little cargo and meant again for hauling small precious items. |
Endeavour Starfleet
899
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 09:32:00 -
[499] - Quote
Coriele Calec wrote:Comments in no particular order.
Specialized haulers: The specialized haulers don't really need to carry more than 55 000 m^3. This is still better than the Bestower (witha maxfit of GSCs the Bestower weighs in somewhere around 50 700 m^3), but a much smaller difference. Given the fitting options of the specialized ships - rigs and lows that would otherwise be reserved - the ships will still have a clearly defined niche use worth pursuing. You could probably even dump it down to 50k flat without removing it as a serious contender for enough flight profiles to make it worth picking up.
No. They already got nerfed back a bit with the change to base cargo which will mean newer players have to train longer to make better use of these ships. They do not need any further nerfs when you note that most will only take Gallente to III or IV after this anyway. |
Tiber Ibis
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
63
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 09:43:00 -
[500] - Quote
Edward Pierce wrote:If you really want to add some racial variety, remove the Iteron M. V so that Gallente don't have a general hauler option.
All the pro-variety people should be cool with that right? Since cross-training is no big deal. This is what I am thinking to be honest. The gallente general purpose haulers need to be the worst, or at least not as good as they are right now. The specialised haulers are so good that it seems unfair to make the gallente general purpose haulers this good also. My thoughts would be to make the iteron V a specialised hauler as well and remove the normal cargo space. |
|
Endeavour Starfleet
899
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 09:50:00 -
[501] - Quote
Tiber Ibis wrote:Edward Pierce wrote:If you really want to add some racial variety, remove the Iteron M. V so that Gallente don't have a general hauler option.
All the pro-variety people should be cool with that right? Since cross-training is no big deal. This is what I am thinking to be honest. The gallente general purpose haulers need to be the worst, or at least not as good as they are right now. The specialised haulers are so good that it seems unfair to make the gallente general purpose haulers this good also. My thoughts would be to make the iteron V a specialised hauler as well and remove the normal cargo space.
The issue is what would it be used for? I believe it was said that there was a technical reason preventing a POS fueler on this pass. (Tho in my opinion it would be better to combine all POS operations into a dedicated t2 rebalance)
Actually. Perhaps it could be used to give a good in game test of the cargo bay that isn't affected by expanders that was mentioned earlier? |
Thorne Zyman
Between the lines
9
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 10:03:00 -
[502] - Quote
How about adding the stacking nerf formula to cargo expanders, then balance the base cargo hold of t1 and t2 industrials around fitting 3 (or 4?) expanders.
This would allow for Amarr transports to have one mid slot and plenty of lows. When fitting you can then choose between tank and agility.
Caldari Ships with a lot of mids and few lows will fit a tank, then choose between agility and cargo hold.
Minmatar & Gallente will be somewhere in between, choosing from a lesser shield tank with a good mix of cargo and agility, or maybe less agility with a bit more tank.
Biggest problem I can see with this idea is it greatly reduces the value of cargo rigs - not sure that's much of a down side though, at the moment 9/10 industrials are 3 x extender rigged and this will add some variation. |
Endeavour Starfleet
899
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 10:25:00 -
[503] - Quote
Thorne Zyman wrote:How about adding the stacking nerf formula to cargo expanders, then balance the base cargo hold of t1 and t2 industrials around fitting 3 (or 4?) expanders.
This would allow for Amarr transports to have one mid slot and plenty of lows. When fitting you can then choose between tank and agility.
Caldari Ships with a lot of mids and few lows will fit a tank, then choose between agility and cargo hold.
Minmatar & Gallente will be somewhere in between, choosing from a lesser shield tank with a good mix of cargo and agility, or maybe less agility with a bit more tank.
Biggest problem I can see with this idea is it greatly reduces the value of cargo rigs - not sure that's much of a down side though, at the moment 9/10 industrials are 3 x extender rigged and this will add some variation.
Look earlier in the thread. Those nerfs would cause massive changes to more than T1 haulers.
Edit: Would be better if I just quoted him.
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
It is sort of circular that Industrials are designed around a specific fit.
I don't know about changing the way expanders work. That would probably break a lot of other common fits outside of T1 Industrials.
But separate bays that aren't effected by cargo expanders means we could get out of the rut of balancing Industrial ships under the assumption they will all be fit with 3 T1 cargo rigs and a T2 expander in every low slot. Just use the racial industrial skill to increase Industrial bay size. That way, ships can be given a balancing pass where the cargo capacity is one thing, and classifying the ship as being best HP, speed, or agility can be done with all available fitting space on the table.
|
Maru Sha
The Department of Justice
4
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 10:31:00 -
[504] - 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.
I don't even know those special edition industrials, but since you call them "special" ... why not keeping their old stats and making them special in that regard? This way they could become artefacts of the old times, no matter if their fitting will be better or worse than the new ordinary ones. |
Thorne Zyman
Between the lines
9
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 10:49:00 -
[505] - Quote
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
It is sort of circular that Industrials are designed around a specific fit.
I don't know about changing the way expanders work. That would probably break a lot of other common fits outside of T1 Industrials.
But separate bays that aren't effected by cargo expanders means we could get out of the rut of balancing Industrial ships under the assumption they will all be fit with 3 T1 cargo rigs and a T2 expander in every low slot. Just use the racial industrial skill to increase Industrial bay size. That way, ships can be given a balancing pass where the cargo capacity is one thing, and classifying the ship as being best HP, speed, or agility can be done with all available fitting space on the table.
I can only think of one example of a cargo fit ship which isn't a T1 or T2 industrial (or ORE Industrial) and that's the ol' Honour Tanked Revelation.
Adding a stacking nerf to them will fix the "all lows and rigs got to expanders" issue without changing the ships that occasionally fit one or two cargo expanders (eg, barges, some frigs, etc). |
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
1152
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 10:53:00 -
[506] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Look earlier in the thread. Those nerfs would cause massive changes to more than T1 haulers.
Edit: Would be better if I just quoted him [shepard's quote actually has no info in it] to actually list the ships
haulers - topic of thread, duh
noctis - usually kitted out with full lows of expanders and either cargo rigs or salvage rigs, may suffer from same perceived problem as expanders may be causing on haulers, that of limited viable fitting options
rorqual - used for logistics (setting up POS etc), beyond that i have nfi. would probably hurt a lot from stacking penalised expanders
salvaging destroyers - stacking penalty wouldn't hurt much considering they don't have many lowslots anyway
t1 probing frigs - used for hauling due to high cargo, also low number of slots anyway, so a stacking penalty wouldn't do much
mining barges - some idiots still fit expanders on these. notable because they received the 'fixed bay' treatment and have more viable fitting options because of it!
orca - also usually fitted with max expanders in the lows, occasionally a dc, pretty much a giant jetcan. freighters are better at this these days vOv |
Penny Nickals
Nickals and Dimes
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 12:00:00 -
[507] - Quote
Thanks Rise for the hard work. More differentiation, more options.
Looking forward to seeing how these changes play out. |
Daedra Blue
Atomic Biohazard
45
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 12:08:00 -
[508] - Quote
This is awesome i finally have a reason to train something else other then gallente industrial.
\o/ 10+ |
Aprudena Gist
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
43
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 12:57:00 -
[509] - Quote
Daedra Blue wrote:This is awesome i finally have a reason to train something else other then gallente industrial. \o/ 10+ Are you stupid or not reading the changes then? all these changes do are make every other races haulers pointless.
They should just delete all racial haulers from the game at this point because the only race thats even remotely worth while to use now is gallente.
|
Anna Sharisa
Pandora Mining Corporation
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 13:13:00 -
[510] - Quote
Good change but for prfessionnal miner we need a better cargo with ore bay, 42000m3 is not enough,
we need to put 2, 3 maybe 4 can for useful industrial ship
actualy if you mine in small grp you have nothing good at small cost for hauling ore
- Retriver have 27500m3 (1can) 40m isk - Mackinaw have 35000m3 (about 1.4can) 200m isk
-actual industral ship 38000m3(about 1.5can) 15m isk
after we have the big ship -Orca about 200000m3 (about 7.4 can) 700m isk
we need someting between mack/iteron V and orca, with ore bay 90000m3 to 110000m3 capacity (about 4 can)
actualy i use mackinaw for hauling my ore, only good ship wiht capacity and good not bad shield for low sec
btw: sry for my english
|
|
DJ FunkyBacon
Eve Radio Corporation
156
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 13:44:00 -
[511] - Quote
http://themittani.com/news/industrial-homogenization-no-more
Since I can't keep my thoughts on this to a couple of condensed paragraphs, I made you another article Rise. |
Jinde Usoko
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 13:56:00 -
[512] - Quote
So many Goon tears here. Looks like CCP is going in the right direction! +1 to changes! |
Markku Laaksonen
EVE University Ivy League
148
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 15:39:00 -
[513] - 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.
Special Edition Iterons are all manufactured by (or least have the paint job of) the Quafe Corp., right? Give them a special Quafe bay. 50,000m^3 of the good stuff. Maybe even make the hold bigger. For the super awesome special Quafe Ultramarine edition Iteron, give it the 50,000m^3 (at least) Quafe bay, and an additional bay for chips. Probably Doritos. Yeah.
That's nice. |
Markku Laaksonen
EVE University Ivy League
148
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 15:46:00 -
[514] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:We are going to go ahead and bump the unpacked volume on the Hoarder significantly (up to 400000) to avoid any major issues with compression. This gives it the same packed volume to cargo ratio that the Iteron V has currently.
Snipped the important part of the quote.
Will someone explain the ratio that he's taking about here for me? I don't quite get its significance. |
MailDeadDrop
Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
198
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 16:03:00 -
[515] - Quote
Markku Laaksonen wrote:CCP Rise wrote:We are going to go ahead and bump the unpacked volume on the Hoarder significantly (up to 400000) to avoid any major issues with compression. This gives it the same packed volume to cargo ratio that the Iteron V has currently. Snipped the important part of the quote. Will someone explain the ratio that he's taking about here for me? I don't quite get its significance.
It has to do with mineral compression (which is how nullsec gets enough minerals to build capitals and supers). Essentially build ammo in highsec which takes up less room than the minerals, load into hauler (or Hoarder's ammo bay in the future), then load that into carrier in lowsec. Jump to nullsec, unload ammo, reprocess.
MDD |
Arrendis
Hephaestus LLC Fatal Ascension
17
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 16:22:00 -
[516] - Quote
Thorne Zyman wrote: I can only think of one example of a cargo fit ship which isn't a T1 or T2 industrial (or ORE Industrial) and that's the ol' Honour Tanked Revelation.
Really? How much liquid ozone does an ibis hold without cargohold expanders?
Disposable rookie cynos, man. |
Arrendis
Hephaestus LLC Fatal Ascension
17
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 16:25:00 -
[517] - Quote
Anna Sharisa wrote:Good change but for prfessionnal miner we need a better cargo with ore bay, 42000m3 is not enough,
we need to put 2, 3 maybe 4 can for useful industrial ship
actualy if you mine in small grp you have nothing good at small cost for hauling ore
- Retriver have 27500m3 (1can) 40m isk - Mackinaw have 35000m3 (about 1.4can) 200m isk
-actual industral ship 38000m3(about 1.5can) 15m isk
after we have the big ship -Orca about 200000m3 (about 7.4 can) 700m isk
we need someting between mack/iteron V and orca, with ore bay 90000m3 to 110000m3 capacity (about 4 can)
actualy i use mackinaw for hauling my ore, only good ship wiht capacity and good not bad shield for low sec
btw: sry for my english
After skill bonuses, it's more like 61,000m3.
|
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
59
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 16:29:00 -
[518] - Quote
Daedra Blue wrote:This is awesome i finally have a reason to train something else other then gallente industrial. \o/ 10+ I love seeing proper use of sarcasm on these forums. |
Arrendis
Hephaestus LLC Fatal Ascension
17
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 16:35:00 -
[519] - Quote
Markku Laaksonen wrote:CCP Rise wrote:We are going to go ahead and bump the unpacked volume on the Hoarder significantly (up to 400000) to avoid any major issues with compression. This gives it the same packed volume to cargo ratio that the Iteron V has currently. Snipped the important part of the quote. Will someone explain the ratio that he's taking about here for me? I don't quite get its significance.
He's talking about the ratio of (Hold Size) : (Size of the ship).
The Hoarder at full skills, for example, would be: 61,500m3 of ammo bay to 400,000m3 of volume. (61500:400000), for a final ratio of 1:6.5 - so each m3 of ammo space takes up 6.5m3 of hangar space.
The Iteron V, at current volume and posted cargo amounts, is 37,152m3 of cargo to 275,000m3 of volume, for a final ratio of 1:7.4 - a little worse than the Hoarder, but not limited to ammunition - which matters, because the 'normal' compression method for minerals isn't actually ammo, it's T1 guns.
|
Markku Laaksonen
EVE University Ivy League
148
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 17:02:00 -
[520] - Quote
I understand the compression bit, I was unclear on how the unpackaged volume of the ship mattered. I assumed the pilot would fly the ship to the destination, but now I see that they would stick Hoarders -full of ammo- (or whatever) in a jump freighter and make their trip that way. Thanks for answering.
Also, thanks MailDeadDrop for the attempt, but I really can't brain some times.
-Edited text- |
|
Akemi Kiyoura
The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People
4
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 17:08:00 -
[521] - Quote
Akemi Kiyoura wrote: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. bump for justice. |
Vayn Baxtor
Community for Justice
57
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 17:39:00 -
[522] - Quote
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.
Somewhere, I had the idea that one should introduce a seperate group of viable in-between ships that are "missing" (as mentioned above in the quote). ORE is a good example for the introduction of the Orca; Orca being a real VESSEL.
It is big, it does the job - and though a bit too effective, it is clearly awesome. It requires dedication and it is an impressive teamwork-focused vessel that can do various industrial related tasks. And I like that literally command ship type of vessels. (hello Homeworld:Cataclysm)
Had this idea once, and maybe it is not much of a brainfart after all. Following that idea, maybe there could be an emphasis on this Vessel Class topic afte rall; As in officially introducing a bracket that is subcap, but (much) larger than BC/BS.
I'd almost say, lets copies of the current industrial ships and having them be much larger with their respective upclassed designs, including a Noctis hull for PI, in there too.
They'd have the size to suffice anything around being dedicated haulers with special bays, PI, etc - Orca could still be boss in terms of T1 hauling etc. And creative minds could come up with a decent Orca <-> Freighter inbetweener, if necessary or desired.
So - We could have combat variants (meaning a different gameplay and style of ships) too, and the industrial ones that could tackle all the problems the current/upcoming T1 Industrials may have.
Toss in an industrial ship contest and voila.
Has to be well thought through though, and as usual, it is likely too early to have such for the game currently how it is.
But to reiterate, I really think there should be a VESSEL-class bracket; seperating from the more agile Frig <-> BS bracket and introducing this "Vessel ruleset" . They could also have shipbonuses that use "unusual skills" - Science Industrial Ship -> /Science Skills, /Industrial skills.
Lots of stuff could be played around with, but that would require a thread. Whatever, just something to think about.
Or it could just be an alternative so that there is that bridge between Orca <-> Freighter. Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all. |
Maximus Tyberius
Darklight Shipyards
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 18:16:00 -
[523] - Quote
Maybe someone already proposed this: but anyway
To minimize the unequalities, just give Caldari and Amarr at least 1 extra industrial...
For caldari this is extremely easy... Reskin the bustard and make it Badger III (as it originally was intended to)
For amarr it is a little more tricky...perhaps adding some container like structures under the Sigil's belly, and reskin and call it Sigil Mk II Other names: Emblem, Chevron, Insignia ..(just sayin)
Some other ideas : Give Non-Gallente races a frigate-sized industrial, as easy as to attach giant secure container horizontally to a rookie ship (example) http://imageshack.us/a/img547/7484/a6eu.jpg
So we get:
: Iteron mk I = Cheap and flimsy throwaway industrial, no special ability : Iteron mk II = agile and tanky : Iteron Mk III = Special Ability in between (ore hold, gas hold, PI hold) : Iteron Mk IV = Fast subwarp and Fast warp (6 AU), but VERY reduced cargohold (Itty IV model is too small for its cargo hold!) : Iteron Mk V = Big Cargo
: Wreathe = agile and tanky : Hoarder = Special Ability in between (ore hold, gas hold, PI hold) : Mammoth = Big Cargo
: Badger I = agile and tanky : Badger II = special ability in between (ore hold, gas hold, PI hold) : Badger III (reskinned bustard) = Big Cargo
: Sigil = agile and tanky : Sigil Mk II = (reskinned sigil) special ability in between (ore hold, gas hold, PI hold) : Bestower = Big Cargo
Is all right for the bestower to have the biggest hold, cause it looks bigger than the Itty V.. ( I'm one of the guys that trained gallente industrial 5)
Well, there's some crazy Ideas, hope it helps...
Keep the good work! |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
563
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 18:41:00 -
[524] - Quote
I think some of you are very blatantly (maybe it's deliberate?) missing the point that there isn't going to be any third "major revision" of these ships despite your insistence that there should be one. As such, you're really wasting a lot of time and burying everyone else's more-realistic suggestions under your wishful thinking.
That being said, people who wish for the Iteron V to lose some cargo space in order to balance Gallente out better and stop some of the people who are saying "Now there literally is no reason to train anything other than Gallente except being an idiot" are forgetting that the Iteron V is mostly stuck at its current cargo space because of the insufferable firestorm of whining and rageposting that would happen if it lost even half a cubic meter of space. I absolutely agree that the Iteron V should have the lowest max cargo of all the "cargo-focused" industrials, but that impending firestorm of whine.. I dunno about having to deal with that.
Give the sigil a second turret mount, make refined gas and ice products fit into the mineral hold, let POS fuel fit into the ammo/charge hold (and maybe, maybe make it a fleet hold) and call the changes done. |
Taleden
North Wind Local no. 612
42
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 19:04:00 -
[525] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:I absolutely agree that the Iteron V should have the lowest max cargo of all the "cargo-focused" industrials, but that impending firestorm of whine.. I dunno about having to deal with that.
Or, they could just change the special bay capacity bonus of the Iteron II-IV and Hoarder to use the ORE Industrial skill, while the ships themselves retain the racial industrial level 1 skill requirement and velocity bonus.
That way Gallente Industrial skill points are no longer overvalued compared to the other races, but the Iteron V doesn't require any rage-inducing nerfs and art doesn't have to spend any time rebranding the ships as ORE industrials. Everyone's happy. |
Omnathious Deninard
The Scope Gallente Federation
1218
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 19:08:00 -
[526] - Quote
Taleden wrote:Alvatore DiMarco wrote:I absolutely agree that the Iteron V should have the lowest max cargo of all the "cargo-focused" industrials, but that impending firestorm of whine.. I dunno about having to deal with that. Or, they could just change the special bay capacity bonus of the Iteron II-IV and Hoarder to use the ORE Industrial skill, while the ships themselves retain the racial industrial level 1 skill requirement and velocity bonus. That way Gallente Industrial skill points are no longer overvalued compared to the other races, but the Iteron V doesn't require any rage-inducing nerfs and art doesn't have to spend any time rebranding the ships as ORE industrials. Everyone's happy. No. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Tiber Ibis
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
63
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 19:10:00 -
[527] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Tiber Ibis wrote: This is what I am thinking to be honest. The gallente general purpose haulers need to be the worst, or at least not as good as they are right now. The specialised haulers are so good that it seems unfair to make the gallente general purpose haulers this good also. My thoughts would be to make the iteron V a specialised hauler as well and remove the normal cargo space.
The issue is what would it be used for? I believe it was said that there was a technical reason preventing a POS fueler on this pass. (Tho in my opinion it would be better to combine all POS operations into a dedicated t2 rebalance) Actually. Perhaps it could be used to give a good in game test of the cargo bay that isn't affected by expanders that was mentioned earlier? One option, make the Itty V carry gas, then make the Itty IV carry regular ore. Another option could be make the Itty V carry unpacakged ships. Another option make it carry ship modules. Literally tonnes of option available. |
Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
509
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 19:16:00 -
[528] - Quote
Thorne Zyman wrote:Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
It is sort of circular that Industrials are designed around a specific fit.
I don't know about changing the way expanders work. That would probably break a lot of other common fits outside of T1 Industrials.
But separate bays that aren't effected by cargo expanders means we could get out of the rut of balancing Industrial ships under the assumption they will all be fit with 3 T1 cargo rigs and a T2 expander in every low slot. Just use the racial industrial skill to increase Industrial bay size. That way, ships can be given a balancing pass where the cargo capacity is one thing, and classifying the ship as being best HP, speed, or agility can be done with all available fitting space on the table.
I can only think of one example of a cargo fit ship which isn't a T1 or T2 industrial (or ORE Industrial) and that's the ol' Honour Tanked Revelation. Adding a stacking nerf to them will fix the "all lows and rigs got to expanders" issue without changing the ships that occasionally fit one or two cargo expanders (eg, barges, some frigs, etc).
Cyno ships, salvage destroyers, Noctii, Orcas, Rorquals, T2 Industrials, mining battleships, who knows what else.
Changing expanders is beyond the scope of T1 Industrial balances and could have a lot of unintended consequences. Most notably is that is would break T2 Industrials before they get there own rebalance.
If they can put separeate bays in Iteron II - IV, they can do it to all of them. Come up with a base line for the general cargo ones, a bit bigger on the resitricted bays, a little small on the fleet hangers. Leave a decent sized expandable cargo if people still want to expand it. I can see the PI hauler being one that you would want expanders to carry command centers, since the PI only bay probably can't carry those. Once you are done dropping command centers, refit to something more suitable to just hauling PI stuff. Or some one hauling ore or minerals to market in those specific haulers, and then fit expanders to so small general bay so they can haul back some modules or ammo they bought.
Also, if they just change the base cargo and expander machanics, it still leaves the restricted bay versions in sort of an odd position. The general versions would still likely be fit for 'max expander' because all people are thinking is packing in a lot of stuff, while the restricted versions get the bonus of haulling a bunch of stuff and fitting WCSs and agility mods, using a 10% to cargo skill bonus to gain volume. You could probably fit out the ore only haulers to be a fast and agile as the Industrials in the 'fast and agile' role, while hauling 2 to 3 times more volume.
I think a separate bay meant for the cargo you are hauling is the cleanest way to get out of the 'max expanded' scheme. It would give value to actually training racial industrial for extra cargo, instead of just training Hull Upgrades II for T2 expanders and picking the ship with the most low slots. It would let people fit the ships for a role and work with the base stats, rather than immediately gimping the speed with expanders and putting a weak shield tank on ships that should fit an armor tank.
|
Vayn Baxtor
Community for Justice
57
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 19:29:00 -
[529] - Quote
Quote:I think some of you are very blatantly (maybe it's deliberate?) missing the point that there isn't going to be any third "major revision" of these ships despite your insistence that there should be one. As such, you're really wasting a lot of time and burying everyone else's more-realistic suggestions under your wishful thinking.
Nope. We just post because we can. And because it should be said. It's more about finding long term solutions than the trillions of bandaids being applied everywhere. There is always a hole somewhere just because nobody is brining anything bigger.
Likewise, people been posting realistic short term changes too and, well, hello today.
And some of us want to have the industrial ships bracket get the same attention as any other epeen combat vessel out there. Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all. |
Vincenzo Arbosa
Badabing Salvage Corp
29
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 19:33:00 -
[530] - Quote
I just wanted to come on and say thanks. I appreciate that user feedback has been taken into consideration and I think the changes are an awesome compromise between dev wants and player dreams.
I look forward to seeing these new industrials in use, and the theorycrafting that the new revamps will lead to. Bravo. You shoot em, we loot em.. that's mother truckinGÇÖ right http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuyLTDAC7fE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oz3RpU45_E
|
|
Endeavour Starfleet
899
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 19:37:00 -
[531] - Quote
So I was thinking about this and I believe there can be a fair tradeoff for the Iteron V
Make it a poor mans hauler. It gets a bay that can fit anything but loses quite a lot of its cargo potential. - #1 The bay can't be changed by rigs or mods. Only skills. - #2 Max Capactiy is 25 thousand at Gal V
If you do this it will end up making Gallente completely different from the other lines. And better yet you can rebalance the Iteron Mark V to be a poor mans hauler with the build requirements reflecting that. If people don't have to invest in T2 rigs or cargo mods they might start thinking about other fitting options.
Thoughts on this? This is just my early idea based on earlier ideas posted in this thread. |
Luc Chastot
Gentleman's Corp
418
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 19:37:00 -
[532] - Quote
Now, Badgers and Iterons need their names changed for these changes to be spot on perfect. Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot. |
Saeka Tyr
Sanctuary of Shadows Renegade Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 19:38:00 -
[533] - Quote
I'm just wondering if we could get two high slots in all the cloaky haulers... |
Justin Thyme
The Salvage and Reclamation Guild
8
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 19:41:00 -
[534] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:So I was thinking about this and I believe there can be a fair tradeoff for the Iteron V
Make it a poor mans hauler. It gets a bay that can fit anything but loses quite a lot of its cargo potential. - #1 The bay can't be changed by rigs or mods. Only skills. - #2 Max Capactiy is 25 thousand at Gal V
If you do this it will end up making Gallente completely different from the other lines. And better yet you can rebalance the Iteron Mark V to be a poor mans hauler with the build requirements reflecting that. If people don't have to invest in T2 rigs or cargo mods they might start thinking about other fitting options.
Thoughts on this? This is just my early idea based on earlier ideas posted in this thread.
Well seeing as how i just rigged mine so it hold more i will selfishly say. I don't like this. Especially as this will be the second time that I'll loose good cargo rigs (millions of isk) because of a change.
Just saying.
"Hunting rats is like mining for scrap metal... and occasionally striking gold"-á I don't shoot people. That would be wrong. I do however shoot Ore Thiev...-- Justin Thyme |
Goldensaver
ArTech Expeditions
191
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 19:43:00 -
[535] - Quote
Still don't see any reason to train anything but Gallente (and maybe Minmatar) industrial to V. Less than a 10% performance difference in any one thing versus the specialized ships, but you get utterly massive speciality bays.
Less than a full frigates worth of difference from the max cargohold in both cases, but where one gets a slightly larger bay, the other gets access to huge speciality bays.
I guess I'm not even going to bother injecting another industrial skill except maybe Minmatar on my Obelisk pilot. I've already got the most important one trained up. Definitely not worth wasting another plex to train up 22 days on another racial industrial.
I mean, if the others will eventually get their own speciality bays (e.g. Caldari gets Fuel, Amarr gets starbase structures, there's a maintenance bay in there somewhere, and maybe something else) then alright. But there isn't a large enough difference in effectiveness to warrant spending 22 days training up any racial industrial skill which doesn't have access to speciality bays. |
Endeavour Starfleet
899
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 19:43:00 -
[536] - Quote
Justin Thyme wrote:Endeavour Starfleet wrote:So I was thinking about this and I believe there can be a fair tradeoff for the Iteron V
Make it a poor mans hauler. It gets a bay that can fit anything but loses quite a lot of its cargo potential. - #1 The bay can't be changed by rigs or mods. Only skills. - #2 Max Capactiy is 25 thousand at Gal V
If you do this it will end up making Gallente completely different from the other lines. And better yet you can rebalance the Iteron Mark V to be a poor mans hauler with the build requirements reflecting that. If people don't have to invest in T2 rigs or cargo mods they might start thinking about other fitting options.
Thoughts on this? This is just my early idea based on earlier ideas posted in this thread. Well seeing as how i just rigged mine so it hold more i will selfishly say. I don't like this. Especially as this will be the second time that I'll loose good cargo rigs (millions of isk) because of a change. Just saying.
Good point. Unlike changes to the other ships that generally made them better. For many existing pilots of the Inty V this would be a bit of a nerf.
So maybe my idea is out of scope for 1.1 but I do think eventually it would be something to change. Would you be more open to the idea being implemented with 3 months heads up? |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
328
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 19:45:00 -
[537] - Quote
Goldensaver wrote:Still don't see any reason to train anything but Gallente (and maybe Minmatar) industrial to V. Less than a 10% performance difference in any one thing versus the specialized ships, but you get utterly massive speciality bays.
Less than a full frigates worth of difference from the max cargohold in both cases, but where one gets a slightly larger bay, the other gets access to huge speciality bays.
I guess I'm not even going to bother injecting another industrial skill except maybe Minmatar on my Obelisk pilot. I've already got the most important one trained up. Definitely not worth wasting another plex to train up 22 days on another racial industrial.
I mean, if the others will eventually get their own speciality bays (e.g. Caldari gets Fuel, Amarr gets starbase structures, there's a maintenance bay in there somewhere, and maybe something else) then alright. But there isn't a large enough difference in effectiveness to warrant spending 22 days training up any racial industrial skill which doesn't have access to speciality bays. Cool story, bro. I can see the value in the other industrial lines.
|
Endeavour Starfleet
899
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 19:47:00 -
[538] - Quote
Goldensaver wrote: I mean, if the others will eventually get their own speciality bays (e.g. Caldari gets Fuel, Amarr gets starbase structures, there's a maintenance bay in there somewhere, and maybe something else) then alright. But there isn't a large enough difference in effectiveness to warrant spending 22 days training up any racial industrial skill which doesn't have access to speciality bays.
#1 it seems to be generally agreed that these specialized ships would be better off in the ORE line but CCP can't do that right now due to lack of art assets. This in my opinion will likely end up happening in 2-3 expansions.
#2 My personal hope is that the Tech 2 transports get changed into highly specialized craft. For instance the Caldari being a bay for almost everything POS related. And the Cov Ops one being a capital ship "Milk Cow" tender. |
Goldensaver
ArTech Expeditions
191
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 19:51:00 -
[539] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:Goldensaver wrote:Still don't see any reason to train anything but Gallente (and maybe Minmatar) industrial to V. Less than a 10% performance difference in any one thing versus the specialized ships, but you get utterly massive speciality bays.
Less than a full frigates worth of difference from the max cargohold in both cases, but where one gets a slightly larger bay, the other gets access to huge speciality bays.
I guess I'm not even going to bother injecting another industrial skill except maybe Minmatar on my Obelisk pilot. I've already got the most important one trained up. Definitely not worth wasting another plex to train up 22 days on another racial industrial.
I mean, if the others will eventually get their own speciality bays (e.g. Caldari gets Fuel, Amarr gets starbase structures, there's a maintenance bay in there somewhere, and maybe something else) then alright. But there isn't a large enough difference in effectiveness to warrant spending 22 days training up any racial industrial skill which doesn't have access to speciality bays. Cool story, bro. I can see the value in the other industrial lines. Is the value worth 22 days of training? In my eyes, no. |
Endeavour Starfleet
899
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 19:53:00 -
[540] - Quote
DJ FunkyBacon wrote:http://themittani.com/news/industrial-homogenization-no-more
Since I can't keep my thoughts on this to a couple of condensed paragraphs, I made you another article Rise.
Good article! Would you be willing to comment about my idea for the Iteron Mark V earlier and perhaps write what you think could be done with the Tech 2 transports? |
|
Vayn Baxtor
Community for Justice
57
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 20:16:00 -
[541] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Goldensaver wrote: I mean, if the others will eventually get their own speciality bays (e.g. Caldari gets Fuel, Amarr gets starbase structures, there's a maintenance bay in there somewhere, and maybe something else) then alright. But there isn't a large enough difference in effectiveness to warrant spending 22 days training up any racial industrial skill which doesn't have access to speciality bays.
#1 it seems to be generally agreed that these specialized ships would be better off in the ORE line but CCP can't do that right now due to lack of art assets. This in my opinion will likely end up happening in 2-3 expansions.#2 My personal hope is that the Tech 2 transports get changed into highly specialized craft. For instance the Caldari being a bay for almost everything POS related. And the Cov Ops one being a capital ship "Milk Cow" tender.
QFT I would really love to see that #1 happen. (no sarcasm - seriously meant)
Nonetheless, giving each industrial ship a speciality in any way is better than the same old we've had for all these years. And personally, I could care less if I had to cross-skill, skill +2 months, etc. - It's part of the game.
As long as the ship does the job, I'm all fancy for anything. Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all. |
Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
509
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 20:23:00 -
[542] - Quote
Goldensaver wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote:Goldensaver wrote:Still don't see any reason to train anything but Gallente (and maybe Minmatar) industrial to V. Less than a 10% performance difference in any one thing versus the specialized ships, but you get utterly massive speciality bays.
Less than a full frigates worth of difference from the max cargohold in both cases, but where one gets a slightly larger bay, the other gets access to huge speciality bays.
I guess I'm not even going to bother injecting another industrial skill except maybe Minmatar on my Obelisk pilot. I've already got the most important one trained up. Definitely not worth wasting another plex to train up 22 days on another racial industrial.
I mean, if the others will eventually get their own speciality bays (e.g. Caldari gets Fuel, Amarr gets starbase structures, there's a maintenance bay in there somewhere, and maybe something else) then alright. But there isn't a large enough difference in effectiveness to warrant spending 22 days training up any racial industrial skill which doesn't have access to speciality bays. Cool story, bro. I can see the value in the other industrial lines. Is the value worth 22 days of training? In my eyes, no. Edit: basically my issue with it is tiericide for every other class made me want to run out and train up every races ships of all sizes. They all have great niches, but their niche is matched with an equal, but different niche in another race. Sure some ships came up short, but there was still value at each class for each race. But this? There's value, sure. But there are 3 unique niches available to the Gallente that are completely unmatched by the Amarr and Caldari, and only slightly matched by the Minmatar. Why waste training time for a minor change in effectiveness, when I have access to all the goodies already. I understand they have some plans for the future, but tiericide made me excited for all the other classes. This one doesn't change much. Gallente industrial is still the one to train.
Yah, it still leaves the one that aren't Gallente Industrial as nothing but a prereq for freighters and transports. 22 days so your Bestower can beat out an Iteron V by 2000m3 is one hell of a diminishing return. And you'll still end up training Gallente because the restricted haulers they have are just too sweet not to use. |
Goldensaver
ArTech Expeditions
191
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 20:28:00 -
[543] - Quote
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote: Yah, it still leaves the one that aren't Gallente Industrial as nothing but a prereq for freighters and transports. 22 days so your Bestower can beat out an Iteron V by 2000m3 is one hell of a diminishing return. And you'll still end up training Gallente because the restricted haulers they have are just too sweet not to use.
Exactly my issue. Maybe someday they'll include more reasons to train the others. But on release of this wave of tiericide, there's nothing to get excited about, and I'll still just end up saying Gallente is the only one worth bothering to train up very far, because at the time it takes to get an industrial skill to V, you might as well get the one that gives the most bang for the buck. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
328
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 20:35:00 -
[544] - Quote
Goldensaver wrote:Is the value worth 22 days of training? In my eyes, no.
Edit: basically my issue with it is tiericide for every other class made me want to run out and train up every races ships of all sizes. They all have great niches, but their niche is matched with an equal, but different niche in another race. Sure some ships came up short, but there was still value at each class for each race.
But this? There's value, sure. But there are 3 unique niches available to the Gallente that are completely unmatched by the Amarr and Caldari, and only slightly matched by the Minmatar. Why waste training time for a minor change in effectiveness, when I have access to all the goodies already.
I understand they have some plans for the future, but tiericide made me excited for all the other classes. This one doesn't change much. Gallente industrial is still the one to train. Well, for one, it's not a minor change in effectiveness. The Mammoth being the fastest large hauler is awesome. It means my stuff gets there faster than the rest while AFKing. Or I totally like that the Badger is the biggest "small" one--something Caldari has been lacking for ages! Or, hell, I like that the Mk. II holds 35,000 m3 and has a strong tank. I like these changes.
I also realize that while it's nice to hold up the card that the Iterons are going to carry all these special goods "so much better," which in and of itself is debatable, since I'd argue that speed/tank/align/etc. matters more than room alone, I fully recognize that even in wspace daily I don't even come near my rigged/expanded Bestower's cargo room, so the fact that the Iteron III can carry 30,000 more PI doesn't interest me in the least.
And when it comes time to haul out the goods, I'm certainly not going to fly a thin-tank-PI-loot-pinata in hopes that I don't lose my 500 mil+ haul. I think the argument that Iteron/Hoarder holds so much more than Amarr/Caldari ships through their special holds just doesn't hold as much merit when considering the whole picture, and that's what CCP is looking at as well.
I mentioned earlier that it'd be nice if these ships magically teleported to/from their destinations, so that we would only have to consider cargo room alone. But they don't. They spend time in space like everyone else. That time, like it or not, is time that we just have to sit there and watch. I like that some can do the job faster, with far closer parity to the Itty V currently on TQ.
I'd actually be up for some more Gallente nerfs; maybe make the Iteron V travel at ~1 AU/s LESS than the others, so that Caldari and Amarr are much faster than them, and I'd actually probably propose that the Wreathe and Mammoth get a +1 or +0.5 AU/s speed bump to further the Minmatar speed demon stereotype. So, at the end of the day, Gallente would keep their better agility--in keeping with their racial bias--but would warp slower so as to make their large hauler slightly penalized behind the other Iterons, who would of course keep their warp speed parity with the other races.
|
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
328
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 20:38:00 -
[545] - Quote
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:Yah, it still leaves the one that aren't Gallente Industrial as nothing but a prereq for freighters and transports. 22 days so your Bestower can beat out an Iteron V by 2000m3 is one hell of a diminishing return. And you'll still end up training Gallente because the restricted haulers they have are just too sweet not to use. Keep throwing this around. If you emphasize the 2,000 m3 enough, it'll become more powerful with every sentence! Also, keep ignoring the advantages the other races bring to the table and continue to bash on one stat, so as to have an objective argument!
|
Endeavour Starfleet
899
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 20:38:00 -
[546] - Quote
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote: Yah, it still leaves the one that aren't Gallente Industrial as nothing but a prereq for freighters and transports. 22 days so your Bestower can beat out an Iteron V by 2000m3 is one hell of a diminishing return. And you'll still end up training Gallente because the restricted haulers they have are just too sweet not to use.
Can you comment about my idea above for the Iteron Mark V?
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:So I was thinking about this and I believe there can be a fair tradeoff for the Iteron V
Make it a poor mans hauler. It gets a bay that can fit anything but loses quite a lot of its cargo potential. - #1 The bay can't be changed by rigs or mods. Only skills. - #2 Max Capactiy is 25 thousand at Gal V
If you do this it will end up making Gallente completely different from the other lines. And better yet you can rebalance the Iteron Mark V to be a poor mans hauler with the build requirements reflecting that. If people don't have to invest in T2 rigs or cargo mods they might start thinking about other fitting options.
Thoughts on this? This is just my early idea based on earlier ideas posted in this thread.
How about we make the Inty V a poor mans hauler? |
Goldensaver
ArTech Expeditions
191
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 20:48:00 -
[547] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:Yah, it still leaves the one that aren't Gallente Industrial as nothing but a prereq for freighters and transports. 22 days so your Bestower can beat out an Iteron V by 2000m3 is one hell of a diminishing return. And you'll still end up training Gallente because the restricted haulers they have are just too sweet not to use. Keep throwing this around. If you emphasize the 2,000 m3 enough, it'll become more powerful with every sentence! Also, keep ignoring the advantages the other races bring to the table and continue to bash on one stat, so as to have an objective argument! Alright, besides 2km3, what reason do I have to use the Bestower? It's got about the same tank as the Iteron V, less mids (the Iteron can fit a better shield tank while still fitting max capacity), and lower agility. Now humour me, aside from a bit more cargo space, why would I take a Bestower?
Same argument applies to the Badger MkII, except instead of cargo, the badger gets one more mid. Okay, the Badger tanks a bit more, but has slightly less cargo.
Now, the Iteron V isn't objectively better than either of the others. Simply the differences aren't large enough to warrant going for a Badger/Bestower over an Iteron V when if you go the Iteron V route, you get access to 3 speciality ships.
The Minmatar do have their nice niche as being the fastest. I can appreciate that. But I also appreciate the fact that they too get a speciality ship that also rewards choosing them.
The only place I'll throw the Caldari a bone is with the Badger. It gets great hold size, and still has plenty of mids to fit a generous shield tank. I might fit one out with an LSE, 2 invulns, an Afterburner and the sort... when I'm not just using the cloak+MWD trick. |
Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
510
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 21:25:00 -
[548] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote: How about we make the Inty V a poor mans hauler?
Either that, or shift the restricted hauler to the III. IV and V, make the I a small fast hauler, and the II a small tanky hauler. That way, Gallente's options in the max cargo role are 3 restricted one, and the other race can do something to shine in terms of max general hauling.
What I would really like to see though, aside from using seperate bays to get out of the 'max expanded' scheme, it some other bonuses on these ships so that training racial Industrial has more value, and that different ships stand out from each other besides 'max cargo'.
Even the velocity bonus is pointless, because that 5% per level gets pushed out by the -10% for every T2 cargo expander. With the current mechanics, "fastest" role is completely meaningless as the skill bonus will not make up for expander penalties.
So make the big Gallente haulers the restricted ones, and make the other 3 races big haulers equal in size to each other with the same skill bonus for cargo. Then give them other bonuses that give them more utility, or at least won't get penalized out by forcing them to go "max expanders'. So the Mammoth can be noteworthy for actually being quicker and the Bestower for actually fitting an armor tank. And pilots who train other skills can actually fit something in the lows and rigs to make the speed or the tank difference between the different ships have some real meaning.
|
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
328
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 21:41:00 -
[549] - Quote
Goldensaver wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote:Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:Yah, it still leaves the one that aren't Gallente Industrial as nothing but a prereq for freighters and transports. 22 days so your Bestower can beat out an Iteron V by 2000m3 is one hell of a diminishing return. And you'll still end up training Gallente because the restricted haulers they have are just too sweet not to use. Keep throwing this around. If you emphasize the 2,000 m3 enough, it'll become more powerful with every sentence! Also, keep ignoring the advantages the other races bring to the table and continue to bash on one stat, so as to have an objective argument! Alright, besides 2km3, what reason do I have to use the Bestower? It's got about the same tank as the Iteron V, less mids (the Iteron can fit a better shield tank while still fitting max capacity), and lower agility. Now humour me, aside from a bit more cargo space, why would I take a Bestower? Same argument applies to the Badger MkII, except instead of cargo, the badger gets one more mid. Okay, the Badger tanks a bit more, but has slightly less cargo. Now, the Iteron V isn't objectively better than either of the others. Simply the differences aren't large enough to warrant going for a Badger/Bestower over an Iteron V when if you go the Iteron V route, you get access to 3 speciality ships. The Minmatar do have their nice niche as being the fastest. I can appreciate that. But I also appreciate the fact that they too get a speciality ship that also rewards choosing them. The only place I'll throw the Caldari a bone is with the Badger. It gets great hold size, and still has plenty of mids to fit a generous shield tank. I might fit one out with an LSE, 2 invulns, an Afterburner and the sort... when I'm not just using the cloak+MWD trick. Actually it's closer to 3,000 m3, not 2,000. And when considering a single Industrial line, which is somewhat ridiculous in and of itself, considering that it takes ~15 minutes to cross train, you have to consider the entire line. For Amarr, the Sigil, with its 6 lows is going to have the largest tank of those small, fast haulers, and for Caldari, the story is even better since the Badger I holds a fuckton of cargo and will have the mids for a nice sized shield buffer. Comparing the "big" ships, Bestower holds more, and has more velocity than the others. For Caldari, it has a whopping 7300 base cargo, leaving the lows completely free for nanos, istabs, ODs, etc.
Then, again considering the whole line, I gain access to their T2 ships, where the Prorator holds the most of the BRs with 11,900 m3 in a stupidly fast aligning, warping and cloaky BR. Granted, the Crane and Bustard could use some love, but at least the Crane can hold over the 10k m3 "magic number." If we want to consider the DSTs, which we really shouldn't, since they're all pretty terrible, the Impel can fit a ~150k ehp tank if needed, and the Bustard has the option to carry a modest amount with a fairly strong tank--but, as you're aware, if you're hoping to survive a gank in these ships, with their painful align times, then you're probably doing it wrong and will be dead shortly thereafter.
I won't talk about the virtues of the Providence (being second fastest and second tank) or the Charon holding the most at Freighter IV than the rest can hope to carry at Freighter V, since the freighter trains are somewhat their own skill trains now and only require Industrial III.
Anyway, I get that some people don't see the virtues in the other ships--instead loving to bash in on a single one-dimensional stat--but they are there. If you don't find value in training the others, then train Gallente. This game is about choices, and the other lines do present choice in their speeds, relative carrying capacity, EHP, align times, etc. Some people don't like that these differences exist and want every ship line to be-or-less the same. That was their first draft, and it was pretty clear that marginalizing many ships to keep 8 ships of more or less the same brand of white bread was not ok with the community.
Rise and his team worked tirelessly to infuse the lines with character and differences that are not gamebreaking, especially considering that it's a matter of ~15 minutes or so to train into each line. I do think there's some work left to do, of course. I think Amarr should definitely be given another high slot to be able to join the lolpvp fleets that will occur (there's probably some issue with allowing the PG for lasers, but I'm confident CCP could work it out). I think Minmatar should go ~0.5 to 1 AU/s faster than the others to further differentiate the lines, make their "speed" label compelling and enhance their character. I think Gallente, conversely, could perhaps go ~0.5 AU/s slower than the others, so we'd have fast, medium, and slow hauler lines, and lastly, I think Iteron V could maybe be reduced to 35,900 m3 total capacity so as to block that last GSC. I understand CCP would be hesitant to do this, and I don't necessarily think it's warranted, given the relative strengths of the other ships.
|
Silinde Telemnar
Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 22:12:00 -
[550] - Quote
I think that thre are a lot of good Ideas here. But they all fall short of the overall intent of the original concept behind the starting of this thread and it's predecessor.
The Gallente do have to many industrials, really why do they need 5 of them? But the Amarr and the Caldari only have 2 each. I don't think that is enough. I think all races should have 3 industrials, Drop 2 of the Gallente ones and add a Badger Mark III (fitting with the Gallente / Caldari relationship). Add an Amarr ship. Revisit the Primae to upgrade it for the original purpose it was intended for but no longer works.
All of the racial Inustrials should have a skill requirement of 1, 3, and 5 respectively for the 3 racial industrials
The smallest one of them should be a cheap throway industrial The medium should be a quick/fast (built in Warp stab +1?) The largest should be a slow tanky/massive cargo hauler.
Then take the primae and give it all the specials that everyone on here says should got to the Gallente extra industrials. Give it a few slots for tanking.
Maybe make some new low slot mods for only usuable on industrial ships that add cargo for Fuel, PI goods, etc. |
|
Endeavour Starfleet
899
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 23:19:00 -
[551] - Quote
Silinde Telemnar wrote:I think that thre are a lot of good Ideas here. But they all fall short of the overall intent of the original concept behind the starting of this thread and it's predecessor.
The Gallente do have to many industrials, really why do they need 5 of them? But the Amarr and the Caldari only have 2 each. I don't think that is enough. I think all races should have 3 industrials, Drop 2 of the Gallente ones and add a Badger Mark III (fitting with the Gallente / Caldari relationship). Add an Amarr ship. Revisit the Primae to upgrade it for the original purpose it was intended for but no longer works.
All of the racial Inustrials should have a skill requirement of 1, 3, and 5 respectively for the 3 racial industrials
The smallest one of them should be a cheap throway industrial The medium should be a quick/fast (built in Warp stab +1?) The largest should be a slow tanky/massive cargo hauler.
Then take the primae and give it all the specials that everyone on here says should got to the Gallente extra industrials. Give it a few slots for tanking.
Maybe make some new low slot mods for only usuable on industrial ships that add cargo for Fuel, PI goods, etc.
No. That goes right back to the homogenization that the game needs to get away from. |
Eladaris
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
338
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 23:34:00 -
[552] - Quote
Taleden wrote:Alvatore DiMarco wrote:I absolutely agree that the Iteron V should have the lowest max cargo of all the "cargo-focused" industrials, but that impending firestorm of whine.. I dunno about having to deal with that. Or, they could just change the special bay capacity bonus of the Iteron II-IV and Hoarder to use the ORE Industrial skill, while the ships themselves retain the racial industrial level 1 skill requirement and velocity bonus. That way Gallente Industrial skill points are no longer overvalued compared to the other races, but the Iteron V doesn't require any rage-inducing nerfs and art doesn't have to spend any time rebranding the ships as ORE industrials. Everyone's happy. So... since you can fly post-patch what you can fly pre-patch... Gall. Indy skill magically duplicates itself into a new ORE Indy skill, probably at the same skill level. Effectively doubling your skill point return on investment. And this... means the skill is no longer overvalued? Do we have different definitions of the word? I can't really see CCP saying "Oh, you had Gall. Indy at V, we're going to give you ORE Indy at I. You don't mind, right?" The rage from that decision would make this little kerfuffle seem quiet.
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:That being said, people who wish for the Iteron V to lose some cargo space in order to balance Gallente out better and stop some of the people who are saying "Now there literally is no reason to train anything other than Gallente except being an idiot" are forgetting that the Iteron V is mostly stuck at its current cargo space because of the insufferable firestorm of whining and rageposting that would happen if it lost even half a cubic meter of space. I absolutely agree that the Iteron V should have the lowest max cargo of all the "cargo-focused" industrials, but that impending firestorm of whine.. I dunno about having to deal with that. There are better ships, despite what certain others seem to be saying. I know that if the Bestower held as much right now as it's going to, I wouldn't have had any reason to buy an Orca and I may even be able to sell it now.
Give the sigil a second turret mount, make refined gas and ice products fit into the mineral hold, let POS fuel fit into the ammo/charge hold (and maybe, maybe make it a fleet hold) and call the changes done. Pretty much that. There was enough raging when the Itty V pilots realized they no longer had the top hauler. Nerfing them wouldn't work very well, and you end up with power creep (another rage inducing discussion) if you give everything else 5k more m3 in the bays. I think Rise did the best he could with the limited time-frame and willingness to listen to whiny pilots.
I still think your other suggestions, POS fuel / fleet hold, would work better on T2 ships. Those changes would make the dinky little industrial a little too valuable, IMO.
Goldensaver wrote:Still don't see any reason to train anything but Gallente (and maybe Minmatar) industrial to V. Less than a 10% performance difference in any one thing versus the specialized ships, but you get utterly massive speciality bays.
Since you can train ALL the races to IV in less time than it takes to train one to V... why bother unless you're going for A) Max size (Amarr), B) Max variety (Gall), or a specific Freighter or BR. No one trains anything to V for a DST.
I wish, ultimately, they had decided to make drastic changes and switch all the T1 hauler's away from general cargo holds and CE's in the lows / Cargo rigs into bays with base sizes affected by skill levels... Although that would likely destroy Pyfa's ability to properly model those ships.
But with this project likely already over on time, and Rise and a fair chunk of the Eve population wanting Rise to move onto HAC's, I think we can be happy with what we have. |
Mark Rain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 23:45:00 -
[553] - Quote
They still seem to be merely beginner's disposable joke ships for mission grinding.
Anyone with any sense would use a freighter or orca for hauling and not these "gank me" pinatas.
|
Eladaris
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
338
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 23:48:00 -
[554] - Quote
Mark Rain wrote:They still seem to be merely beginner's disposable joke ships for mission grinding.
Anyone with any sense would use a freighter or orca for hauling and not these "gank me" pinatas.
We are still talking about T1 industrials you can train into in 17minutes, and cost roughly 2mil ISK... right? You wouldn't be comparing these ships to something costing much closer to a billion ISK and requiring a LOT more training time because that'd be silly. |
Mark Rain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2013.06.29 00:12:00 -
[555] - Quote
Eladaris wrote:Mark Rain wrote:They still seem to be merely beginner's disposable joke ships for mission grinding.
Anyone with any sense would use a freighter or orca for hauling and not these "gank me" pinatas.
We are still talking about T1 industrials you can train into in 17minutes, and cost roughly 2mil ISK... right? You wouldn't be comparing these ships to something costing much closer to a billion ISK and requiring a LOT more training time because that'd be silly.
And you validate my point as joke ships...lol |
Eladaris
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
338
|
Posted - 2013.06.29 00:34:00 -
[556] - Quote
Mark Rain wrote:And you validate my point as joke ships, as in the joke is on you if you fly one with more than 100 million isk value inside. Some people are just plain silly, sadly... yourself, I suppose, included. These ships have roles. Ignoring those roles will result in some very enjoyable loss mails for the pilots who gank you.
There have been two very useful and viable gift ships. When you compare them to all the gift ships that were given out, that should be sort of expected. |
Grace Ishukone
Ishukone Advanced Research
24
|
Posted - 2013.06.29 00:47:00 -
[557] - Quote
So now you have made Bestower best cargo capacity, rather than Iteron, you will be giving a skill refund to all players who trainined Gallente V for cargo capacity, right?
Seriousy, you just downgraded a 20 day train skill. Either fix that so it remains best capacity, add something useful like Ship Hauler Bay (50,000 m3 ships ONLY so an iteron can move a packed battleship), or give up a skill refund so people can swqritch to the new flavour of the month ... Amarr haulers.
I love the idea, but taking the top cargo ship off Gallente after so many years and giving it to another race is just a bad call, and a slap in the face to all those players who trained Gallente V - who now see everyone else flying thier ships with Gallente 1.
Iteron V needs to stay top cargo, or fair's fair, skil refund option. |
Mark Rain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2013.06.29 00:53:00 -
[558] - Quote
Eladaris wrote:Mark Rain wrote:And you validate my point as joke ships, as in the joke is on you if you fly one with more than 100 million isk value inside. Some people are just plain silly, sadly... yourself, I suppose, included. These ships have roles. Ignoring those roles will result in some very enjoyable loss mails for the pilots who gank you.
In this case, your role as a flame baiting troll, who resort to ad-hominem attacks when they are shown their illogical fallacies.
Noobs have nothing worthy to haul with regardless of cost. Miniscule improvements to industrials is largely a waste of time. They are still a joke, which probably drives off more players than any other class of ship. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
670
|
Posted - 2013.06.29 01:11:00 -
[559] - Quote
Mark Rain wrote:Eladaris wrote:Mark Rain wrote:And you validate my point as joke ships, as in the joke is on you if you fly one with more than 100 million isk value inside. Some people are just plain silly, sadly... yourself, I suppose, included. These ships have roles. Ignoring those roles will result in some very enjoyable loss mails for the pilots who gank you. In this case, your role as a flame baiting troll, who resort to ad-hominem attacks when they are shown their illogical fallacies. Noobs have nothing worthy to haul with regardless of cost. Miniscule improvements to industrials is largely a waste of time. They are still a joke, which probably drives off more players than any other class of ship. What's your flow of logic there? T1 industrials remain as an enabler to haul loads from 2k-30k with a skill investment of a few minutes and can do so faster than the larger alternatives you've mentioned. There is widespread usage of this range of hauling vessels which benefit a large number of players. This especially includes new players who are easily put off by long training times for basic functionality and can easily accumulate over a couple thousand m^3, regardless of isk worth. Additionally they greatly enable WH dwellers who deal with mass limitations and find larger tools frequently prohibitive. |
Oraac Ensor
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
257
|
Posted - 2013.06.29 01:27:00 -
[560] - Quote
Markku Laaksonen wrote:Special Edition Iterons are all manufactured by (or least have the paint job of) the Quafe Corp., right? Give them a special Quafe bay. 50,000m^3 of the good stuff. Maybe even make the hold bigger. They already have a special Quafe bay. The most they might need is to have the capacities of the normal cargo and Quafe bays altered to match the normal cargo and ore bays on the standard Iteron IV. |
|
Endeavour Starfleet
899
|
Posted - 2013.06.29 01:35:00 -
[561] - Quote
Grace Ishukone wrote:So now you have made Bestower best cargo capacity, rather than Iteron, you will be giving a skill refund to all players who trainined Gallente V for cargo capacity, right?
Seriousy, you just downgraded a 20 day train skill. Either fix that so it remains best capacity, add something useful like Ship Hauler Bay (50,000 m3 ships ONLY so an iteron can move a packed battleship), or give up a skill refund so people can swqritch to the new flavour of the month ... Amarr haulers.
I love the idea, but taking the top cargo ship off Gallente after so many years and giving it to another race is just a bad call, and a slap in the face to all those players who trained Gallente V - who now see everyone else flying thier ships with Gallente 1.
Iteron V needs to stay top cargo, or fair's fair, skil refund option.
NO no nononononononono NO!
The skill is now useful for the specialized haulers that exist in the Gallente line. Going to other races gives different benefits. That is why the specialized haulers are balanced.
There is alot of calls to change the Interon V as well. Either a direct nerf to its existing line or my idea of turning it into a poor mans hauler.
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:So I was thinking about this and I believe there can be a fair tradeoff for the Iteron V
Make it a poor mans hauler. It gets a bay that can fit anything but loses quite a lot of its cargo potential. - #1 The bay can't be changed by rigs or mods. Only skills. - #2 Max Capactiy is 25 thousand at Gal V
If you do this it will end up making Gallente completely different from the other lines. And better yet you can rebalance the Iteron Mark V to be a poor mans hauler with the build requirements reflecting that. If people don't have to invest in T2 rigs or cargo mods they might start thinking about other fitting options.
Thoughts on this? This is just my early idea based on earlier ideas posted in this thread.
Unlike the nerfs to the Drake which directly harmed newer players. This change is only going to change things for those who trained that skill to V. People that can spare the time to train Amarr to V. Or just make use of the benefits of the Gal V skill for the Iteron 1-IV |
Taleden
North Wind Local no. 612
42
|
Posted - 2013.06.29 01:42:00 -
[562] - Quote
Eladaris wrote:Taleden wrote:Or, they could just change the special bay capacity bonus of the Iteron II-IV and Hoarder to use the ORE Industrial skill, while the ships themselves retain the racial industrial level 1 skill requirement and velocity bonus.
That way Gallente Industrial skill points are no longer overvalued compared to the other races, but the Iteron V doesn't require any rage-inducing nerfs and art doesn't have to spend any time rebranding the ships as ORE industrials. Everyone's happy. So... since you can fly post-patch what you can fly pre-patch... Gall. Indy skill magically duplicates itself into a new ORE Indy skill, probably at the same skill level.
No, that's not what I'm suggesting. If you read carefully, the idea was to make the ships themselves still require only the racial industrial at level 1 to fly, just as they are now, so there's no "if you can fly it before" issue at all here. The idea was simply to change the special bay capacity bonus to use the ORE Industrial skill, even though that skill is not required to sit in the ship.
So it would be possible to fly the ship with racial industrial 1 and ORE industrial 0, in which case you'd only get +5% velocity bonus and no cargo bay bonus at all, only the base 50-55k. But since Gal Indy would no longer affect all those specialized bays, it would no longer have greater value than the other racial industrial skills; instead, the added value would go to the ORE indy skill which is less problematic.
|
Eladaris
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
338
|
Posted - 2013.06.29 01:54:00 -
[563] - Quote
Taleden wrote:No, that's not what I'm suggesting. If you read carefully, the idea was to make the ships themselves still require only the racial industrial at level 1 to fly, just as they are now, so there's no "if you can fly it before" issue at all here. The idea was simply to change the special bay capacity bonus to use the ORE Industrial skill, even though that skill is not required to sit in the ship.
So it would be possible to fly the ship with racial industrial 1 and ORE industrial 0, in which case you'd only get +5% velocity bonus and no cargo bay bonus at all, only the base 50-55k. But since Gal Indy would no longer affect all those specialized bays, it would no longer have greater value than the other racial industrial skills; instead, the added value would go to the ORE indy skill which is less problematic.
No, I got the idea perfectly... I had recommended it myself earlier (for Interbus). I'd rather they stay as they are today, for the eventual hope of a T2 racial ship with special bays, because the odds of CCP adding a T2 ORE ship seems less likely than them adding a third class of T2 hauler. Although, binding race x's special bays to a certain product on a T2 ship is dangerous as hell, because someone's going to be left holding the bag and there's a LOT of training time sunk into those skills. T2 ORE ships would bypass all that... but they seem awfully hesitant to swap race x ship to race y for various reasons which haven't been mentioned. Probably database work that they're unwilling to do as part of this pass.
If we had swapped to bays for all the ships this and future indy tweaks would have been easier, and they could better balance the ships for their intended purpose without needing to always balance around CE's/Rigs... but they didn't seem willing to go that route this late in the game either.
It's a fair middling point, when you compare it to the first pass. Not perfect, but a lot of people are likely screaming for the HAC rebalance, so it's a livable solution that actually makes the various races useful. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
670
|
Posted - 2013.06.29 02:01:00 -
[564] - Quote
Taleden wrote:... Edit: also, you realize the ORE Industrial skill is not new, right? That's what you need to fly a Noctis, Orca, Rorqual or any of the mining barges. It's not needed for the barges. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
569
|
Posted - 2013.06.29 02:03:00 -
[565] - Quote
Grace Ishukone wrote:So now you have made Bestower best cargo capacity, rather than Iteron, you will be giving a skill refund to all players who trainined Gallente V for cargo capacity, right?
Seriousy, you just downgraded a 20 day train skill. Either fix that so it remains best capacity, add something useful like Ship Hauler Bay (50,000 m3 ships ONLY so an iteron can move a packed battleship), or give up a skill refund so people can swqritch to the new flavour of the month ... Amarr haulers.
I love the idea, but taking the top cargo ship off Gallente after so many years and giving it to another race is just a bad call, and a slap in the face to all those players who trained Gallente V - who now see everyone else flying thier ships with Gallente 1.
Iteron V needs to stay top cargo, or fair's fair, skil refund option.
You're high, right? Or perhaps this is some kind of hilarious joke? A jab at all the people who cry for skill refunds all the time?
You did not train Gallente Industrial V in order to fly the highest-cargo ship. You trained Gallente Industrial V in order to fly the Iteron V, which at the time happened to be the highest-cargo. The ship is not being removed, its function is not being radically altered, you'll still be able to use it just the way you can use it now. It's not even losing that much space.
Do you remember when they changed active hardeners to stop giving passive resist bonuses when they're not actually running, and all the people said "Are you going to refund our passive hardener skills?" and CCP said "No, you can still use passive hardeners just fine"?
This is just like that, except even simpler. |
Mark Rain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2013.06.29 02:04:00 -
[566] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote: What's your flow of logic there? T
The logic is that flying them, you become the joke eventually.... and if you care about your cargo, you don't use them.
- If a t1 industrial dies, the mission is failed . Not the same with noob combat ships. - No one has fun in a fight while flying them, other than as bait or in comedy fleets. - There's no intermediate cargo haulers as per capacity and skills lead to a dead end. - They are a leading class of ships that causes rage quits which reduces revenue stream.
They cease becoming a joke, when they can be more than glass bottles. |
Taleden
North Wind Local no. 612
42
|
Posted - 2013.06.29 02:11:00 -
[567] - Quote
Eladaris wrote:No, I got the idea perfectly... I had recommended it myself earlier (for Interbus) although not with the added tweak you mentioned via expanding the cargo bay size based on a different skill... Likely no one thought of it in time, and we know there won't be a third pass.
Fair enough, I just wanted to clarify since you seemed to think I was suggesting creating a new skill or granting people free skill points, which was not the idea at all. And yeah, lots of folks suggested reassigning all four special bay haulers to ORE or InterBus, which would be great except it would require art to update their visual design to suit, which Rise says he doesn't want to spend time on. I figured this was a nice compromise where art doesn't have to do anything because the ships remain Gallente/Minmatar in principle, but we could still shift the huge added benefit away from the Gal Indy skill to the more neutral ORE Indy skill, which is already the one that gives bonuses to special bay size on other ships anyway.
Eladaris wrote:If we had swapped to bays for all the ships this and future indy tweaks would have been easier, and they could better balance the ships for their intended purpose without needing to always balance around CE's/Rigs... but they didn't seem willing to go that route this late in the game either.
I agree here too, the cargo expander module as currently designed throws off this whole balance pass and I argued repeatedly that it should be a) removed, b) banned from the indy ship class, c) given a stacking penalty or d) made irrelevant by changing all haulers to special bays unaffected by it, but as you say, Rise didn't seem to want to do that. So, we're stuck with a rebalance that's skewed by the cargo expander issue, which isn't great but better than nothing.
Eladaris wrote:Really, considering the apparent time limits... I think this is the best we're getting (and it's good, don't get me wrong) hopefully they won't let the hauler's linger for another 10 years.
Hah -- we all know that's exactly what will happen, though. Haulers weren't touched for the last ten years, and since Rise confesses they're not a very interesting ship class in general, I don't think we can expect any more changes for the next ten years. This rebalance is not bad, but let's not kid ourselves about the near future. |
Eladaris
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
338
|
Posted - 2013.06.29 02:14:00 -
[568] - Quote
Taleden wrote:Fair enough, I just wanted to clarify since you seemed to think I was suggesting creating a new skill. ... Hah -- we all know that's exactly what will happen, though. Haulers weren't touched for the last ten years, and since Rise confesses they're not a very interesting ship class in general, I don't think we can expect any more changes for the next ten years. This rebalance is not bad, but let's not kid ourselves about the near future. Edited my post after you posted this, but I think a new skill would be their best goal. Which is why my skill name was rather generic. CCP does like adding new skill sinks.
And, yup, Hauler's will be ignored for a LONG time. And the T2's will probably be the second to the last ship to be re-balanced (right before the dreaded Capital balance pass). |
Endeavour Starfleet
899
|
Posted - 2013.06.29 02:24:00 -
[569] - Quote
Mark Rain wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote: What's your flow of logic there? T
The logic is that flying them, you become the joke eventually.... and if you care about your cargo, you don't use them. - If a t1 industrial dies, the mission is failed . Not the same with noob combat ships. - No one has fun in a fight while flying them, other than as bait or in comedy fleets. - There's no intermediate cargo haulers as per capacity and skills lead to a dead end. - They are a leading class of ships that causes rage quits which reduces revenue stream. They cease becoming a joke, when they can be more than glass bottles.
#1 Do people seriously waste money ganking mission haulers? If so fly the more tanky kinds. #2 They are not meant for fighting. They are made for those who want to move stuff. #3 That is why you see haulers with specialized holds that can hold more of a specific type of item than a general hauler. #4 They will come back and learn about Red Frog. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
670
|
Posted - 2013.06.29 02:28:00 -
[570] - Quote
Mark Rain wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote: What's your flow of logic there? T
The logic is that flying them, you become the joke eventually.... and if you care about your cargo, you don't use them. Their proliferation suggests otherwise- If a t1 industrial dies, the mission is failed . Not the same with noob combat ships. That is the risk accepted when doing distribution missions, contracts or just general moving of cargo; this risk is carried by any ship which is capable of moving the cargo, including noob ships- No one has fun in a fight while flying them, other than as bait or in comedy fleets. They serve a purpose which for several enables fun, either through themselves or someone else performing the task. The fact that hauling itself isn't a popular activity is both useful in giving value to those that are willing to do it and is an attribute not isolated to T1 haulers- There's no intermediate cargo haulers as per capacity and skills lead to a dead end. Skills lead to the highest capacity ships in game and their jump capable counterparts- They are a leading class of ships that causes rage quits which reduces revenue stream. What we gain from them is far greater than anything we would theoretically lose considering the cost associated with a freighter or orca making even small hauling tasks greatly more tedious or require considerable increases in entry cost and training. Equally their loss is likely rivaled for inducing rage quits by the loss of larger hauling ships, pimped PvE ships or repeated losses of mining bargesThey cease becoming a joke, when they can be more than glass bottles. They already see significant use as is. It would appear your opinion is not widely shared. |
|
Tiber Ibis
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
64
|
Posted - 2013.06.29 09:01:00 -
[571] - Quote
Grace Ishukone wrote:So now you have made Bestower best cargo capacity, rather than Iteron, you will be giving a skill refund to all players who trainined Gallente V for cargo capacity, right?
Seriousy, you just downgraded a 20 day train skill. Either fix that so it remains best capacity, add something useful like Ship Hauler Bay (50,000 m3 ships ONLY so an iteron can move a packed battleship), or give up a skill refund so people can swqritch to the new flavour of the month ... Amarr haulers.
I love the idea, but taking the top cargo ship off Gallente after so many years and giving it to another race is just a bad call, and a slap in the face to all those players who trained Gallente V - who now see everyone else flying thier ships with Gallente 1.
Iteron V needs to stay top cargo, or fair's fair, skil refund option. No skill refund for you. Deal with it. |
HiddenPorpoise
BG-1 The Craniac
2
|
Posted - 2013.06.29 10:32:00 -
[572] - Quote
What people that are ranting about how much better Gallente is for getting the most bays seem to have missed is that those ships are basically screaming that they have expensive cargo and can't hide any of it in secure containers.
63k in high sec ore is worth 10-12mil which is more than enough to be blown up. 67k in PI is worth 6-30mil for 0, 30-80mil for 1, 150-300mil for 2, and so on. If they pack supercomps they can fit 1 BILLION in a T1 industrial. Yes, someone will do it. 64 and a half in minerals is where things get insane; that's 32million if it's just trit. If it's all mega, and it will be sometimes, they will be flying around with just under 13 Billion on board.
Before anyone says no one will be that stupid, yes, they will be.
You shouldn't really ever fill an industrial up anyway but you really shouldn't fill one up that can only have nice things on it.
All said I like it. |
whaynethepain
65
|
Posted - 2013.06.29 12:05:00 -
[573] - Quote
HiddenPorpoise wrote:What expensive cargo to be blown up T1 industrial 1 BILLION sometimes under 13 Billion I like it.
tldr; Getting you on your feet.
So you've further to fall. |
BURRITO CHUNKS
25 TA LIFE
14
|
Posted - 2013.06.29 15:10:00 -
[574] - Quote
CCP.. What do you know about hauling? This is a terrible idea. |
Octoven
Phoenix Productions Headshot Gaming
166
|
Posted - 2013.06.29 17:04:00 -
[575] - Quote
So I train Gall Indy to 5 to fly an Ity 5...you take that away...ok I can kind of understand that. At least my skill trained has use since trained to 5 its better than the other indies. NOW you want to take that away and make the skill virtually pointless??
Id like a refund of that skill, I can then apply it to Amarr Industrial instead. Im quite sure CCP wont do this as they are trying to shake skills up to force you to train a new set so that equals more subscription time and more money.
The part that really erks me is that historically the tradeoff for cargo has ALWAYS been speed. If you have a faster speed then you have less cargo space and the otherway round. However, you now had the bestower with a higher base velocity and a higher cargo space, and the same % of velocity bonus for skill. This means that the bestower will ALWAYS be faster and have more cargo space than the Ity-5...that is ******* stupid tbh. |
Octoven
Phoenix Productions Headshot Gaming
166
|
Posted - 2013.06.29 17:05:00 -
[576] - Quote
Tiber Ibis wrote:Grace Ishukone wrote:So now you have made Bestower best cargo capacity, rather than Iteron, you will be giving a skill refund to all players who trainined Gallente V for cargo capacity, right?
Seriousy, you just downgraded a 20 day train skill. Either fix that so it remains best capacity, add something useful like Ship Hauler Bay (50,000 m3 ships ONLY so an iteron can move a packed battleship), or give up a skill refund so people can swqritch to the new flavour of the month ... Amarr haulers.
I love the idea, but taking the top cargo ship off Gallente after so many years and giving it to another race is just a bad call, and a slap in the face to all those players who trained Gallente V - who now see everyone else flying thier ships with Gallente 1.
Iteron V needs to stay top cargo, or fair's fair, skil refund option. No skill refund for you. Deal with it.
Perhaps CCP should have used that same ******* attitude with learning skills as well |
Vayn Baxtor
Community for Justice
57
|
Posted - 2013.06.29 17:29:00 -
[577] - Quote
Bit off-topic but: The skillpoints invested wouldn't have to go to waste if we (or CCP) could add in more uses for that particular skill; that being more unique ships that uses that ability, tied in with another one. This game is about internet spaceships, so there should be no complaint about seeing such in masses. As long as they are flexible and useful like how the Orca is while still leaving the more specialized stuff for the T2 family, all should be good.
In other words, there would be no need for skill refunds as long as we have a "decent replacement" for the time invested in skilling to suffice skilling whatsoever to V before.
It was good that Learning Skills was removed and compensated for. It was a big thing in the way and it really needed to go.
Another thing is that there are no real arguments to suffice as to just "why" Iteron V needs to be the top dog of cargo hauling either. It happens to be so that CCP has the last word on that one. Just thought I should toss that in. Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all. |
Maximus Tyberius
Darklight Shipyards
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.29 18:07:00 -
[578] - Quote
Thinking it well, what is not broken you don't fix....They never had to do the tiericide at least on industrials, it was good as it was, no artificial flavors just plain: More skill level = more cargo space....Maybe doing it easier and adding some new ships could have been the solution like this:
Gallente industrial 1 = iteron mk I Gallente industrial 2 = iteron mk II Gallente industrial 3 = iteron mk III and iteron mk IV (special ability) Gallente Industrial 4 = Iteron mk V (second biggest cargohold)
Caldari industrial 1 = Badger Caldari industrial 2 = Badger II (special ability) Caldari industrial 4 = Badger III (T1 version of the Bustard) (c'mon.. to reskin this one should'nt be so hard )(third biggest cargohold)
Minmatar industrial 1 = Wreathe Minmatar Industrial 2 = Hoarder (special ability) Minmatar Industrial 3 = Mammoth (fourth biggest cargohold)
Amarr industrial 1 = Sigil (special ability) Amarr Industrial 4 = Bestower (biggest cargohold)
in this way there's a reason to train your race and no compulsory reason to cross train
Amarr = easiest to get special ability industrial / largest top cargo but less variety
minmatar = easiest to get top cargo industrial
caldari = good and practical all round / new top cargo Type badger III
gallente = good variety but hardest to get special ability industrial
looks neat to me...
|
Endeavour Starfleet
900
|
Posted - 2013.06.29 18:39:00 -
[579] - Quote
Octoven wrote:So I train Gall Indy to 5 to fly an Ity 5...you take that away...ok I can kind of understand that. At least my skill trained has use since trained to 5 its better than the other indies. NOW you want to take that away and make the skill virtually pointless??
Not pointless at all. One day you likely will find yourself in need to use these specialized ships and your Gal V will mean you can make the most use of em.
Octoven wrote:Id like a refund of that skill, I can then apply it to Amarr Industrial instead. Im quite sure CCP wont do this as they are trying to shake skills up to force you to train a new set so that equals more subscription time and more money.
What evidence do you have that CCP is doing this for more money? Otherwise you are just posting Libel.
Octoven wrote:The part that really erks me is that historically the tradeoff for cargo has ALWAYS been speed. If you have a faster speed then you have less cargo space and the otherway round. However, you now had the bestower with a higher base velocity and a higher cargo space, and the same % of velocity bonus for skill. This means that the bestower will ALWAYS be faster and have more cargo space than the Ity-5...that is ******* stupid tbh.
The Inty 5 needs a completely new role. It needs to get a 25K Gal V bay that does not get affected by cargo expanders or rigs to become a poor mans hauler.
If that change is made it will stop being compared to the Bestower. |
Endeavour Starfleet
900
|
Posted - 2013.06.29 18:44:00 -
[580] - Quote
Maximus Tyberius wrote:Thinking it well, what is not broken you don't fix....They never had to do the tiericide at least on industrials, it was good as it was, no artificial flavors just plain: More skill level = more cargo space....Maybe doing it easier and adding some new ships could have been the solution like this:
Gallente industrial 1 = iteron mk I Gallente industrial 2 = iteron mk II Gallente industrial 3 = iteron mk III and iteron mk IV (special ability) Gallente Industrial 4 = Iteron mk V (second biggest cargohold)
Caldari industrial 1 = Badger Caldari industrial 2 = Badger II (special ability) Caldari industrial 4 = Badger III (T1 version of the Bustard) (c'mon.. to reskin this one should'nt be so hard )(third biggest cargohold)
Minmatar industrial 1 = Wreathe Minmatar Industrial 2 = Hoarder (special ability) Minmatar Industrial 3 = Mammoth (fourth biggest cargohold)
Amarr industrial 1 = Sigil (special ability) Amarr Industrial 4 = Bestower (biggest cargohold)
in this way there's a reason to train your race and no compulsory reason to cross train
Amarr = easiest to get special ability industrial / largest top cargo but less variety
minmatar = easiest to get top cargo industrial
caldari = good and practical all round / new top cargo Type badger III
gallente = good variety but hardest to get special ability industrial
looks neat to me...
It does not look neat to me.
You want to add another ship to the game to change things around when the changes CCP rise has made will be plenty to break the Homogenization.
We do not need to add more T1 haulers to the game. Eventually hopefully the Iteron II III and IV will be moved to the ORE Line, renamed, and given an amazing model. After they do that they can do another balance pass on the remaining lineup and hopefully move to cargo bays that do not get affected by rigs or expanders. |
|
Maximus Tyberius
Darklight Shipyards
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.29 18:46:00 -
[581] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
The Inty 5 needs a completely new role. It needs to get a 25K Gal V bay that does not get affected by cargo expanders or rigs to become a poor mans hauler.
If that change is made it will stop being compared to the Bestower.
No matter how many times you say "poor man's hauler" for a ship that was the best of the best, a ship that wrote countless chapters in EVE history
IT'S JUST NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!
|
Endeavour Starfleet
900
|
Posted - 2013.06.29 18:53:00 -
[582] - Quote
Maximus Tyberius wrote:Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
The Inty 5 needs a completely new role. It needs to get a 25K Gal V bay that does not get affected by cargo expanders or rigs to become a poor mans hauler.
If that change is made it will stop being compared to the Bestower.
No matter how many times you say "poor man's hauler" for a ship that was the best of the best, a ship that wrote countless chapters in EVE history IT'S JUST NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!
Tell that to the drake. |
Maximus Tyberius
Darklight Shipyards
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.29 18:59:00 -
[583] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
It does not look neat to me.
You want to add another ship to the game to change things around when the changes CCP rise has made will be plenty to break the Homogenization.
We do not need to add more T1 haulers to the game. Eventually hopefully the Iteron II III and IV will be moved to the ORE Line, renamed, and given an amazing model. After they do that they can do another balance pass on the remaining lineup and hopefully move to cargo bays that do not get affected by rigs or expanders.
That is YOUR opinion not the whole eve community, so replace WE for I and MY opinion is that the industrials were fine untill that stupid tiericide stuff
now they have to create stupid new bays to justify that estupid mistake
the game was good before so my opinion is that eve should take a step back on this one...
|
Maximus Tyberius
Darklight Shipyards
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.29 19:04:00 -
[584] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Maximus Tyberius wrote:Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
The Inty 5 needs a completely new role. It needs to get a 25K Gal V bay that does not get affected by cargo expanders or rigs to become a poor mans hauler.
If that change is made it will stop being compared to the Bestower.
No matter how many times you say "poor man's hauler" for a ship that was the best of the best, a ship that wrote countless chapters in EVE history IT'S JUST NOT GOING TO HAPPEN! Tell that to the drake.
Yes, they nerfed the drake, another legendary ship, but it wasn't cause someone proposed the drake as a "poor man's battlecruiser" ;) |
Endeavour Starfleet
900
|
Posted - 2013.06.29 19:08:00 -
[585] - Quote
This "Stupid Tiericide stuff" as you call it has made a bunch of ships in EVE online do more than ship spin and gather dust. This latest change to haulers will make them useable for a good many players and make it so that not always one ship does all things.
|
Endeavour Starfleet
901
|
Posted - 2013.06.29 19:23:00 -
[586] - Quote
Maximus Tyberius wrote:Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Maximus Tyberius wrote:Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
The Inty 5 needs a completely new role. It needs to get a 25K Gal V bay that does not get affected by cargo expanders or rigs to become a poor mans hauler.
If that change is made it will stop being compared to the Bestower.
No matter how many times you say "poor man's hauler" for a ship that was the best of the best, a ship that wrote countless chapters in EVE history IT'S JUST NOT GOING TO HAPPEN! Tell that to the drake. Yes, they nerfed the drake, another legendary ship, but it wasn't cause someone proposed the drake as a "poor man's battlecruiser" ;)
No but the nerf to the ship changed the game alot more than a change to the Iteron V. Implementing my idea to convert the Iteron V into a poor mans hauler would remove further homogenization from the industrial line and provide newer players a good ship. As well as start the trend that will hopefully end this mess of cargo expanders. |
Maximus Tyberius
Darklight Shipyards
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.29 19:26:00 -
[587] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:This "Stupid Tiericide stuff" as you call it has made a bunch of ships in EVE online do more than ship spin and gather dust. This latest change to haulers will make them useable for a good many players and make it so that not always one ship does all things.
You are mistaken, I'm not talking about the ship rebalancing or the new roles, that is just great, i agree with you that now every ship has something to add to the gameplay.
I'm talking about the skill levels needed to use these ships,
What I'm against is training racial industrial 1 and be able to fly all of them. maybe with combat ships it's ok , personally I would had kept some variety on the skill levels needed.
But this tiericide is the source of the industrial problem, they should had been treated differently, cause tiers still do work in this case, as I said before, more skill level = more cargo space. The best solution is the simplest... |
Endeavour Starfleet
901
|
Posted - 2013.06.29 19:34:00 -
[588] - Quote
For the new specialized Iterons. More skill = a 10 percent bonus to specialized cargohold. So it is encouraged to train that skill up to III and IV.
In my idea for the Iteron mark V. The bay caps out at 25k at Gallente Industral V (5 percent per skill level)
Making it a requirement of III and IV to fly it would just harm newer players so I am against that. |
Scuzzy Logic
Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce
26
|
Posted - 2013.06.29 20:26:00 -
[589] - Quote
Eladaris wrote:Taleden wrote:Fair enough, I just wanted to clarify since you seemed to think I was suggesting creating a new skill. ... Hah -- we all know that's exactly what will happen, though. Haulers weren't touched for the last ten years, and since Rise confesses they're not a very interesting ship class in general, I don't think we can expect any more changes for the next ten years. This rebalance is not bad, but let's not kid ourselves about the near future. Edited my post after you posted this, but I think a new skill would be their best goal. Which is why my skill name was rather generic. CCP does like adding new skill sinks. Doubly so when they can get folks to train it to V! 4 Sensor Comp skills? I'm looking at you. Along with some of the other newly added skill sinks. And, yup, Hauler's will be ignored for a LONG time. And the T2's will probably be the second to the last ship to be re-balanced (right before the dreaded Capital balance pass).
It's sad, because, if any specific class of boats never get flown for their intended purpose, it's Deep Space Transports.
|
Endeavour Starfleet
901
|
Posted - 2013.06.29 20:34:00 -
[590] - Quote
The transport ships need a huge change in the future in my opinion. I want to quote myself from earlier.
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Well if you want to open pandoras box by looking at T2s in this topic...
In my opinion the Tech 2s should continue the trend started by the specialized T1s. One race ought to keep the classic Transport and covert hauler while the others become highly specialized ships.
Caldari - POS Ship with a hold designed for just about everything POS related. - Capital Ship tender with hold designed to jump fuel and drones (Fighters etc..)
Amarr - Super EHP with very little cargo for carrying those extremely precious items. - Paper tank. But can warp inside a bubble. Very little cargo and meant again for hauling small precious items. |
|
Echo Mande
41
|
Posted - 2013.06.29 21:47:00 -
[591] - Quote
All in all it looks like an interesting set of changes. Two questions: 1) Has the question of the ore hauler also hauling compressed ore been answered yet? 2) Will any of the specialist haulers be able to haul moongoo in their special bays? |
Octoven
Phoenix Productions Headshot Gaming
166
|
Posted - 2013.06.29 21:51:00 -
[592] - Quote
The issue here is T1 specialization. In the frigate series there are sufficient in each race to do each job. However, there arent in the industrial family and thus they give certain roles to certain ships that require cross training. As for the Ity-5 I would be fine with the bestower gaining cargo space and beating the ity-5 out in that regard so long as it wasnt faster. As it stands the Bestower is both faster and more cargo space than the Ity-5 and that is NOT balanced at all. Furthermore, the other 3 ships in the same tier as bestower are given 5 slots for thier tank assuming there are no cargo extender mods.
Bestower - 2H 4M 6L - For 11 slots, 6 Armor Tank slots Total Base HP - 2240 Badger MKII - 2H 5M 4L - For 11 slots, 5 Shield Tank slots Total Base HP - 2250 Mammoth - 2H 4M 5L - For 11 slots, can do 5 Armor Tank slots Total Base HP - 2175 Iteron MKV - 2H, 4M, 5L - For 11 slots, 5 Armor Tank slots Total Base HP - 2160
Seeing as how all four have very similar total HP, that much seems balanced; however giving one indy a slot more in its tankable area just seems too OP to me. I would suggest swapping that extra low on the Bestower back over to the mid slot...then it would be more balanced. |
Endeavour Starfleet
901
|
Posted - 2013.06.29 22:36:00 -
[593] - Quote
Octoven wrote:
The issue here is T1 specialization. In the frigate series there are sufficient in each race to do each job. However, there arent in the industrial family and thus they give certain roles to certain ships that require cross training. As for the Ity-5 I would be fine with the bestower gaining cargo space and beating the ity-5 out in that regard so long as it wasnt faster. As it stands the Bestower is both faster and more cargo space than the Ity-5 and that is NOT balanced at all. Furthermore, the other 3 ships in the same tier as bestower are given 5 slots for thier tank assuming there are no cargo extender mods.
Bestower - 2H 4M 6L - For 11 slots, 6 Armor Tank slots Total Base HP - 2240 Badger MKII - 2H 5M 4L - For 11 slots, 5 Shield Tank slots Total Base HP - 2250 Mammoth - 2H 4M 5L - For 11 slots, can do 5 Armor Tank slots Total Base HP - 2175 Iteron MKV - 2H, 4M, 5L - For 11 slots, 5 Armor Tank slots Total Base HP - 2160
Seeing as how all four have very similar total HP, that much seems balanced; however giving one indy a slot more in its tankable area just seems too OP to me. I would suggest swapping that extra low on the Bestower back over to the mid slot...then it would be more balanced.
No. And again how many times must it be said that the Gallente lineup is balanced by the fact that most of the line is going into specialized haulers? And there are calls to nerf down the Inty V to help prevent more homogenization. I am again of the opinion it should be completely changed into a poor mans hauler.
I get it. You or one of your alts trained into Gallente Industral V and you are watching the King of the Hill be dethroned. However that is one of the risks of training a skill from IV to V. And CCP should not make it easier for future nerfs to the iteron II II and IV so that the pilots of the V can continue to feel superior. |
Endeavour Starfleet
901
|
Posted - 2013.06.29 22:42:00 -
[594] - Quote
Echo Mande wrote:All in all it looks like an interesting set of changes. Two questions: 1) Has the question of the ore hauler also hauling compressed ore been answered yet?
I have not seen them answer that yet. And hopefully the answer will be no. As it would make these ships vulnerable to future nerfs.
Echo Mande wrote:2) Will any of the specialist haulers be able to haul moongoo in their special bays?
Again hopefully no. POS operations should be moved into the Tech 2 line. (A complete bay for almost all POS operations)
|
Rena'Thras
Trantor Mentalics
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.29 23:18:00 -
[595] - Quote
Well, I'm not a big forums poster (I got here from Jester's Trek), but I wanted to weigh in on this one. If nothing else, to let the devs know that there are a lot of people that like hauling and stuff and appreciate them spending a little time and giving a little love to these ships from time to time, too!
Not ALL of EVE is combat. Well...not all of it is pew pew combat (I suppose marketing and hauling are forms of economic combat. XD)
.
Anyway, I like these changes. After Odyssey went live, I suddenly wondered why any hauler other than the Itty V (which I finally got the training and ability to fly) would be used by anyone. I've thought for a long time that haulers don't really have any diversity and fitting options for any special tasks. It's just, "New rank in Industrial skill? Here's your bigger hauler!"
...given, I'm particularly apt to think that way due to picking Gallente at character creation.
But these changes would have been nice before Odyssey, and, I believe, are simply wonderful after it - at least before it, there was some niching as people went up through their skills. But after Odyssey, there was no reason to fly anything but the biggest ones for your race (or the Itty V if you had Gallente Indy as your highest hauler skill.)
.
This is not unlike the changes made to the Mining Barges that made the Procurer useful for the first time ever, and gave the Retriever a niche even for people that could fly a Covetor.
The Itty I as an anti-gank ship for unwary pilots and the specialized holds of the others in the Iteron line make for some interesting options to play with. At the very least, it means the Itty V isn't the best hauler at all times.
.
So I'm mostly posting to say I like the change, and I like it when CCP Devs through just a little love at the non-combat PvP/PvE side of things from time to time.
...now, if only they'd make a data/relic site cruiser... :p |
Rena'Thras
Trantor Mentalics
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.29 23:30:00 -
[596] - Quote
Scuzzy Logic wrote:It's sad, because, if any specific class of boats never get flown for their intended purpose, it's Deep Space Transports.
I was actually wondering about this. I'm general in the dreaded carebear new player meta-descriptor, so it's not like I know anything, but I didn't really see much point to them for what they're supposed to do. I'd think you're going to use the cloaked ones for any high value cargo, and for large cargoes, the few null sec people I've run with have either a character themselves or someone from their corp/alliance with a Jump Freighter do the carrying. A DST isn't going to be able to get through nastier prate actions or gate camps on its own anyway for very long (I'd think determined pirates will have some extra warp scramblers the first time or two you bust through them in your DST.)
.
It won't affect be because I'm not in a null sec corp and all that, but the idea of using them as tenders for fleets would be interesting, though I imagine other ships are already used for that (Orcas?)
But the other thing about the T2s is that there's less of them - only two per race - and they're already super specialized. You have the small, fast, cloakers and you have the big, slower, tanky ones with some warp protection.
So while the idea of specialized bays is kind of a cool notion, CCP would really have to add more hulls to the T2s before being able to do that since they're already specialized as it is.
Though I'd like to think that they could do something like giving DST's some kind of jump capability or something might help out, I don't know what the full effects of that would be (the cloakers already can use the cov ops cynos, right?)
.
Not that I'm against the idea, I just think they'd have to add more hulls before they could do too much with that because the T2s are already super specialized with respect to each other PER RACE. Across races, I could see your argument, though.
But then I'm just a newb that's been playing for a while, so I don't really know anything, lol |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Academy The ROC
336
|
Posted - 2013.06.29 23:33:00 -
[597] - Quote
I throw my full support into these changes. Just because they finally fixed the fittings on them.
No longer will we have 600+ CPU on a ship with 20 PG. What sense that made to somebody a decade ago, I will never know. Even if there were no other positive changes made, and there were plenty, this alone would be worth applauding.
Now let's finish this and move into T2 cruisers! Not posting on my main, and loving it.-á Because free speech.-á |
Endeavour Starfleet
901
|
Posted - 2013.06.29 23:48:00 -
[598] - Quote
Rena'Thras wrote: I was actually wondering about this. I'm general in the dreaded carebear new player meta-descriptor, so it's not like I know anything, but I didn't really see much point to them for what they're supposed to do. I'd think you're going to use the cloaked ones for any high value cargo, and for large cargoes, the few null sec people I've run with have either a character themselves or someone from their corp/alliance with a Jump Freighter do the carrying. A DST isn't going to be able to get through nastier prate actions or gate camps on its own anyway for very long (I'd think determined pirates will have some extra warp scramblers the first time or two you bust through them in your DST.)
.
It won't affect be because I'm not in a null sec corp and all that, but the idea of using them as tenders for fleets would be interesting, though I imagine other ships are already used for that (Orcas?)
You are seeing how EVE has changed but many ships are yet to have changed with it. T2 Transports are a prime example of this.
Rena'Thras wrote:But the other thing about the T2s is that there's less of them - only two per race - and they're already super specialized. You have the small, fast, cloakers and you have the big, slower, tanky ones with some warp protection.
That is not very specialized actually. Most were using the transports just for moar cargo and the cloaky one to move cargo a little better through hostile areas. Too homogenized really.
Rena'Thras wrote:So while the idea of specialized bays is kind of a cool notion, CCP would really have to add more hulls to the T2s before being able to do that since they're already specialized as it is.
I disagree that we need more hulls. If you get away from the idea that the races have to have the same ability you can say perhaps that Gallente keeps the current classic transports while Amarr gets stuff to move very very precious items and Caldari gets operations (A POS supporter and a Cov Ops capital fleet tender) That leave 2 more ships of mimmy that can be given highly specialized roles.
Rena'Thras wrote:Though I'd like to think that they could do something like giving DST's some kind of jump capability or something might help out, I don't know what the full effects of that would be (the cloakers already can use the cov ops cynos, right?)
Hmm that is actually an Interesting idea. One of the Mimmitar hulls could be a short range jump capable (High fuel cost) transport. No where near as efficient as a Jump Freighter. but good for aspects that need to bypass say a gate camp. |
Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
511
|
Posted - 2013.06.30 00:27:00 -
[599] - Quote
Rena'Thras wrote: (the cloakers already can use the cov ops cynos, right?)
They can use covert cynos, and the can travel through the covert jump bridges of Black Ops battleships. That is why they are currently used as ammo and fuel trucks. The ammo only Hoarder will not be replacing that role for a number of reasons. |
Eladaris
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
338
|
Posted - 2013.06.30 01:29:00 -
[600] - Quote
Octoven wrote: Bestower - 2H 4M 6L - For 11 slots, 6 Armor Tank slots Total Base HP - 2240
Armor tank... on a T1 industrial. For reals? Sorry, I pretty much stopped reading anything you were posting after that. |
|
Jack Miton
Semper Ubi Sub Ubi
2065
|
Posted - 2013.06.30 05:09:00 -
[601] - Quote
CCP listening to feedback and making the correct changes from it?!?!?! In my EVE?!?!? Guess the world is ending....
+1 |
HiddenPorpoise
BG-1 The Craniac
2
|
Posted - 2013.06.30 06:22:00 -
[602] - Quote
Eladaris wrote:Octoven wrote: Bestower - 2H 4M 6L - For 11 slots, 6 Armor Tank slots Total Base HP - 2240
Armor tank... on a T1 industrial. For reals? Sorry, I pretty much stopped reading anything you were posting after that. I quit at 2+4+6=11 |
Roseline Penshar
Illusory Superiority R O G U E
10
|
Posted - 2013.06.30 11:27:00 -
[603] - Quote
1 question, when will the change happen? need to get some type of ship |
Aaron Kyoto
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
6
|
Posted - 2013.06.30 14:10:00 -
[604] - Quote
Evelgrivion wrote:The ammunition bay seems like an avenue for considerable abuse; you can fit quite a few hoarders inside of a carrier's ship maintenance bay, and each of those hoarders can be filled to the brim with ammunition for mineral compression purposes.
We'll call it Tardis Hauling! |
Erik Finnegan
Polytechnique Gallenteenne
92
|
Posted - 2013.06.30 14:34:00 -
[605] - Quote
I am still waiting for a feedback on the potential name changes which Rise wanted to talk to the Story Team about. Other than that, this is a pretty nice round 2. |
Claire Raynor
NovaGear Limitless Inc.
156
|
Posted - 2013.06.30 14:44:00 -
[606] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:First page all positive, I'm outta here
You are doing awesome work - I selfishly really hate some of what you've done - But I just look at these new Industrial designs - and I might start using more than just my Mammoth! It carries on your effort -> I'm seeing more ships in EVE than ever before -> and this will only make that more so.
Epic
(Remember to give Freighters Slots :) ) |
Eryn Velasquez
44
|
Posted - 2013.06.30 15:24:00 -
[607] - Quote
As well as i appreciate the changes to the T1-industrials, i wish we could have a new class of ships, specialized haulers.
Some Rorqual-tech inside, only applicable to raw-materials and refined/processed stuff. Means base-cargo around 10-15k, with compression maximum 100-150k. GÇ£A man's freedom consists in his being able to do whatever he wills, but that he should not, by any human power, be forced to do what is against his will.GÇ¥-áGÇò Jean-Jacques Rousseau-á |
Freelancer117
so you want to be a Hero
68
|
Posted - 2013.06.30 19:34:00 -
[608] - Quote
I welcome any non-bland non-nerf ship balance, round 2 welldone Eve rule no.1: The players will make a better version of the game, then CCP initially plans.
http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg http://bit.ly/1a5dQGs |
Galen Dnari
Fhloston Paradise E.Y
11
|
Posted - 2013.06.30 21:58:00 -
[609] - Quote
Thorn Galen wrote:Great job! Battle Iterons incoming I agree, I like it too.
Can you say "Q ship"? http://eveboard.com/ub/1939472205-31.png |
Gareth Sedorak
Sedorak Corporation
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 01:53:00 -
[610] - Quote
Hey Rise, What a bout a hauler that can fit mining foreman links?
Maybe with no extra bonus as to not step on any toes, yet still open up possibiities for small scale ops |
|
Ten Bulls
Sons of Olsagard
258
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 03:05:00 -
[611] - Quote
Outer Ring Excavations specialize in industry ships.
They should take control of tech behind the Iteron II, III, IV and Horder.
So new BPO seeders and new skins for those ships. |
Gareth Sedorak
Sedorak Corporation
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 04:16:00 -
[612] - Quote
Ten Bulls wrote:Outer Ring Excavations specialize in industry ships.
They should take control of tech behind the Iteron II, III, IV and Horder.
So new BPO seeders and new skins for those ships.
They've already spoken about this at length, If you read back through the thread you'll see it all over the place :)
Currently, They feel the art teams time is better spent on other things.
|
Darling Hassasin
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 06:31:00 -
[613] - Quote
I havent read the whole 30+ pages, overall awsome changes but ore hold and mineral hold being the same is wrong. 45k / 450k better |
Gareth Sedorak
Sedorak Corporation
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 07:13:00 -
[614] - Quote
Darling Hassasin wrote:I havent read the whole 30+ pages, overall awsome changes but ore hold and mineral hold being the same is wrong. 45k / 450k better
As someone that does a lot of mining and hauling for selling, Being able to haul 450k ore would leave indy/exhumer mining too automated.
It still makes plenty of sense to have a 40k ore hold to haul form wher eyou're mining back to the station, then refine it before hauling it to sell as refined minerals take up way less psace than ore does. |
Liafcipe9000
Smeghead Empire
6805
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 07:20:00 -
[615] - Quote
The return of jetcan mining? AND CAN FLIPPING?
Altho Agility would make much more sense if it was a bonus on ALL haulers instead of just a few of them...
I do love the idea of mineral and PI bays. +1 Yes for you CCP Rise. You may gain the knowledge, but you will lose your belief, with all its mystery and comfort. If there was proof, absolute and certain, there is an afterlife, why not quit this life, and be done with it? Ponder about these things all your life, and you're a philosopher. Compress these ponderings into a couple of pages, and you'll go mad. |
Maximus Aerelius
PROPHET OF ENIGMA
184
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 09:42:00 -
[616] - Quote
CCP Rise thank you for listening and for the awesome revision...can't wait for these to come in!
Love the difference's between them and the special love given to the "extra" haulers.
Good work my man, good work indeed! My Feature\Idea:-á Fast Character Switching "XP Stylee"
Here's my tear jar > |_| < Fill 'er up! |
Wulfys Cleanup
Perkone Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 11:10:00 -
[617] - Quote
We still need a t1, t2 that can carry a packaged battleship. It is stupid that we have to train for an orca or a freighter in an industrial sense, when it's faster to train to fly the ship it self to haul it.
Even giving a ship the capability to haul 2 packaged battleships will not interfere with the roles of the orca and freighter, but servers a middleground.
If this can be done trough a container or special bay, it will not be able to be abused, and the m3 problem solved |
Wulfys Cleanup
Perkone Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 11:22:00 -
[618] - Quote
Even a t2 cloacky hauler specialized to carry a fitted ship into the depths of low 0.0 would seriously help people out to get slow moving ships out there, and help us move t2 rigged ships without having to train for a carrier first.
This would help getting people to low, 0.0 incursions or frontlines and ease up some burden on logistics throughout space. |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
38
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 14:24:00 -
[619] - Quote
Wulfys Cleanup wrote:We still need a t1, t2 that can carry a packaged battleship. It is stupid that we have to train for an orca or a freighter in an industrial sense, when it's faster to train to fly the ship it self to haul it.
Even giving a ship the capability to haul 2 packaged battleships will not interfere with the roles of the orca and freighter, but servers a middleground.
If this can be done trough a container or special bay, it will not be able to be abused, and the m3 problem solved
There is actually a reason for not being able to carry over 50,000m3 of general storage in a T1 (or T2) industrial.
Currently C1 wormholes have a mass limit of 20,000,000 m3. In simple terms, everything BUT a battleship can fit into that wormhole (a battleship is too massive that it will not fit). For a point of reference, the ORCA cannot fit into a C1. A Retriever (mining barge) can fit into a C1, the Covetor (also a mining barge), Cannot.
Giving the T1 and T1 small industrial the ability to fit battleship hulls would circumvent the C1 mass limitation on battleship hulls. Currently the only way to bring a BS or higher into a C1 is to build it in there, but then it cannot ever leave.
There might be a few other reasons but those are the ones I know of atm.
|
Mineral Ore
KnownUnknown
9
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 15:00:00 -
[620] - Quote
Quote:ITERON MARK IV - Ore Bay (Ore includes Gas, Ice, and Mineral Ore) <--- I'd rather not be confined to an Ore Bay....
|
|
Vayn Baxtor
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
58
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 15:19:00 -
[621] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:Wulfys Cleanup wrote:We still need a t1, t2 that can carry a packaged battleship. It is stupid that we have to train for an orca or a freighter in an industrial sense, when it's faster to train to fly the ship it self to haul it.
Even giving a ship the capability to haul 2 packaged battleships will not interfere with the roles of the orca and freighter, but servers a middleground.
If this can be done trough a container or special bay, it will not be able to be abused, and the m3 problem solved There is actually a reason for not being able to carry over 50,000m3 of general storage in a T1 (or T2) industrial. Currently C1 wormholes have a mass limit of 20,000,000 m3. In simple terms, everything BUT a battleship can fit into that wormhole (a battleship is too massive that it will not fit). For a point of reference, the ORCA cannot fit into a C1. A Retriever (mining barge) can fit into a C1, the Covetor (also a mining barge), Cannot. Giving the T1 and T1 small industrial the ability to fit battleship hulls would circumvent the C1 mass limitation on battleship hulls. Currently the only way to bring a BS or higher into a C1 is to build it in there, but then it cannot ever leave. There might be a few other reasons but those are the ones I know of atm.
Suppose a query on cargo if one try's to use a C1 could cover that particular issue. If BS in cargo, deny access.
Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
330
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 15:32:00 -
[622] - Quote
Mineral Ore wrote:Quote:ITERON MARK IV - Ore Bay (Ore includes Gas, Ice, and Mineral Ore) <--- I'd rather not be confined to an Ore Bay.... Use another ship?
|
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
1540
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 16:43:00 -
[623] - Quote
Hey sorry I've been missing for a bit - weekends you know.
So I don't have much to add here, glad that you guys are still feeling good about this mostly. A couple small updates though:
We are not going to do any name changes. There's just too much risk/cost in doing that with not enough benefit in this case. It is specifically concerning that we would change them based on current function, then change function in some way down the line and be left with names that make no sense. In general changing what things are called is pretty yucky so I feel good about avoiding it here.
As far as WHEN, I can't say exactly but its a good chance that it will be before the end of Summer.
Have fun see you o/ |
|
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
330
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 17:20:00 -
[624] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Hey sorry I've been missing for a bit - weekends you know.
So I don't have much to add here, glad that you guys are still feeling good about this mostly. A couple small updates though:
We are not going to do any name changes. There's just too much risk/cost in doing that with not enough benefit in this case. It is specifically concerning that we would change them based on current function, then change function in some way down the line and be left with names that make no sense. In general changing what things are called is pretty yucky so I feel good about avoiding it here.
As far as WHEN, I can't say exactly but its a good chance that it will be before the end of Summer.
Have fun see you o/ Now ze HACs?
|
Mineral Ore
KnownUnknown
9
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 17:24:00 -
[625] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:Mineral Ore wrote:Quote:ITERON MARK IV - Ore Bay (Ore includes Gas, Ice, and Mineral Ore) <--- I'd rather not be confined to an Ore Bay.... Use another ship? Where's your humor!? My name is Mineral Ore. |
Gareth Sedorak
Sedorak Corporation
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 17:55:00 -
[626] - Quote
Mineral Ore wrote:Quote:ITERON MARK IV - Ore Bay (Ore includes Gas, Ice, and Mineral Ore) <--- I'd rather not be confined to an Ore Bay....
Then fly one of the many other industrial haulers.... |
Endeavour Starfleet
902
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 19:41:00 -
[627] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Hey sorry I've been missing for a bit - weekends you know.
So I don't have much to add here, glad that you guys are still feeling good about this mostly. A couple small updates though:
We are not going to do any name changes. There's just too much risk/cost in doing that with not enough benefit in this case. It is specifically concerning that we would change them based on current function, then change function in some way down the line and be left with names that make no sense. In general changing what things are called is pretty yucky so I feel good about avoiding it here.
As far as WHEN, I can't say exactly but its a good chance that it will be before the end of Summer.
Have fun see you o/
I really hope you and CCP can find a way to get them out sooner than that. The new haulers are going to make these tasks something that isn't as much as a nightmare to use. Then again I can understand if there are other changes like AHAC rebalancing scheduled as well. |
Sassums
Mom 'n' Pop Ammo Shoppe R.E.P.O.
106
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 21:21:00 -
[628] - Quote
What will the mineral requirements be for these ships, will they be changing?
I would assume (granted i've never built one) that the mark II, III, and IV require less minerals than the Ity V? |
Endeavour Starfleet
902
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 21:42:00 -
[629] - Quote
Sassums wrote:What will the mineral requirements be for these ships, will they be changing?
I would assume (granted i've never built one) that the mark II, III, and IV require less minerals than the Ity V?
This is Tiericide the other times they have done this kind of change they have moved build requirements up to or near that of the highest Tier before the change.
Personally I suspect we will see a similar change here. These ships will become useful so their Mineral requirements will go up to that of the V today in my opinion. |
Kraschyn Thek'athor
Asgard Ammunitions
11
|
Posted - 2013.07.02 01:07:00 -
[630] - Quote
Evelgrivion wrote:The ammunition bay seems like an avenue for considerable abuse; you can fit quite a few hoarders inside of a carrier's ship maintenance bay, and each of those hoarders can be filled to the brim with ammunition for mineral compression purposes.
Hoarder is 240.000m, so 4x Hoarders per carrier. 4x 41.000 = 164.000m normal Bays = 50.000 214.000m capacity for the price of an 1,3 billion isk carrier. Roughly two carrier substitute an JF in the role of high sec mineral import.
But before, it was also possible to fit ammo loaded industrials into the carriers. So... not a big thing. |
|
Vayn Baxtor
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
59
|
Posted - 2013.07.02 02:27:00 -
[631] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Hey sorry I've been missing for a bit - weekends you know.
So I don't have much to add here, glad that you guys are still feeling good about this mostly. A couple small updates though:
We are not going to do any name changes. There's just too much risk/cost in doing that with not enough benefit in this case. It is specifically concerning that we would change them based on current function, then change function in some way down the line and be left with names that make no sense. In general changing what things are called is pretty yucky so I feel good about avoiding it here.
As far as WHEN, I can't say exactly but its a good chance that it will be before the end of Summer.
Have fun see you o/
Sounds good. Well, we'll get over the names. I for one have no problem with it. Never got really behind why it is that much of a trouble (for the community that is). Of course, unique names would really help but in the end, writing Mk 1 thru 5 isnt that hard either. Unless I'm missing something ultra important on tha subject.
It would still be cool if we could squeeze in some other little things, you know - Pretty please!
Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all. |
CFD None
Dirty Pirate Hookers
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.02 06:09:00 -
[632] - Quote
I would like faction industrials to be a real thing. Bloodied paint-job and bonused neuting haulers would be interesting to me. On a practical note, the EWAR would be a nice way to wiggle away from potential tackles. With all the cross training that will be going on, it makes sense.
|
Endeavour Starfleet
902
|
Posted - 2013.07.02 07:24:00 -
[633] - Quote
As hopefully the T1 line has been discussed properly perhaps we can start thinking about Tech 2!
I have started a topic for this https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=254792 |
Goldensaver
ArTech Expeditions
196
|
Posted - 2013.07.02 08:29:00 -
[634] - Quote
Kraschyn Thek'athor wrote: Hoarder is 240.000m, so 4x Hoarders per carrier. 4x 41.000 = 164.000m normal Bays = 50.000 214.000m capacity for the price of an 1,3 billion isk carrier. Roughly two carrier substitute an JF in the role of high sec mineral import.
But before, it was also possible to fit ammo loaded industrials into the carriers. So... not a big thing.
+10% per level as well.
4x41.000x1.5 (at max skill level) So 246.000+50000 So just shy of 300k.
Still not JF level, but a carrier and 4 hoarders are a lot cheaper, and it's about 30 days to get into the hoarder and trained to max Minmatar industrial.
Gareth Sedorak wrote: Then fly one of the many other industrial haulers....
Woosh!
Maximus Andendare wrote:
Use another ship?
Double wooooooosh!
Mineral Ore wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote: Use another ship?
Where's your humor!? My name is Mineral Ore.
I don't think they quite got it. |
Xorth Adimus
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
32
|
Posted - 2013.07.02 09:28:00 -
[635] - Quote
You still have it all wrong.. you have the opportunity to make a real useful change
You need 3 distinct roles before you even start throwing numbers about , such as:
Mining support industrial - would be useful for many roles but with added benefit in transporting ore gas and fuel in a seperate hold, average sized normal hold to make it flexable, would have a good slot layout typically and 2/3/4.
Exploration support industrial - smallest hold but has sufficient fitting to be very flexible can apply a decent tank and also fit a wide range of exploration equipment, it has a small ship hanger to carry a frigate, typical slot layout would be 4/5/5. I would even go so far as to say battle badger !
Transport industrial - has a large hold, small tank and not much choice in fitting 1/2/2
To prevent exploits just don't allow storage of unpackaged transports in carrier hangers or holds (just as you can't put a can in another can).
Where does this leave T2? Blockade runner - same basic layout as the exploration ship but with bigger hold bay and tank - basicly perfect as a mini orca for wormhole use. Cloaky transport - as today with possibly a slightly smaller bay, with a fuel bay to augment more specialisation for supporting blackops capitals and fuelling pos.
This then gives a wider range of options for T3 transports.. one day soon (tm). |
Shade Alidiana
PROSPERO Corporation MinTek Conglomerate
46
|
Posted - 2013.07.02 09:34:00 -
[636] - Quote
I expected at least now lowered HP for cargo role (it was quite hard to tank my current mammoth, you know). And more cargo extenders (+ lows - base) lower structure HP even more.. Pushes me to switch to Mastodon completely
And yes, I personally would really appreciate fuel transport capability for industrials.
And.. Errm... Originally the Iterons and Mammoth were industrials that specialized in hauling everything without any customisation required, that (in the backstory) brought them success and it all seems gone now. |
Omnathious Deninard
The Scope Gallente Federation
1223
|
Posted - 2013.07.02 12:14:00 -
[637] - Quote
Kraschyn Thek'athor wrote:Evelgrivion wrote:The ammunition bay seems like an avenue for considerable abuse; you can fit quite a few hoarders inside of a carrier's ship maintenance bay, and each of those hoarders can be filled to the brim with ammunition for mineral compression purposes. Hoarder is 240.000m, so 4x Hoarders per carrier. 4x 41.000 = 164.000m normal Bays = 50.000 214.000m capacity for the price of an 1,3 billion isk carrier. Roughly two carrier substitute an JF in the role of high sec mineral import. But before, it was also possible to fit ammo loaded industrials into the carriers. So... not a big thing.
CCP Rise wrote: HOARDER - Ammo bay (This includes anything in the 'charge' group - bombs/cap charges/etc)
Minmatar Industrial Skill Bonuses: +10% Ammo Bay Capacity +5% Max Velocity
Slot layout: 3H(+1), 4M(+1), 3L; 2 turrets(+1), 0 launchers Fittings: 180 PWG(+120), 300 CPU(-350) Cargo (capacity / Ammo/Charge Bay Capacity): 500(-4600) / 41000 Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 840(+566) / 800(-216) / 2100(+1084) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 120 / .85(-.15) / 10625000(-875000) / 12.5(-3.4) Signature radius: 185(+5) Warp speed: 4.5au/s Unpacked Volume: Increased to 400000
You can now only fit 2 in a carrier. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Twikki
The Rusty Muskets Lost Obsession
1
|
Posted - 2013.07.02 12:46:00 -
[638] - Quote
I think 2 ship types were missed from the initial thread.
Frieghter and Jump Frieghter
Why not give them the ability to have 1 low slot!
Therefore for those wishing could say fit a damage control, to virtually double there Tank
What does this mean?
Will still get ganked in highsec, but they they will have to field more ships in order to carry this out
And give them a bonus like the venture
After all these are expensive ships, we should be able to defend them a little
Its not like we can jump in a triage carrier to assist |
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
1550
|
Posted - 2013.07.02 13:18:00 -
[639] - Quote
Yes, we will be rebalancing the manufacturing requirements in a similar manner to other recent rebalance efforts.
Yes, on to HACs =)
I completely agree that this rebalance paves the way for more industrial ship rebalancing in other classes, but those efforts aren't on the short term radar. There's just so many ships to work on! And new ones to create! And we really want to start chipping away at mod rebalance as well. |
|
Omnathious Deninard
The Scope Gallente Federation
1223
|
Posted - 2013.07.02 13:27:00 -
[640] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: Yes, on to HACs =)
Like soon(tm) or later today, or this week? Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
|
Bloodpetal
Sal's Waste Management and Pod Disposal The Mockers AO
1300
|
Posted - 2013.07.02 13:34:00 -
[641] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Yes, we will be rebalancing the manufacturing requirements in a similar manner to other recent rebalance efforts.
Yes, on to HACs =)
I completely agree that this rebalance paves the way for more industrial ship rebalancing in other classes, but those efforts aren't on the short term radar. There's just so many ships to work on! And new ones to create! And we really want to start chipping away at mod rebalance as well.
I hope your'e rebalancing Interceptors, Covert Ops Frigates, and EWAR Frigs first... Where I am. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
330
|
Posted - 2013.07.02 15:58:00 -
[642] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Yes, we will be rebalancing the manufacturing requirements in a similar manner to other recent rebalance efforts.
Yes, on to HACs =)
I completely agree that this rebalance paves the way for more industrial ship rebalancing in other classes, but those efforts aren't on the short term radar. There's just so many ships to work on! And new ones to create! And we really want to start chipping away at mod rebalance as well. Make my Deimos useful again! Great work, Rise! |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
39
|
Posted - 2013.07.02 16:41:00 -
[643] - Quote
Well I do hope you still look at using the mineral hauler as a ice product hauler also |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1113
|
Posted - 2013.07.02 16:46:00 -
[644] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:Make my Deimos useful again! Great work, Rise!
well thats a easy fix.
add a 4th mid slot. increase base cap. remove mwd bonus replace with tracking bonus and switch one of the damage bonus for a rate of fire bonus.
That and also base increase in speed and HP.
or in other terms:
Gal cruis bonus: 5% to medium hybrid turret damage 7.5% to tracking
hac bonus: 5% to medium hybrid turret rate of fire 10% to medium hybrid turret fall off
6 high (5 if the team decides on 15 slots indead of 16) 4 medium 6 low There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
BinaryData
HORSE KILLERS The Predictables
27
|
Posted - 2013.07.02 17:35:00 -
[645] - Quote
Since you're f*cking the ships up, yet again, I demand I get my SP back that I dumped into those ships.
As an industrialists, I'm disgusted at these "changes" you've made. Some of these changes are good, but some aren't needed. You pride yourself on listening to the community, yet you ignored the ones that it effects the most. I'm losing faith in CCP and this game. |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1990
|
Posted - 2013.07.02 18:16:00 -
[646] - Quote
BinaryData wrote:Since you're f*cking the ships up, yet again, I demand I get my SP back that I dumped into those ships.
As an industrialists, I'm disgusted at these "changes" you've made. Some of these changes are good, but some aren't needed. You pride yourself on listening to the community, yet you ignored the ones that it effects the most. I'm losing faith in CCP and this game. Do you also buy expensive suits to go for job interviews then take them back to the shop demanding your money back?
No, you got your benefit from the long years of hauler imbalance, now HTFU. Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
Vayn Baxtor
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
59
|
Posted - 2013.07.02 18:23:00 -
[647] - Quote
Quote:As an industrialists, I'm disgusted at these "changes" you've made. Some of these changes are good, but some aren't needed. You pride yourself on listening to the community, yet you ignored the ones that it effects the most. I'm losing faith in CCP and this game.
Provide more details and be more specific on such regarding the changes. I don't know if your standpoint was mentioned, but CCP will continue to "listen" up to the point of what you are putting in the post.
And the frakking HACs can frakking wait until it's their turn. Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all. |
Bosquit
Revenent Defence Corperation Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
51
|
Posted - 2013.07.02 18:28:00 -
[648] - Quote
My only complaint isthe Hoarder, instead of being for Ammo it should be for Pos Fuel and Materials. That would be a lot more useful than ammo, and probably appreciated by a lot of POS tenders. "Insert Philosophical Statement Here" |
Circumstantial Evidence
80
|
Posted - 2013.07.02 18:52:00 -
[649] - Quote
From page 2
CCP Rise wrote:We talked about doing a POS fueler (and I expect this to be the most legit complaint) but it just isn't possible atm. I can't go into specifics but please trust me here =/
|
HiddenPorpoise
BG-1 The Craniac
6
|
Posted - 2013.07.02 19:50:00 -
[650] - Quote
BinaryData wrote:Since you're f*cking the ships up, yet again, I demand I get my SP back that I dumped into those ships.
As an industrialists, I'm disgusted at these "changes" you've made. Some of these changes are good, but some aren't needed. You pride yourself on listening to the community, yet you ignored the ones that it effects the most. I'm losing faith in CCP and this game. What can you even be flying that's worse now? |
|
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
330
|
Posted - 2013.07.02 19:52:00 -
[651] - Quote
HiddenPorpoise wrote:BinaryData wrote:Since you're f*cking the ships up, yet again, I demand I get my SP back that I dumped into those ships.
As an industrialists, I'm disgusted at these "changes" you've made. Some of these changes are good, but some aren't needed. You pride yourself on listening to the community, yet you ignored the ones that it effects the most. I'm losing faith in CCP and this game. What can you even be flying that's worse now? He probably wants more underutilized/marginalized ships and for the rest of the Industrials (except the Itty V) to continue to be garbage/uninspired/lolfits.
|
Khadann
Skull Bearers
45
|
Posted - 2013.07.02 20:32:00 -
[652] - Quote
Poor PRIMAE, what a waste, it could have been the best PI ship ever, unless you turn it T2
I still don't get why these variation are mostly for gallente industrials.
|
Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
512
|
Posted - 2013.07.02 21:00:00 -
[653] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:HiddenPorpoise wrote:BinaryData wrote:Since you're f*cking the ships up, yet again, I demand I get my SP back that I dumped into those ships.
As an industrialists, I'm disgusted at these "changes" you've made. Some of these changes are good, but some aren't needed. You pride yourself on listening to the community, yet you ignored the ones that it effects the most. I'm losing faith in CCP and this game. What can you even be flying that's worse now? He probably wants more underutilized/marginalized ships and for the rest of the Industrials (except the Itty V) to continue to be garbage/uninspired/lolfits.
The problem is, everything but the Gallente line is garbage/uninspired/lolfits.
Gallente get the 3 most useful restricted bays with the advantage of being able to be fit in more interesting ways since they don't require cargo expanding mods and rigs. And the Iteron V is still the big hauling no tank ship it was before.
This is a _very_ incomplete balancing pass. It gave some new and interesting ships to the Gallente line, and left that other the same tired old 'small/fast' and 'big/slow' and forced to fit 'max expanded' to actually haul a useful amount of volume.
And everyone is just "this is perfect, now lets move back to combat ships". Yes, Industrials aren't sexy, but damn near everyone in the game uses them from time to time, and they are a staple for newbies. So far CCP have done an awesome job balancing even the cheapest frigates and cruisers. But this tiericide is total crap. It is still tiered in that their are small and big tiers, meaning most people will still just buy the big ones, and the minor HP and speed difference mean nothing because all these ships are going to be fit the same way.
Seriously, 5% to velocity is dumb when you are forced to fit a bunch of modules that do -10% velocity. Giving the Sigil 'most HP' is pointless if you can't use the low slots to augment it. Why doesn't it get the Amarr armor resists? Every other class of Amarr ship gets at least 1 ship with those resists. Why doesn't the Industrial class get some racial flavor? They all have they same exact bonuses between races.
If CCP Rise just doesn't want to finish balancing Industrial because they are boring, then find some one else to do it. Just don't leave it in the same state that it was found; crappy ships forced into gimped fits, and Gallente is still the only one worth training if you want to haul a lot of stuff. |
Endeavour Starfleet
905
|
Posted - 2013.07.02 21:52:00 -
[654] - Quote
They aren't being left in the same state they started. The plans for these ships are a hell of alot better than what we have today so I don't know why you think your statement as such was accurate.
These ships will see far more use now. Yes fools will continue to fit ships designed for other aspects with cargo expanders and rigs. That is their choice. |
Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
512
|
Posted - 2013.07.02 22:26:00 -
[655] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote: These ships will see far more use now. Yes fools will continue to fit ships designed for other aspects with cargo expanders and rigs. That is their choice.
There is no other aspects to these ships than 'haul stuff'. The Sigil, Badger, Wreathe and Iteron I all have the exact same bonus. The max expanded value are put into the stats in the OP because that is exactly what is expected for fitting. They have no other role and no other bonuses to help in that role. Unless you really expect that sticking with the 3000-4000m3 base cargo is what people are going to go with, but they haven't so far and it looks like CCP expects them to keep doing it. They got a bit more base hp and grid/cpu, which is nice. But they all go about the same buffs, so that tier is still homogeneous.
The small ships are going to be skipped for the same reason they are now. The only measure, and only real bonus, of these ships is the cargo capacity. Why use a Wreathe when a Mammoth holds more? Why train Cadari for anything other than the freighter prereq when Gallente hauls just as much cargo and gets the special hulls. Oh yah, the lolfit Battle Badger.
I don't see how people are missing this. If the cruiser rebalance did nothing but give all the ships the same rate-of-fire and agility bonus, no one would have called it good. People would have still just gone for the ships that fit the most guns, and the other would collect dust. This thing with the Industrials is the same. Each race gets a small and big cargo ship with identical bonuses, and Gallente also get the restricted ships, which leaves us right back with Gallente being the race to train for Industrials. |
Vayn Baxtor
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
59
|
Posted - 2013.07.02 22:57:00 -
[656] - Quote
Quote:Poor PRIMAE, what a waste, it could have been the best PI ship ever, unless you turn it T2 I still don't get why these variation are mostly for gallente industrials.
Yeah, Primae would have been the best candidate for PI rather than one of the playarble faction. Really a shame. Unfortunately, it takes more than busting balls to convince one about suggestions. After all, we're just cows and it is not our ranch or farm or whatever metaphorical crap.
I suppose it is simply too difficult to do these specific changes. I'd suggest to just clone a hull, but it is likely a difficulty for CCP to program or do the many things we desire. I'm just speculating.
Quote:There is no other aspects to these ships than 'haul stuff'. The Sigil, Badger, Wreathe and Iteron I all have the exact same bonus.
There's a sack full of innovations that can be done with the hulls AND those aspects to bring in diversity - well, at least I for one have a few. Each hull is awesome and could bring in some different playstyle that isn't always the same old same old. However, while people love to see new stuff, the same will turn it down.
The reasone why we're likely not able to see other aspects or anything better regarding our tastes is that either CCP or the community is simply too biased on Industrial Hull -> Must haul -> Nothing else mindset. Free/break that and we might get some new aspecs and fun.
As usual, this is only a personal interpretation so nobody will give much of a ****; I wish Industrial Ships were more appropiate to the impressions given by their title - that being BIG vessels and not just paper boats with big tummies. In combination with new modules, they could actually do more than just hauling. Or clone the hulls and say "Okay, there's the standard hauler Industrial Ships, and then there's the Industrial VESSEL; an intermediate between big Freighters and Orca". Something like that.
But as said, it requires an open mind. Without that -> uHaul.
But most of all, these changes will make these ships at least much better than before. From what I know, that was the task of Tiericide for now.
However. In terms of hauling ships, I still think it shouldn't be that difficult in terms of putting in a query or a ruleset for the ship maint/transport bay; it only able to carry Frigates to Cruisers. or something alike. It would help at least with moving 0.0 battles - not much but one could at least bring their small stuff WITHOUT having to nag a bitchy Carrier or JF pilot.
And then there's that dream of a T2 Industrial Ship that have ship bays and can actually fit a jump portal module... Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all. |
Claire Raynor
NovaGear Limitless Inc.
156
|
Posted - 2013.07.03 09:14:00 -
[657] - Quote
I'm Minmatar through and though - thanks to a short 1 year stint in FW. Now the Hoarder!! :)
NewHoarder Appreciation Post
Right - Currently there are High profit options to T1 manufacture that I do. There are two options here. There are very high mark up per sale items but the quantities do not shift on these and then there are lesser marked up items that shift very large quantities. And you profit at isk/hour or isk/week - and you look at the best use of your limited manufacture slots.
As it turns out - currently where I trade - Ammunition (once many popular variations are being made) - produces the highest (reliable) isk/week of any of my blueprints. There are much higher mark up items but they will not sell the quantities - so I can produce more than I can sell - much more - so standard haulers would work for them - and I won't make them that often.
There also appears to be a trend in what must be the PvE use of non faction Cap Booster charges. Less profitable, (because I suspect people keep massive stock piles of ammo - but not so much Cap Charges). . . . But Cap Charges were something I wouldn't make too much of because of the need to then use Freighters to move them and Freighters are soooo slooowwww - it comes down to logistics of getting them to market - and my free time is worth more than that - because a round trip for CAP Boosters is time equiv. to a Level 4 mission and salvage - (and LP to turn my ammo into faction ammo for larger profit) - and the profit will not cover it. So I potentially will monitor the Cap Booster market - but only send them to market when I have ships to sell and am taking a Freighter anyway. (Making ships is a vanity project because the margins are so tight - but I like doing it).
However Ammunition is pretty small in the most part - and I could move it all at will already. Except for Torpedeos and Cruise Missiles - but with access to almost 2.2 times as much hold capacity as my old Mammoth - I will be able to get more of this to market - and if I don't like the large missiles - I can use Cap Boosters instead!
So - I will be getting Hoarders with the intent of using them to transport my ammunition to Rens - specifically with a view to start producing more of the large missile varieties - esspecially now as the new CNR and RF Typhoon are even better! I just see this giving me a use for all three Minnie industrials - when I only used to use the Mammoth.
I am going to miss the mammoth mid slot. I do get suicided en-route to Rens. I could survive a salvo from an arty Tornado down to ~15% sheilds before - but a DCU will now be needed I guess. If I take a Hoarder and a Mammoth - I can split the goods better now and take vast amounts more of the things I sell - the Mammoth will still have the highest value of goods - but will be able to lose a low to a DCU because medium rigs aren't big and paste isn't big either - other than that it is an assortment of meta 3 and 4 loot and some left over PI stuff for POS fuel and Paste. . .
I wonder - Will Nanite Repair Paste fit in the Hoarder ammo bay? (it doesn't matter because it's tiny but meh!) And If I take the two ships I'll get the fleet boost so - Yeah - mightn't miss the mid too much . .. maybe if I take the DCU
So - I'm super excited - I will be able to take more stuff to market more quickly - and will have fun thinking about what ships I'll take - more choices and decissions! |
Caitlyn Tufy
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
347
|
Posted - 2013.07.03 09:40:00 -
[658] - Quote
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:There is no other aspects to these ships than 'haul stuff'.
There's more than one way and more than one situation to haul stuff. Although Jump Freighters exist, people still use Blockade Runners, regular Freighters, Orca and so on. Sometimes you want to carry a lot. Sometimes, you just want to get there fast. Sometimes, you want to be as safe as possible from "evil goon gankers" and so on. And sometimes, you just want to blow stuff up with your Millenium Badger |
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Tormented of Destiny The Kadeshi
136
|
Posted - 2013.07.03 10:47:00 -
[659] - Quote
Khadann wrote: I still don't get why these variation are mostly for gallente industrials.
simply because gallente has so many industrial hulls. you might realise, that the races minmatar and gallente which got specialised industrials are infact those two races with more then two T1-industrial hulls ;)
Claire Raynor wrote: I wonder - Will Nanite Repair Paste fit in the Hoarder ammo bay? (it doesn't matter because it's tiny but meh!)
it has been confirmed already that any kind of charge goes into the ammo-bay of newHoarder.
CCP Rise wrote: We are not going to do any name changes. There's just too much risk/cost in doing that with not enough benefit in this case. It is specifically concerning that we would change them based on current function, then change function in some way down the line and be left with names that make no sense. In general changing what things are called is pretty yucky so I feel good about avoiding it here.
do you plan to change everything again, with those mysterious "industrial changes in the pipe"? what kind of change in function might that be?
|
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
330
|
Posted - 2013.07.03 14:05:00 -
[660] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote:Make my Deimos useful again! Great work, Rise! well thats a easy fix. add a 4th mid slot. increase base cap. remove mwd bonus replace with tracking bonus and switch one of the damage bonus for a rate of fire bonus. That and also base increase in speed and HP. or in other terms: Gal cruis bonus: 5% to medium hybrid turret damage 7.5% to tracking hac bonus: 5% to medium hybrid turret rate of fire 10% to medium hybrid turret fall off 6 high (5 if the team decides on 15 slots indead of 16) 4 medium 6 low
edit: side note there is a flaw with the ishtar balance. it has 15 slots... but the balance team have claimed over and over again that drone focused ships should always have one less slot then turret based ships... so what gives. Please just add a 16th slot to all hacs other then the ishtar when you do the tech II balance. please see the enyo vrs ishkur as an example of this. thaks Not really the place for this, but holy ****--Deimos with 6 turrets + ROF would be a monster. Or better yet, since 6 turrets would be crazy, move that high to a mid, and you'd have a super Thorax with a respectable shield tank. Either way it goes, I'm excited to see what Rise/Fozzie/Ytterbium come up with!
More OT--Rise, can you comment on why Amarr don't have a lolpvp option in the new haulers? Everyone else has one option, with the Amarr line sadly lacking.
|
|
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos
141
|
Posted - 2013.07.03 15:12:00 -
[661] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote: Not really the place for this, but holy ****--Deimos with 6 turrets + ROF would be a monster. Or better yet, since 6 turrets would be crazy, move that high to a mid, and you'd have a super Thorax with a respectable shield tank. Either way it goes, I'm excited to see what Rise/Fozzie/Ytterbium come up with!
More OT--Rise, can you comment on why Amarr don't have a lolpvp option in the new haulers? Everyone else has one option, with the Amarr line sadly lacking.
A Gallente ship designed as a shield tank will never happen. They are still bound in the racial tanking philosophy straightjackets. Witness the wonderful Brutix and Myrm. If you are Gallente just figure you have no fleet option in certain classes. Your choices are flimsy diaf shield tank with lots of very close range gank, a cap dependent weaker than an ASB active armor tank, or a weaker than Amarr armor buffer in a fleet.
So to balance it out I guess Gallente gets to keep its 3 extra industrial haulers. Amarr and Caldari stay at the two main. At least for now. I suspect they'll introduce a new hauler for those races in a later expansion "soon". An artifact of old game design choices. But hardly as ****** as the wonderful active armor tanking philosophy with Gallente. |
Kelsi Darr
Orbital Express LTD Ocularis Inferno
11
|
Posted - 2013.07.03 15:27:00 -
[662] - Quote
Bah! I'd rather have the PI bay on the Iteron IV. I don't like the "needle" shape of the Itty-III and Itty-V. |
Ersahi Kir
Infinite Mobility SpaceMonkey's Alliance
205
|
Posted - 2013.07.03 15:36:00 -
[663] - Quote
I still think these ships are "better," but they were so bad to begin with that it hardly means anything. They're still no where near good. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
330
|
Posted - 2013.07.03 16:20:00 -
[664] - Quote
Deacon Abox wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote: Not really the place for this, but holy ****--Deimos with 6 turrets + ROF would be a monster. Or better yet, since 6 turrets would be crazy, move that high to a mid, and you'd have a super Thorax with a respectable shield tank. Either way it goes, I'm excited to see what Rise/Fozzie/Ytterbium come up with!
More OT--Rise, can you comment on why Amarr don't have a lolpvp option in the new haulers? Everyone else has one option, with the Amarr line sadly lacking.
A Gallente ship designed as a shield tank will never happen. They are still bound in the racial tanking philosophy straightjackets. Witness the wonderful Brutix and Myrm. If you are Gallente just figure you have no fleet option in certain classes. Your choices are flimsy diaf shield tank with lots of very close range gank, a cap dependent weaker than an ASB active armor tank, or a weaker than Amarr armor buffer in a fleet. So to balance it out I guess Gallente gets to keep its 3 extra industrial haulers. Amarr and Caldari stay at the two main. At least for now. I suspect they'll introduce a new hauler for those races in a later expansion "soon". An artifact of old game design choices. But hardly as ****** as the wonderful active armor tanking philosophy with Gallente. Although Gallente ships aren't specifically designed as shield boats, there are a few ships that can work as shield ships, and that's more of what I was getting at with the 5th mid. Granted, you'll never see Gallente ships with 6 or more mids (outside of a recon or perhaps Navy), but that doesn't mean that 5 mids can't make a decent shield tank, especially considering that the other half of that tank is going to be a dps tank :) with all those lows filled with damage/tracking mods.
I bolded the last part because yes. Active armor tanking is a throwback to another time, and the fact that CCP is desperately holding on to it--even saddling both of its Combat BCs/Command Ships with that terrible and often-wasted bonus is just icing on a very sour cake. And then the ship that really could use the repair bonus--the Thanatos--gets screwed out of it! How is that for irony!
However, Gallente have a couple of fleet ships post-rebalance. Mega is sexy with those 8 lows. Domi does an ok job as a sniper, although if the ship has to move, the drones stay behind, so wtf. Brutix Navy is *very* nice, just to name a few. What we really need, though, is for medium rails to not suck so bad and maybe more medium-sized hulls could find a use beyond "sit at 0 and facerape." It'd be nice to have some other option that'd perhaps involve a longer-ranged weapons system (RAILS!), but that may just be my absolute love for Zealots coming out.
Still, I hold out hope that one day Gallente will not be stuck with useless bonuses in fleet situations and that their alternative weapon system can somehow be buffed so as to make them a decent, viable choice for Gallente ships but still keep them in check for Caldari--not that Caldari is dominating with rails, but with their increased optimals (generally) and more damage from a med. rails buff, it could cause problems.
|
Sizeof Void
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
365
|
Posted - 2013.07.03 17:26:00 -
[665] - Quote
Better. Much.
Although, there is still very little reason to train Amarr Industrial. Sure, they have a bit more tank and a bit more cargo space, but the "special feature" ships available via training the other races significantly outweighs this slight advantage.
I'd suggest either a much larger buff to the Amarr ships, or changing out one of the two for a "special feature" ship - perhaps a ship bay? Nothing too ridiculous, but something that can carry 1-2 cruisers, or even just a bunch of frigs, would be an interesting change. This would allow noobs, and alts, to provide a more extended support role, by being able to haul replacement logis, intys, bombers et al to battles. |
Abus Finkel
Caldari Capital Construction Inc.
19
|
Posted - 2013.07.03 18:21:00 -
[666] - Quote
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:Khadann wrote: I still don't get why these variation are mostly for gallente industrials.
simply because gallente has so many industrial hulls. you might realise, that the races minmatar and gallente which got specialised industrials are infact those two races with more then two T1-industrial hulls ;) I get why Gallente and Minmatar are the only ones getting specialized haulers. What I don't get is why CCP are calling it balanced. Gallente lost the king of cargo space title by ~2000m3, so they had to be compensated by being given the best ore hauler, the best mineral hauler, and the best PI hauler? |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
330
|
Posted - 2013.07.03 18:36:00 -
[667] - Quote
Abus Finkel wrote:Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:Khadann wrote: I still don't get why these variation are mostly for gallente industrials.
simply because gallente has so many industrial hulls. you might realise, that the races minmatar and gallente which got specialised industrials are infact those two races with more then two T1-industrial hulls ;) I get why Gallente and Minmatar are the only ones getting specialized haulers. What I don't get is why CCP are calling it balanced. Gallente lost the king of cargo space title by ~2000m3, so they had to be compensated by being given the best ore hauler, the best mineral hauler, and the best PI hauler? Because it is balanced? You have to consider that ships are not single-stat items. There are many things to constitute balance; you just have to first realize that the one-dimensional thought process leaves the other bits out.
|
Vayn Baxtor
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
59
|
Posted - 2013.07.03 19:29:00 -
[668] - Quote
Of course it is better if the specialized ships were of ORE or any other sort - but in this case, it is as it is. And since these are specialized vessels in specific tasks, it is rather redundant to have every single race have the same thing. We just have to take it as it is. Unless there are more combat-orientated hulls, I doubt it is really worth complaining about balancing in terms of hauling and specialized stuff like PI jobs.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see that balance myself but it is likely too complicated. Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all. |
Ersahi Kir
Infinite Mobility SpaceMonkey's Alliance
207
|
Posted - 2013.07.03 20:00:00 -
[669] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:Because it is balanced? You have to consider that ships are not single-stat items. There are many things to constitute balance; you just have to first realize that the one-dimensional thought process leaves the other bits out.
It's balanced? I'm trying to find the metric that you're using to measure balanced, because I just can't find it.
If you want to look at my view of "lack of balance" look at the amarr line vs the galente line. In the small/quick ships the amarr loses it's role as tankiest once it has to add cargo expanders, so only when moving relatively small m3 amounts does it fill it's role. The bestower fails as the most potential cargo hauler when compared to the specialist haulers, especially when you consider that most of the cargo that's going to be moved in bulk fall into what the specialist haulers move.
But lets really look at the difference here. To even be competitive the bestower has to fit full cargo, while the specialists can use every single slot for utility and defense. Even with full cargo (2x expander II rigs, 1x expander 1 rig, 6 expander II lows, amarr industrial 5) the bestower has less cargo than the specialists at skill level 0. On top of that the specialists have the fittings to slap on a LSE II + hardeners, DCU, inertial stabilizers/warp stabbers, and rigs to taste. The bestower has blown most of it's slots on pure cargo, ruining it's armor and structure, and it lacks the fitting to match the specialists in tank.
So a better "tanky" industrial, a compariable "general max cargo" industrial, and specialized ships that blow the competition out of the water both in cargo and fitting utility; where exactly is the balance?
person 1 - "Lets go mining." person 2 - "I can be the hauler! I trained amarr industrial to 5 and I trained all the support skills up to 5! I even dropped over 100 mil in cargo rigs on my boat." person 1 - "bleh, I'm making an alt right now. But the time I deathclone him out here he will outhaul you with a 800k ship." everyone else - "lolamarrmaxhauler" |
Endeavour Starfleet
906
|
Posted - 2013.07.03 22:58:00 -
[670] - Quote
Its balanced because it can only do that single task as opposed to the general cargo the other ships get. It is sad that some of you just don't get it. They are single task ships.
If you are fitting a Bestower to try to compete you are doing it wrong. They serve two different roles. If someone wants to be an idiot and train Amarr to V to haul ore. Let em! That is their fault. |
|
Eladaris
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
338
|
Posted - 2013.07.03 23:44:00 -
[671] - Quote
Abus Finkel wrote:Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:Khadann wrote: I still don't get why these variation are mostly for gallente industrials.
simply because gallente has so many industrial hulls. you might realise, that the races minmatar and gallente which got specialised industrials are infact those two races with more then two T1-industrial hulls ;) I get why Gallente and Minmatar are the only ones getting specialized haulers. What I don't get is why CCP are calling it balanced. Gallente lost the king of cargo space title by ~2000m3, so they had to be compensated by being given the best ore hauler, the best mineral hauler, and the best PI hauler?
If you listen to the Itty V fanboys in this thread, that still wasn't enough. They're screaming for every M3 to be given back to their precious ship. Oh, and it'd probably be better if only people who trained Gal. Indy to V back in the day ever get to fly them. |
Endeavour Starfleet
907
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 01:04:00 -
[672] - Quote
I personally still think the Iteron V ought to be changed into a poor mans hauler. Separate 25K bay not affected by rigs everything else lower including build costs. |
HiddenPorpoise
BG-1 The Craniac
7
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 01:26:00 -
[673] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:I personally still think the Iteron V ought to be changed into a poor mans hauler. Separate 25K bay not affected by rigs everything else lower including build costs. Please stop hurling that term; it is a poorman's hauler, aka a T1 indy. |
FireT
Royal Advanced Industries
98
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 01:33:00 -
[674] - Quote
Interesting, I am looking forward to this rebalancing and the new Gallente ships. |
Ersahi Kir
Infinite Mobility SpaceMonkey's Alliance
207
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 02:18:00 -
[675] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Its balanced because it can only do that single task as opposed to the general cargo the other ships get. It is sad that some of you just don't get it. They are single task ships.
If you are fitting a Bestower to try to compete you are doing it wrong. They serve two different roles. If someone wants to be an idiot and train Amarr to V to haul ore. Let em! That is their fault.
Chances are if you're hauling ore that's all you're hauling. Chances are if you're hauling PI that's all you're hauling. Chances are if you're hauling refined minerals that's all you're hauling.
There really isn't any opportunity cost by using these three ships, especially when you consider that they're much cheaper to fit (no need to fill out lows with tech II expanders), are good out of the box with no rigs, and haul much larger quantities. Additionally, if the occasion does arise that you need to haul mixed cargo items you can slide into a itty 5 and haul nearly as much as a bestower. This is 'balance'?
Balance would be if they had actual opportunity cost for training galente. If the itty 5 and the itty 1 were both specialized haulers as well that may be balanced because you would lack the generalist haulers the other races get, but you would get to haul specific things. The fact that you get access to the much superior specialized haulers but retain comparable generalist haulers is a lack of balance.
As it stands there is little reason to train a non-galente hauler, but because these ships don't pewpew the devs could give a f-less. Just get orca's, they're better anyway. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1113
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 02:31:00 -
[676] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote:Make my Deimos useful again! Great work, Rise! well thats a easy fix. add a 4th mid slot. increase base cap. remove mwd bonus replace with tracking bonus and switch one of the damage bonus for a rate of fire bonus. That and also base increase in speed and HP. or in other terms: Gal cruis bonus: 5% to medium hybrid turret damage 7.5% to tracking hac bonus: 5% to medium hybrid turret rate of fire 10% to medium hybrid turret fall off 6 high (5 if the team decides on 15 slots indead of 16) 4 medium 6 low
edit: side note there is a flaw with the ishtar balance. it has 15 slots... but the balance team have claimed over and over again that drone focused ships should always have one less slot then turret based ships... so what gives. Please just add a 16th slot to all hacs other then the ishtar when you do the tech II balance. please see the enyo vrs ishkur as an example of this. thaks Not really the place for this, but holy ****--Deimos with 6 turrets + ROF would be a monster. Or better yet, since 6 turrets would be crazy, move that high to a mid, and you'd have a super Thorax with a respectable shield tank. Either way it goes, I'm excited to see what Rise/Fozzie/Ytterbium come up with! More OT--Rise, can you comment on why Amarr don't have a lolpvp option in the new haulers? Everyone else has one option, with the Amarr line sadly lacking.
sorry meant 5 turret and one utility slot.
i still think hacs need 16 slots and the ishtar 15.
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1113
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 02:33:00 -
[677] - Quote
Deacon Abox wrote: A Gallente ship designed as a shield tank will never happen.
its not that its designed to be a shield tank. moreover you have the option to go max dps/shield or armor/tackle.
4 mid slots for hacs is not uncommon... look as the ishtar it had 5. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1113
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 02:36:00 -
[678] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote: the drones stay behind,
if you move away from the sentries and before warping recall them they appear in distant space. in other words you do not loose controll of them. when you warp back on to the grid they then switch to regular control and and you can commence attack. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Endeavour Starfleet
909
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 06:22:00 -
[679] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote:Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Its balanced because it can only do that single task as opposed to the general cargo the other ships get. It is sad that some of you just don't get it. They are single task ships.
If you are fitting a Bestower to try to compete you are doing it wrong. They serve two different roles. If someone wants to be an idiot and train Amarr to V to haul ore. Let em! That is their fault. Chances are if you're hauling ore that's all you're hauling. Chances are if you're hauling PI that's all you're hauling. Chances are if you're hauling refined minerals that's all you're hauling. There really isn't any opportunity cost by using these three ships, especially when you consider that they're much cheaper to fit (no need to fill out lows with tech II expanders), are good out of the box with no rigs, and haul much larger quantities. Additionally, if the occasion does arise that you need to haul mixed cargo items you can slide into a itty 5 and haul nearly as much as a bestower. This is 'balance'? Balance would be if they had actual opportunity cost for training galente. If the itty 5 and the itty 1 were both specialized haulers as well that may be balanced because you would lack the generalist haulers the other races get, but you would get to haul specific things. The fact that you get access to the much superior specialized haulers but retain comparable generalist haulers is a lack of balance. As it stands there is little reason to train a non-galente hauler, but because these ships don't pewpew the devs could give a f-less. Just get orca's, they're better anyway.
I have already called for the Iteron V to be changed into bay that can't be affected by cargo expanders nor rigs. 25k max at Gal V and cheap so there no longer a ship of the Gallente line that can get near the Bestower as far as potential general cargo (Not specialized)
And as others have said. Cargo expanders and rigs need to go from these ships and hopefully in the future they can all be given bays of various sizes so that not everyone decides to be an idiot by flying ships designed for speed and agility with cargo expanders. |
Highsec Clarke
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 07:21:00 -
[680] - Quote
So we talk about T1 Industrials... What about ORE Industrials... ??? So the ambitious miner wants to get into an Orca but has to learn "Ore Industrials" for... ... hmm... mining in a Noctis?... or whatever... So the skill is absolute useless for a miner... What about making at least two of the "Outsider"-Iterons or at least their concepts into ORE industrials? Maybe i'm not right, but I think the above mentioned Orca should be overhauled too... I think the most of us would exchange the maintance hangar for ore space... or at least a part of it... and the bonus should be for orehold... split the mined ore between 3 different hangars is just... unnecessary... |
|
Net7
Legion Of Patriots
1
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 08:52:00 -
[681] - Quote
Highsec Clarke wrote:So we talk about T1 Industrials... What about ORE Industrials... ??? So the ambitious miner wants to get into an Orca but has to learn "Ore Industrials" for... ... hmm... mining in a Noctis?... or whatever... So the skill is absolute useless for a miner... What about making at least two of the "Outsider"-Iterons or at least their concepts into ORE industrials? Maybe i'm not right, but I think the above mentioned Orca should be overhauled too... I think the most of us would exchange the maintance hangar for ore space... or at least a part of it... and the bonus should be for orehold... split the mined ore between 3 different hangars is just... unnecessary...
this... Being serious as well, jokingly I would say however a "medium" orca or something! Talk about a skill added with only ONE ship REALLY in mind (that being the orca). |
Marcus Harikari
Guitar Players of EVE
167
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 09:39:00 -
[682] - Quote
iteron should keep highest cargo space because of those of us who trained gallente indy to 5 to fly iteron5 |
Eladaris
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
338
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 11:08:00 -
[683] - Quote
Highsec Clarke wrote:So we talk about T1 Industrials... What about ORE Industrials... ??? So the ambitious miner wants to get into an Orca but has to learn "Ore Industrials" for... ... hmm... mining in a Noctis?... or whatever... So the skill is absolute useless for a miner... What about making at least two of the "Outsider"-Iterons or at least their concepts into ORE industrials? Maybe i'm not right, but I think the above mentioned Orca should be overhauled too... I think the most of us would exchange the maintance hangar for ore space... or at least a part of it... and the bonus should be for orehold... split the mined ore between 3 different hangars is just... unnecessary...
As they've avoided T1 capital ships like the plague through the entire T1 re-balance phase... My guess is they'll keep avoiding them 'till the end.
Honestly I think the Orca is fine as a general purpose hauler. You can throw a few mining boats into the bays, you can fill the other bays with ore. The Orca is perfect as it is, they should instead give us two separate ships specifically for Ore and a Ship Tender type role.... somewhere down the road when art assets aren't the excuse of the day.
Also, they're not taking the Itty's into ORE, it's obviously not in the cards. I think they should add ORE or Interbus ships, but that's also not in the cards with the current Art team excuses everywhere.
I also agree the Itty V should get nerfed to pave the way for a real difference between the racial ships, and that the Eve dev's should swap to bays so we can leave the olden days of all CE's / rigs behind us... but neither are happening in this pass. Also...
Marcus Harikari wrote:iteron should keep highest cargo space because of those of us who trained gallente indy to 5 to fly iteron5
stuff like this is why we can't have nice things. |
BadSeamus
Chaos Army
9
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 11:30:00 -
[684] - Quote
Nice changes - you nailed it. |
Zifrian
Licentia Ex Vereor Black Core Alliance
1036
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 12:10:00 -
[685] - Quote
Given such a low barrier to entry for flying all races of industrials, I don't see the reason to complain about any of it. These are really great changes and gives a lot more variety to an otherwise boring class of ships. Can't wait for T2 updates where the real crying will begin! Maximze your Industry Potential! - Get EVE Isk per Hour! |
Oraac Ensor
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
260
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 16:55:00 -
[686] - Quote
Marcus Harikari wrote:iteron should keep highest cargo space because of those of us who trained gallente indy to 5 to fly iteron5 If you extended that reasoning across every aspect of EVE, we would have total stagnation - nothing would ever change. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 16:56:00 -
[687] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Yes, we will be rebalancing the manufacturing requirements in a similar manner to other recent rebalance efforts.
Yes, on to HACs =)
I completely agree that this rebalance paves the way for more industrial ship rebalancing in other classes, but those efforts aren't on the short term radar. There's just so many ships to work on! And new ones to create! And we really want to start chipping away at mod rebalance as well.
sounds good on the mods re-balance what approach are you taking? i would like to see a role based approach much like the tiercide objective
meta 0 - base mod stats meta 1 - low cap usage /base stats meta 3 - low fitting requirements / base stats meta 4 - high all round performance / higher cap usage T2 - best at one specific stat only / higher fitting requirements
of course this won't work on all mods so you would have to balance around other things Drone improvements/ideas for improvement https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=133767 Electronic Attack Frigate ideas for improvement https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1986048#post1986048 |
Endeavour Starfleet
910
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 20:20:00 -
[688] - Quote
Marcus Harikari wrote:iteron should keep highest cargo space because of those of us who trained gallente indy to 5 to fly iteron5
No
It also needs a change. And in my opinion a change to a cargo bay that can not be affected by cargo expanders and max 25k at Gallente Industral V is plenty enough for those who took it that high. Especially if it is balanced around being cheap to build. |
Parrot47
0riginated Sons Self Sabatoge
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 21:22:00 -
[689] - Quote
Those of us that have fitted cargo expanding rigs on our current Ity II-IV should have them removed (not destroyed) since I am assuming that cargo expanders will not affect the specialized bays.
These are expensive (12Mil+ per ship) rigs that are now going to be worthless on them.
Am I alone on this? Not asking for compensation, just to unfit the current rigs.... |
Eladaris
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
338
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 22:14:00 -
[690] - Quote
Parrot47 wrote:Those of us that have fitted cargo expanding rigs on our current Ity II-IV should have them removed (not destroyed) since I am assuming that cargo expanders will not affect the specialized bays.
These are expensive (12Mil+ per ship) rigs that are now going to be worthless on them.
Totally wrong actually. As pointed out elsewhere the rigs / expanders in the lows combined with high skills will net you a massive boost in your cargo hold. This is most important in the Itty for PI, because that extra cargo space will allow you to carry a pair of Command Centers.
It won't give you the bang for the buck that hanging them on your old ships gave, but it's plenty of reason for them to avoid a refund. |
|
HiddenPorpoise
BG-1 The Craniac
7
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 23:35:00 -
[691] - Quote
Marcus Harikari wrote:iteron should keep highest cargo space because of those of us who trained gallente indy to 5 to fly iteron5 Ite is actually better than bestower at every role; I'm fine with it being very slightly smaller. The only real advantage the bestower actually has is it can fit a warpstab for a smaller loss of cargospace. That's offset by it being slowest and easiest to kill by far. Sigel is the thing to fly on that line. |
Emrys Ap'Morgravaine
Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
58
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 03:53:00 -
[692] - Quote
Mostly I really like it.
My only issue is the Iteron IV having the ore bay with the ability to haul all types?
I'd suggest splitting it down a bit, giving the iteron IV the storage bay for one type, and moving the other 2 types to other races.
So some sort of tanker looking thing for hauling gas.
As for the ice, could make a flying heatsink thing for each race, with 'x' amount of storage, but with some sort of storage bonus if moving their racially specific ice? |
chillore
Small Flat Sharing Group
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 04:54:00 -
[693] - Quote
Denidil wrote:CCP Rise wrote:As far as the Orca - Because it does things other than have an Ore hold, I'm not super concerned about the overlap with the Iteron Mark whatever, but I'll check with Fozzie/Ytterbium to see what they think about it. Good :D The Orca and Rorqual are big arse mining capitals and thus should really have ore bay far in excess of a tech 1 industrial. Especially since the Mackinaw's bay is only 5km3 less than the Orcas now. Orca really should have 300,000m3 to 400,000m3 and the Rorq should have like 1,000,000m3. They're big, slow, and they're ORE ships.
Well, thats a good point to be considered. |
DurFea
Tri-Fleet Asset Management
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 09:34:00 -
[694] - Quote
I've been wishing for a reconfigurable Tech-3 Industrial for a long time.....
ORE Reconfigurable Industrial Ship Required Skills:
- ORE Reconfiguration Specialization
- ORE Industrial V
- Advanced Spaceship Command III
Subsystems:
- ORE Engineering Systems
- ORE Propulsion Systems
- ORE Industrial Specialization Systems
- ORE Cargo Specialization Systems
- ORE Command Specialization Systems
Engineering Subsystem options would include subsystem modules that vary between CPU and POWER GRID, or standard CARGO BAY and STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY, or a subsystem module for COVERT RECONFIGURATION.
Propulsion Subsystem options would include modules for HIGHER NORMAL VELOCITY, GREATER AGILITY, FASTER WARP SPEED, INTERDICTION NULLIFICATION, or JUMP DRIVE.
Industrial Subsystem options would include subsystem modules for supporting ASTEROID MINING, GAS CLOUD HARVESTING, ICE MINING, SALVAGING, or CLONING (possible DUST 514 tie-in)
Cargo Subsystem options would include EXPANDED CARGO BAY, ORE & ICE BAY, PI & Command Center BAY, POS MODULES & TOWER BAY, CORPORATE HANGER BAY.
Command Subsystem options would include subsystem modules to support fitting various mining gang-links with additional bonuses, or perhaps ship-based bonuses similar to mining gang-links but would increase with each additional Tech-3 ship in the fleet -- more ships working together, the bigger the bonuses.
The visual model for the ship could look like various configurations between an Orca and an Iteron with different cargo bay arrangements along a central fuselage structure.
Just my 2-isk, food for thought. |
Vayn Baxtor
Ultra High Ping Crew R O G U E
60
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 17:31:00 -
[695] - Quote
Just my take on T3/Subsystems. The subsystem-'system' in general would really make the game interesting, but I find that these selections specifically are "too good", if not, a bit overpowered. T3 ships in general are more of a curse than a blessing.
Cloaking and Interdiction-Nullifier are things that should be mutually exclusive to begin with - but that is not really worth complaining abou here.
In terms of an "If we would get a T3 industrial vessel", that it should feature some new and unique things and not the cookie cutter stuff. Plus, it is likely that such a T3 vessel will be huge and have a sluggish align time. Doubt the nullifier will really help whatsoever.
But it would cool to see a T3 industrial vessel nonetheless. As said by many people already, Industrial Shpis in general could really become very useful if they have the specific special bays. The current problem here of course is that CCP said specific racial Indys to have special bays, hence the debate and complaints.
One decent solution would be to introduce subsystem-bays, in my opinion, as well as introducing an ORE vessel (T3 or whatever Tech of your liking). Wish we could actually see subsystems become a vital function to T1, T2 and T3 - opening doors to versatility while ensuring no cookie cutter and overpowering principles.
An ORE T3 vessel would at least help migate the complaint of "Why Gallente, and not xyz?". Plus, the standard industrials could focus more on being stepladders on an Industrial branch of whatsoever while avoiding this frequent "stepping on other ships' feet" situation we keep having.
([b]and ffs finally have the possibility of getting Indy hulls as combat variants like a real "battle badger" etc" ) Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all. |
The Renner
Canadian Operations Yulai Federation
21
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 23:56:00 -
[696] - Quote
Not sure if it's been answered yet, but are there plans to let one of the special bay iterons haul moon goo? |
Number One Everything
Icanhazcheezburger
6
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 04:14:00 -
[697] - Quote
CCP Rise, could you update the first page with the changes mentioned later? I really would rather not go through all 35 pages to check all the changes. I know about the one on page 13, but it would be nice to update the first page because that's the post everyone is going to see and base their opinions on. |
Saja Chou
Die Grauen Waechter Graue Legion
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 16:07:00 -
[698] - Quote
(sry for the bad english also sry if i write like a noob XD)
i see the Problem in the to many iteros and the missing role for a 3. hauler also the missing ship on 2 factions
so why dont give this 3.hauler in the game? for the start take one of the hulls paint and call it different and the graficers put the hull or changes later in the gme.
Switch one iteron to ore (the 4?) give it a other Cockpit and paint it yellow XD and sry but put one iteron out of the game Switch the ships how has owned to this one that match the stats mostly
and now do some fancy stuff with the 3.haulers why dont build a mini orca only f++r t1 and ore?
faction haulers: small shiphangar max for a cruiser but only t1 ships you can also only equip t1 ships on it not that big cargohold but as a special: not to scann (for those who dont have a cloaky to carry expensive stuff) moderate fleethold dronebay
ore hauler: shiphangarsize for exhumers/barges can equip Sub capital ore ships nice orehold fleethold big enough for a full hulk fit also with t1 Strip or cloaky? drone bay
and on top some realy fancy role Bonus to the ships good aktiv tank and resi Bonus? maybe can go in warp also with a t1 cloaky but than the cloak goes off? per Level Little warpspeed and align bonus so he can ran away t1 frigs? for the ore: can equip a command module, tractor Bonus, shield/Amor logi Bonus maybe can equip in larger range (for the miner crystals)
it is about bring some movement in this class to the game and solve the "to many iteron" Problem or also dont realy have i great idea for those. if there are no 3.role now you can point on, put it later in. meanwhile build the 3.hulls and Change the one moved to ore. and for a while sit out the Players hatestorm to steal there iterons XD |
Oraac Ensor
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
260
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 18:21:00 -
[699] - Quote
Eladaris wrote:Parrot47 wrote:Those of us that have fitted cargo expanding rigs on our current Ity II-IV should have them removed (not destroyed) since I am assuming that cargo expanders will not affect the specialized bays.
These are expensive (12Mil+ per ship) rigs that are now going to be worthless on them. Totally wrong actually. As pointed out elsewhere the rigs / expanders in the lows combined with high skills will net you a massive boost in your cargo hold. This is most important in the Itty for PI, because that extra cargo space will allow you to carry a pair of Command Centers. It won't give you the bang for the buck that hanging them on your old ships gave, but it's plenty of reason for them to avoid a refund. No.
Rigs and expanders on the Iteron II - IV only affect the tiny cargo hold, not the specialised hold. |
Ted Cisse
Industry and Investments NZAU Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.07 06:22:00 -
[700] - Quote
What I would love is to have 1 of these 3 options:
1- a ship specially designed for transporting minerals or 2- have a special mineral bay inside the freighters or 3- have some kind of cargo container designed for freighters that would be used exclusively for hauling more minerals.
So example:
Mineral cargo expanded (50% bonus in capacity)
Container Vol: 450 000 m3 Mineral Capacity Vol: 675 000 m3
So basically the Idea is for the player to have the choice to either go for full expanded mineral capacity or half/half.
Trading is a known and supported profession in eve but for a mineral traders the profession is heavily disadvantaged specially if you trade in hi-sectors and there's a couple of reasons for that:
1-A freighter class ship is supper slow even if you have all the skills completed and you're manually flying your ship. 2-Multiple stations to stop and the distances can be very far...30 jumps and more sometimes. 3-Hi-sector minerals value is very low...specially titanium and pyrite and to compensate for this you need to sell bigger quantitys
Thank you for reading :) |
|
starman smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2013.07.07 14:09:00 -
[701] - Quote
A large number of existing industrials are fitted with cargohold rigs, which generally cost much more than the hulls. The Odyssey change which reduced training for Itty V already somewhat reduced the value of all other cargo rigged industrials. It seems to me that cargohold rigs will be near worthless on the proposed hulls with specialized bays. For these (Itty II, III, IV, and Hoarder), would it be possible to have installed cargo rigs removed to cargo when the change occurs?
Edit: I see now this was already suggested...
Eladaris wrote:Totally wrong actually. As pointed out elsewhere the rigs / expanders in the lows combined with high skills will net you a massive boost in your cargo hold. This is most important in the Itty for PI, because that extra cargo space will allow you to carry a pair of Command Centers.
It won't give you the bang for the buck that hanging them on your old ships gave, but it's plenty of reason for them to avoid a refund. So those that feel this way can just plug the rigs back in. Problem solved. |
Aerchois
K.O.R.
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.07 21:56:00 -
[702] - Quote
I suggest that a new low slot "Cargohold Alteration" module be created instead of re-creating ships with various specialty cargoholds. Limitations and bonuses would include prohibiting the use of more than one "Cargohold Alteration" module at a time and each type of module would change the capacity and cargohold type based on the specific role. I believe that this would allow for less racial imbalance.
starman smith wrote:A large number of existing industrials are fitted with cargohold rigs, which generally cost much more than the hulls. The Odyssey change which reduced training for Itty V already somewhat reduced the value of all other cargo rigged industrials. It seems to me that cargohold rigs will be near worthless on the proposed hulls with specialized bays. For these (Itty II, III, IV, and Hoarder), would it be possible to have installed cargo rigs removed to cargo when the change occurs? Edit: I see now this was already suggested... Eladaris wrote:Totally wrong actually. As pointed out elsewhere the rigs / expanders in the lows combined with high skills will net you a massive boost in your cargo hold. This is most important in the Itty for PI, because that extra cargo space will allow you to carry a pair of Command Centers.
It won't give you the bang for the buck that hanging them on your old ships gave, but it's plenty of reason for them to avoid a refund. So those that feel this way can just plug the rigs back in. Problem solved. To answer starman smith, refunding Cargohold Optimization rigs would not be in keeping with the past decision to not refund them for both Mining Barges and Exhumers when the original change occurred for Ore Holds. |
Chastity Lynn
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2013.07.08 14:23:00 -
[703] - Quote
+1 to the changes.
One thing is for sure. Most will have one of each type industrial ship ( at least for gallente) and maybe one more race.
Name change is not that important and I for one do support it. Overall a step in the right direction. |
Tenchi Sal
Dust Bunnies 514
177
|
Posted - 2013.07.08 15:07:00 -
[704] - Quote
So with all these changes, is hauling going to become Iteron Online? As it stands, theres no reason at all anymore to use anything other then Iterons. They now have the best ore haulers and best PI haulers. With the rebalance, most of the other ships are pretty well balanced against their counter parts so the few k difference in cargohold space isnt worth training into another race.
All new players to the game will simply train Gallente and ignore the other races. The best bonuses shouldnt have been given only to one race. The hoarder should have at least received the Ore bonus. Good job in "balancing" these ships. |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling Care Factor
266
|
Posted - 2013.07.08 17:50:00 -
[705] - Quote
It would be nice to have seen the amarr ones get abit of something towards combat as well, or at least to run away with, maybe some sort of boost to using jam drones? |
Lilliana Stelles
815
|
Posted - 2013.07.08 18:01:00 -
[706] - Quote
Why no POS bay? (moon goo, modules, fuel and control towers) Seriously? You have a bay for everything else ... I mean, who needs a special "ammo bay"? Incarna from 2009. 3 Years later and what we have doesn't look half as good as this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n41s1Iox18A |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling Care Factor
266
|
Posted - 2013.07.08 18:10:00 -
[707] - Quote
Though as a side note, when these changes hit, I will be taking this old Badger II that's been collecting dust for who knows how many years now, name it "Sansha's Trojan Horse" and fitting an ASB, Laser, and HAM to it! |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling Care Factor
266
|
Posted - 2013.07.08 18:18:00 -
[708] - Quote
Also, I do agree, to keep the game from becoming a matter of pretty much everyone training into Itty's and nothing else, you should swap out the Itty IV Ore Hold with the Hoarder Ammo Hold. The other thing I'd like to point out is I don't think too kindly of the special Holds being larger even before adding in the Cargohold space then the largest sized Industrials of each race can even begin to think about getting with top skills and fittings... I think that the special Bay Hold ship bays should only add up to an equivalent amount, after adding in modified with fittings and skills cargobays. |
Emiko P'eng
49
|
Posted - 2013.07.08 22:53:00 -
[709] - Quote
Overall nice idea!
But why are the Gallente & Minmatar getting new capacities and not the Caldari or Amarr, at least add an ore carrier version of the Badger & Bestower you do not need a massive graphic overhaul for that!
Also you have also effectively just made the ORE Primae pretty much redundant! |
Vayn Baxtor
Ultra High Ping Crew R O G U E
63
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 02:44:00 -
[710] - Quote
I lost track a bit on what is actually still open that Caldari or Amarr could tackle on.
I mean, there's ore, ammo, PI, "stuff". Somebody mentioned the necessity of a moon-goo hauler. I don't know how effective that could be as moon goo is indeed quite "specialized" (if not even more than PI commodity bay).
I suppose this is why a ship (t3 or whatever) with modular bays is very attractive. You could then actually adapt the ship to the given situation rather than trying to field a flotilla of different Industrial Ships.
Just theorycrafting.
[quoteAlso you have also effectively just made the ORE Primae pretty much redundant![/quote]
Yeah, makes me quote "What a Shame" meme :( Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all. |
|
Emiko P'eng
50
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 08:34:00 -
[711] - Quote
Vayn Baxtor wrote:I lost track a bit on what is actually still open that Caldari or Amarr could tackle on.( Good call, it is mainly about wasting skill points, having to learning yet another ship type.
With the secondary point a few players still like to Role Play, so wouldn't be found dead in a opposing factions ship. |
DED Capsuleer
DED Drug Enforcement Department
3
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 13:15:00 -
[712] - Quote
Reduce it to 2 industrials per race. 1 for stuff and then give each race a speciality bay. Something you can build upon for T2, Freighters and Jump Freighters.
Yes you are going to have to retire a few industrials, but do it right, instead of continuing the 'Itty' mistake any further. |
TheSmokingHertog
TALIBAN EXPRESS
104
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 16:19:00 -
[713] - Quote
Parrot47 wrote:Those of us that have fitted cargo expanding rigs on our current Ity II-IV should have them removed (not destroyed) since I am assuming that cargo expanders will not affect the specialized bays.
These are expensive (12Mil+ per ship) rigs that are now going to be worthless on them.
Am I alone on this? Not asking for compensation, just to unfit the current rigs....
Since we the players are not able to anticipate these changes that are implemented, I feel like this in not a grand request, and is in-fact a rather basic expectation.
I would champion this, but then I want them removed from my hulk's too. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4346
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 22:08:00 -
[714] - Quote
Pelea Ming wrote:Also, I do agree, to keep the game from becoming a matter of pretty much everyone training into Itty's and nothing else, you should swap out the Itty IV Ore Hold with the Hoarder Ammo Hold. The other thing I'd like to point out is I don't think too kindly of the special Holds being larger even before adding in the Cargohold space then the largest sized Industrials of each race can even begin to think about getting with top skills and fittings... I think that the special Bay Hold ship bays should only add up to an equivalent amount, after adding in modified with fittings and skills cargobays. I think in many cases you are correct, but I also feel that a fairly large percent of people using T1 haulers are hauling modules, goods, and other items that will not fit into the more specialized bays. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Vayn Baxtor
Ultra High Ping Crew R O G U E
63
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 22:35:00 -
[715] - Quote
Emiko P'eng wrote:Vayn Baxtor wrote:I lost track a bit on what is actually still open that Caldari or Amarr could tackle on.( Good call, it is mainly about wasting skill points, having to learning yet another ship type. With the secondary point a few players still like to Role Play, so wouldn't be found dead in a opposing factions ship.
I never had problems with skill training. I mean, yeah, long time ago I always wanted this and that ship but now it's like "Oh, 3+ months etc? pff". Bit a mix of curb-your-enthusiasm and "got what I like". But that's just me. I respect each to their own.
Enough about my ramble. As said many times, I think the Industrial Ships in general are just too narrow with their selections or traits. While these changes WILL HELP A LOT, we can see that it still makes new problems. Surely, nobody can please everybody. That's impossible.
Yet I just find don't know if we (or in this case, you all) should just simply take it as it. Not that I'm saying that discussions suck, but it looks like it it too complicated for the simplest of suggested solutions. Programming of course requires resources and we on the other side are pretty much just barking and posting letters of rage.
I'd really love to see all hulls have their true uses, but it looks like ALL of them need some more beef. If we want to be picky with Caldari and Amarr, then yeah, there has to be some more things done.
/edit
Nevertheless, in terms of hauling, I really REALLY think there needs to be something more done. Realtime/authentic-logistics is cool. Makes EVE real. But I simply stumble many times upon being forced to rely on JF pilots and such who simply are literally OVER-STRESSED. And I can't help because I don't have the billions. That is just me, but I'm sure others know about this situation.
There is really a necessity for a way to haul frigates/destroyers/cruisers and ammo like baggage. It is not all too easy to do that with the current Haulers as they are. Personally, if they had a lot more of HP to suck up dmg if tackled, that would be nice (but yeah, soon we're to hear the lamentations of pvp-gentlemen who gank in highsec........dot dot dot).
All that said, there should still be some ideas to squeeze in for these Industrial Ships. Maybe we should focus on that :). Go me. Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all. |
YuuKnow
Terra-Formers
818
|
Posted - 2013.07.10 13:12:00 -
[716] - Quote
I like the changes.
While your at it, can you get the art team to remake the Iteron. That thing is butt-ugly.
yk |
Ronny Hugo
Dark Fusion Industries Limitless Inc.
4
|
Posted - 2013.07.10 20:12:00 -
[717] - Quote
THis looks great, I mean I could probably find something to nitpick about, but perfection is unattainable, this is more than close enough. My bestower is given new life! But for future reference, I'd just make it simple and make all the industrials have hull HP only, it seems that's how they would be unless someone physically added shield extenders and/or armor plates. |
Amariku
Orbus Syndicate United Systems Alliance Navy
1
|
Posted - 2013.07.10 23:56:00 -
[718] - Quote
Finished reading the whole thread, and Wow...
Ok so first things first. CCP Rise, this is a far better proposal than the first balance pass. Good job and I hope that someday you and the art guys can get around to adding some new industrial ships that are just as unique as the specialized ones that the Gallente are getting.
Ok so some popular arguments that have been discussed are that the specialist haulers are OP and that the Gallente are getting special favors, treatment, and/or a leg-up over the competition, the list of accusations goes on and on. Several people have made valid claims that this will just cause various min-maxers, number-crunchers, theory crafters, and EFT warriors to gravitate towards the Gal industrial line for their "beneficial advantages". Here is a 2 bit piece of wisdom from an old pen and dice roller... this sort of thing will always happen and unless you want everything to be carbon copies that do the exact the same things, you are not going to stop people from finding the path of least resistance with the greatest gain. In Eve it's called optimization, risk assessment, cost-benefit analysis, or any other "buzzword" that someone has coined take your pick they all mean the same thing. Just ask any D&D player to tell you which class is better and you'll get a threadnaught equivalent explanation of percentages and probabilities.
So lets look at the advantages of these specialists have. Keep in mind I'm just listing a few of the biggies.
+They haul a lot (over 60k in specialized bay capacity) +You only have to train one racial industrial skill to get access to them (Gall for the itties and Minnie for the hoarder) +They can fit a decent tank without sacrificing their cargo capacity +They'll be relatively cheap (unless someone screws the market over) +Easy for new players to make use of them in a short time after rolling their toon
Ok there is some pretty good advantages here. Now lets look at the downside.
-The specialized cargo bay is limited to only carrying that item type (ie. Mineral Bay=minerals and so on) -The specialized bay can be increased through skill (just like the other industrials) but can not be enhanced with cargo expanders, astro rigs, or GSC's (which the generic cargo carrying industrials). -You don't need a ship scanner to have an idea of what could be in them, only to know if they are empty or not. "Hey look an Itty mark 2, it must have a crap ton of minerals. Locking target for ganking." -You can only fit so much on one of those ships for a tank. -You can't carry courier contracts in a special cargo bay which means no super obfuscating plastic wrap. -They are stated like the other super haulers.
Hmm interesting that have quite a number of disadvantages too.
For a moment, lets not talk about these specialist ships. Think for a second what this represents. CCP said it himself, this is something he wanted to do initially. Couple that with the rumors of something big coming down the pipe in the near future for the industrialists of EVE. Things like building a your own Jump gates. Now lets postulate and theorize on this. Is it possible that they may just design and model new industrials later on down the road for that are specialized for tasks that haven't been invented yet. Hmm, makes your mind boggle and wonder of the possibilities.
The Art team is busy now sure, but who is to say that the next ship design contest leans towards new industrials. If they did design new industrials and add them later as things are now, we would probably see one for Amarr and three for Caldari. But that just one possibility.
So stop looking at it as an imbalance. Try looking at it as CCP experimenting with this new idea. There are many possibilities with this concept.
Oh well my 2 isk I guess. |
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus Aeterna Anima
108
|
Posted - 2013.07.11 08:35:00 -
[719] - Quote
CCP Rise:
What I find astonishing is, that the art team is too busy to change a few haulers - and it wouldn't even have to be a complete redesign, you could move one each of the spare Iterons to Amarr, one to Caldari and simply use recolored versions of their existing haulers, so every faction has 3 haulers, one for tank, one for cargo and one with a special bay.
Yet at the same time, that very same art team finds the time for the identical job - recoloring/retexturing 2 existing hulls - for two ships that only a handful of people will ever benefit from - and only as a trophy, not to fly them.
P.S. From a player's perspective I like the fact that i will only ever have to skill into one race's industrials. As a designer the lack of any balance therein makes me cringe. |
Beofryn Sedorak
Sedorak Corporation
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.11 11:22:00 -
[720] - Quote
Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:CCP Rise:
What I find astonishing is, that the art team is too busy to change a few haulers - and it wouldn't even have to be a complete redesign, you could move one each of the spare Iterons to Amarr, one to Caldari and simply use recolored versions of their existing haulers, so every faction has 3 haulers, one for tank, one for cargo and one with a special bay.
Yet at the same time, that very same art team finds the time for the identical job - recoloring/retexturing 2 existing hulls - for two ships that only a handful of people will ever benefit from - and only as a trophy, not to fly them.
P.S. From a player's perspective I like the fact that i will only ever have to skill into one race's industrials. As a designer the lack of any balance therein makes me cringe.
Your astonishment surely arises from your absolute and total ignorance of size, man hours, and current work load of the art team. You arrogantly assume to know more about what the art team can and can't do in any given time frame and also know more about what they are or aren't doing with their time currently.
Please accept that this will always be true and stop being whiney about CCP not currently dedicating time on new industrial ship models and be happy that even after 10 years, EVE Online is still an amazing game and that maybe, JUST maybe, CCP has a clue how to do the whole game development thing. |
|
Ruze
Next Stage Initiative Trans-Stellar Industries
433
|
Posted - 2013.07.11 16:18:00 -
[721] - Quote
This is much, much better.
For the current round of changes, minus numbers others might catch, I give a thumbs up.
For the future POTENTIAL of the industrial profession and possibly a new class and category of ships which fill even more diverse roles? We'll be waiting, however patiently we can manage. If you're driven to threaten others with harm or violence because of what they do in game, you can't separate fantasy from reality. That "griefer/thief" is probably more sane than you are. How screwed up is that? |
Scuzzy Logic
Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce
45
|
Posted - 2013.07.11 16:22:00 -
[722] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote:Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Its balanced because it can only do that single task as opposed to the general cargo the other ships get. It is sad that some of you just don't get it. They are single task ships.
If you are fitting a Bestower to try to compete you are doing it wrong. They serve two different roles. If someone wants to be an idiot and train Amarr to V to haul ore. Let em! That is their fault. Chances are if you're hauling ore that's all you're hauling. Chances are if you're hauling PI that's all you're hauling. Chances are if you're hauling refined minerals that's all you're hauling. There really isn't any opportunity cost by using these three ships, especially when you consider that they're much cheaper to fit (no need to fill out lows with tech II expanders), are good out of the box with no rigs, and haul much larger quantities. Additionally, if the occasion does arise that you need to haul mixed cargo items you can slide into a itty 5 and haul nearly as much as a bestower. This is 'balance'? Balance would be if they had actual opportunity cost for training galente. If the itty 5 and the itty 1 were both specialized haulers as well that may be balanced because you would lack the generalist haulers the other races get, but you would get to haul specific things. The fact that you get access to the much superior specialized haulers but retain comparable generalist haulers is a lack of balance. As it stands there is little reason to train a non-galente hauler, but because these ships don't pewpew the devs could give a f-less. Just get orca's, they're better anyway.
This is the most sensical post I heard in the entire thread.
In a related matter, way to go giving the gallente the ore AND the refined mineral bay. Considering minerals are 56% of all cargo by volume in Freighters (according to an Incarna devblog, not that dated) and that ships account for 38%, you're giving them too much. Unless you're planning on making Gallente-T2 into ****-tier haulers, you're forcing players into an obvious TRAIN GALLENTE DERPTARD box. |
Ronny Hugo
Dark Fusion Industries Limitless Inc.
5
|
Posted - 2013.07.13 00:04:00 -
[723] - Quote
About balance, balance does not mean "exactly the same". The races are supposed to have different strengths and different weaknesses, if they all have the same strengths and weaknesses the we might as well just merge them and be done with races. |
Ted Cisse
Industry and Investments NZAU Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.13 01:46:00 -
[724] - Quote
Ronny Hugo wrote:About balance, balance does not mean "exactly the same". The races are supposed to have different strengths and different weaknesses, if they all have the same strengths and weaknesses the we might as well just merge them and be done with races.
Excellent idea :) |
Max Therion
Jita Ikami Bank
9
|
Posted - 2013.07.14 19:35:00 -
[725] - Quote
Good changes all around - move it forward please, the sooner the better. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
676
|
Posted - 2013.07.15 05:47:00 -
[726] - Quote
Ronny Hugo wrote:About balance, balance does not mean "exactly the same". The races are supposed to have different strengths and different weaknesses, if they all have the same strengths and weaknesses the we might as well just merge them and be done with races. What exactly was your point with this? Keeping in mind the ships we are dealing with, what are you really expecting by way of division across racial lines? Or are you talking about the all ships in game as a whole? |
Vayn Baxtor
Ultra High Ping Crew R O G U E
64
|
Posted - 2013.07.15 14:36:00 -
[727] - Quote
I think there's a bit too much of jumping-the-gun about balance. We don't really need 4 versions of a ship doing the same industiral-themed job. And in the end, it doesn't really matter if you're skilling for a Noctis or a specific player race. Yes, time is money, but it is just an industrial ship.
What should be focused on is that all get last-tier Indys get an appropiate special-trait/bay whatever. Now there are the "classic awesome" like hauling tons of m-¦, PI and stuff. Maybe one should try to be creative and find alternatives that could be cool. It would at least be something to start with. Hell, maybe give the Battle Badger idea more attention ;P.
Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all. |
Meyah Star
Khanid Constructions The Volition Cult
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.15 15:58:00 -
[728] - Quote
Little Question about Iteron Mark II
Is mineral bay for REFINED or NOT REFINED ( or both ) ? |
SencneS
Incertae Sedis
30
|
Posted - 2013.07.15 16:22:00 -
[729] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:HOARDER - Ammo bay (This includes anything in the 'charge' group - bombs/cap charges/etc)
Cargo (capacity / Ammo/Charge Bay Capacity): 500(-4600) / 41000 Unpacked Volume: Increased to 400,000
Interesting how the unpack volume changed to 400K, just enough to squeeze into an Orca's Ship Maintenance bay.
However, why even bother increasing its volume? Lets assume for a second that you have Null corps hauling charges from Jita to Null via Carrier for mineral compression... Thanatos - 1,000,000 m3 ship maintenance bay.
So you can only carry two Hoarders - for a total of 82,000 m3 of ammo. Or You can carry three Bestowers - for a total of 117,603 m3 of ammo.
You could use one Hoarder and two Bestowers - Total capacity 119,402 m3. But lets face it, that 1800 m3 in exchange for training two empire industrial is hardly worth the time or effort.
Instead the Unpack Volume needs to be increased to just 250,001 m3 - So you can't fit four of them in a carrier, but still out-classes Bestower to carry charges..
Increasing to 400,000 is just a death-blow. |
Ersahi Kir
Infinite Mobility SpaceMonkey's Alliance
212
|
Posted - 2013.07.15 19:22:00 -
[730] - Quote
SencneS wrote:CCP Rise wrote:HOARDER - Ammo bay (This includes anything in the 'charge' group - bombs/cap charges/etc)
Cargo (capacity / Ammo/Charge Bay Capacity): 500(-4600) / 41000 Unpacked Volume: Increased to 400,000 Interesting how the unpack volume changed to 400K, just enough to squeeze into an Orca's Ship Maintenance bay. However, why even bother increasing its volume? Lets assume for a second that you have Null corps hauling charges from Jita to Null via Carrier for mineral compression... Thanatos - 1,000,000 m3 ship maintenance bay. So you can only carry two Hoarders - for a total of 82,000 m3 of ammo. Or You can carry three Bestowers - for a total of 117,603 m3 of ammo. You could use one Hoarder and two Bestowers - Total capacity 119,402 m3. But lets face it, that 1800 m3 in exchange for training two empire industrial is hardly worth the time or effort. Instead the Unpack Volume needs to be increased to just 250,001 m3 - So you can't fit four of them in a carrier, but still out-classes Bestower to carry charges.. Increasing to 400,000 is just a death-blow.
Or, you know, fix industry so that importing large quantities of minerals from high sec isn't as necessary.
Whichever makes more sense. |
|
SencneS
Incertae Sedis
30
|
Posted - 2013.07.15 21:00:00 -
[731] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote:Or, you know, fix industry so that importing large quantities of minerals from high sec isn't as necessary.
Whichever makes more sense.
Of cause! That makes more sense, but this is CCP we're talking about :)
If it doesn't have a complex path that requires five spreadsheets to track, and work out what is optimal, or the most difficult complex system devised for the simplest requirement, then it just isn't EVE! |
Ronny Hugo
Dark Fusion Industries Limitless Inc.
9
|
Posted - 2013.07.15 21:48:00 -
[732] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Ronny Hugo wrote:About balance, balance does not mean "exactly the same". The races are supposed to have different strengths and different weaknesses, if they all have the same strengths and weaknesses the we might as well just merge them and be done with races. What exactly was your point with this? Keeping in mind the ships we are dealing with, what are you really expecting by way of division across racial lines? Or are you talking about the all ships in game as a whole?
I don't know. I didn't have your questions or concerns in mind when I wrote that. I was only concerned with this problem: What do you do if you have two virtually identical pictures, and have to photoshop them both to make them better? There comes a point when they are so alike you delete one and only improve the other, then copy it. If we continue to make ships the same instead of more distinct we will reach that point. Caldari ships should have zero armor, lots of shield, and the same goes for amarr, but then it is zero shield, and lots of armor. Amarr should have zero shield resistance and a more balanced armor resistance, Caldari should have no armor resistance but a more balanced shield resistance. And so on. |
Sizeof Void
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
366
|
Posted - 2013.07.16 05:29:00 -
[733] - Quote
(I apologize if this suggestion has already been made previously)
With the increased use of "specialty" bays, Expanded Cargohold modules and Cargohold Optimization rigs should be updated to expand the new bays, as well as the standard cargohold.
After all, these particular modules/rigs were originally designed to be used primarily by the industrials, and now a good percentage of the updated industrials won't see much advantage from using them.
Note: This change would also placate many hauler (and miners, as well) who fitted Cargohold Optimization rigs to their ships, prior to the addition of these "specialty" bays. |
Oraac Ensor
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
266
|
Posted - 2013.07.16 07:02:00 -
[734] - Quote
As a side issue, why are they still called Industrials?
My understanding is that they were originally intended to be exactly that (i.e. ships capable of running undustrial processes, hence the huge CPU) but eventually emerged as something different.
I would like to see them given a type name more appropriate to their purpose, such as Cargoship or Hauler. |
B aalzamon
Wormbro Ocularis Inferno
2
|
Posted - 2013.07.16 17:07:00 -
[735] - Quote
I'm not sure if it was mentioned already, but with the ore hauler being able to haul unrefined gas, asteroid, and ice products; will the mineral hauler be able to haul refined ice products too?
It should be allowed to carry anything in the Minerals category AND Ice Products category (stront, ozone, heavy waters, and isotopes) IMHO.
-B aalzamon |
B aalzamon
Wormbro Ocularis Inferno
2
|
Posted - 2013.07.16 17:11:00 -
[736] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote: With the increased use of "specialty" bays, Expanded Cargohold modules and Cargohold Optimization rigs should be updated to expand the new bays, as well as the standard cargohold. ... Note: This change would also placate many hauler (and miners, as well) who fitted Cargohold Optimization rigs to their ships, prior to the addition of these "specialty" bays.
Yes, because we need to placate hisec carebear haulers.
Do cargo expanders and rigs affect the ore holds on Orcas, Ventures, Mining Barges, or Exhumers? No. Did the mining botters cry foul when CCP gave them massive ore holds and made them throw away their cargo rigs? No. Why? Because they aren't idiots.
-B aalzamon
EDIT: I forgot to mention Commodities holds on Primaes, but since no one uses them for anything, EVER, it doesn't really matter. But they are not effected by cargo rigs either. |
Dersen Lowery
Laurentson INC The Last Chancers.
619
|
Posted - 2013.07.16 17:16:00 -
[737] - Quote
Oraac Ensor wrote:As a side issue, why are they still called Industrials?
My understanding is that they were originally intended to be exactly that (i.e. ships capable of running industrial processes, hence the huge CPU) but eventually emerged as something different.
I would like to see them given a type name more appropriate to their purpose, such as Cargoship or Hauler.
The logical name would be logistics, but that's been taken already (as a vestige, though, EVE-logistics ships have large cargo holds). Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables. |
Vayn Baxtor
Ultra High Ping Crew R O G U E
64
|
Posted - 2013.07.16 18:24:00 -
[738] - Quote
Dersen Lowery wrote:Oraac Ensor wrote:As a side issue, why are they still called Industrials?
My understanding is that they were originally intended to be exactly that (i.e. ships capable of running industrial processes, hence the huge CPU) but eventually emerged as something different.
I would like to see them given a type name more appropriate to their purpose, such as Cargoship or Hauler. The logical name would be logistics, but that's been taken already (as a vestige, though, EVE-logistics ships have large cargo holds).
There's a whole bunch of misplaced names, if one goes through the list. There would have to be a general cleansweep on those names, but I'm guessing such would go under the "too complicated" tab as usual.
Frigates are actually more of closer related to the term Corvettes. Destroyers are more of a Frigates. Cruisers are mix of actual Cruisers and Destroyers. BCs are fine but one could also put them under the general term of Heavy Cruisers in some way.
As said, it is complicated, there will be much to debate about and it's likely unnecessary as it is just cosmetics.
I'm guessing the "Industrial Ship" is just to signal the primary "civilian" aspect.
Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all. |
Djana Libra
DAB Black Legion.
261
|
Posted - 2013.07.16 20:07:00 -
[739] - Quote
why not make the special bay ships depending on ore industrial, and just have racial haulers for speed and max cargo.
|
Oska Rus
Free Ice Cream People
21
|
Posted - 2013.07.16 22:37:00 -
[740] - Quote
I think that difference of size of normal max cargo and specialized bays (35-39k vs 42-45k) is too insignificant to make anyone use it. Why not make it actually big like 70k+ or make it affectable by cargoold mods and rigs? |
|
Sizeof Void
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
366
|
Posted - 2013.07.17 00:59:00 -
[741] - Quote
B aalzamon wrote:Do cargo expanders and rigs affect the ore holds on Orcas, Ventures, Mining Barges, or Exhumers? No. Correct. But, only because the specialty bays on these ships were also introduced long after the cargo expanders and rigs were first developed (at that time, there was only the standard cargohold). It is very likely that had the cargo expanders and rigs been developed *after* the specialty bays, the CCP devs would have included the bays in the bonuses. After all, there really isn't any reason not to do so.
Players who are carrying stuff should always have the option of sacrificing tank/speed, ie. becoming more vulnerable, in favor of more cargo space - it simply makes the game more interesting. Funny thing is... I believe this is one point on which the haulers/miners *and* the gankers would agree. :)
B aalzamon wrote:Did the mining botters cry foul when CCP gave them massive ore holds and made them throw away their cargo rigs? No. Why? Because they aren't idiots. As a matter of fact....
I guess you didn't follow the thread on the changes to mining ships. Many of the old exhumers were fit with T2 cargo rigs and the mining community was quite vocal in "crying foul", since these very expensive rigs no longer contributed substantially and they could not be removed without being destroyed. |
Jabolex
Bane Heavy Industries Li3 Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.17 07:45:00 -
[742] - Quote
The Epithal will have a dedicated bay for planetary commodities Primae have a dedicated bay for planetary commodities. |
Galmas
United System's Commonwealth R.E.P.O.
113
|
Posted - 2013.07.17 09:43:00 -
[743] - Quote
If i have had a word in this decision i would have voted for saving the costs for all that and hire someone to to help with coding the personal ship hangars for POS...
As i read all this you will need several haulers to do several things most efficiently... sounds tedious, waste of time, no new content added. I don't like. |
Debora Tsung
The Investment Bankers Guild
215
|
Posted - 2013.07.17 09:46:00 -
[744] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote: Is the specialist ammo bay accessible by fleet? I guess you kinda answered that in your original post about "pushing the boundaries" but I figure it's worth asking :)
That would be awesome. I'd probably never use it, but it'd be awesome. There's nothing a million chinese guys can't do cheaper. |
Jada Maroo
Southern Cross Empire Flying Dangerous
1180
|
Posted - 2013.07.17 11:10:00 -
[745] - Quote
Jabolex wrote:The Epithal will have a dedicated bay for planetary commodities Primae have a dedicated bay for planetary commodities.
The Primae doesn't count as anything more than a hangar decoration. |
Beofryn Sedorak
Sedorak Corporation
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.17 15:10:00 -
[746] - Quote
Jada Maroo wrote:Jabolex wrote:The Epithal will have a dedicated bay for planetary commodities Primae have a dedicated bay for planetary commodities. The Primae doesn't count as anything more than a hangar decoration.
Or a ship for launching your single Planetary Command Center on a trial account. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
283
|
Posted - 2013.07.17 15:55:00 -
[747] - Quote
poor primae will need a buff now and maybe a extra unique element perhaps.. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
B aalzamon
Wormbro Ocularis Inferno
2
|
Posted - 2013.07.17 17:02:00 -
[748] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:... had the cargo expanders and rigs been developed *after* the specialty bays, the CCP devs would have included the bays in the bonuses. So, you're a mind reader? Also, which lottery numbers should I play? Based on the simple fact that the Devs chose not to have the specialty bays affected by cargo rigs and expanders, I would assume that they made that choice intentionally, which throws your failed attempt to pretend to be a dev out the window.
Sizeof Void wrote:I guess you didn't follow the thread on the changes to mining ships. Many of the old exhumers were fit with T2 cargo rigs and the mining community was quite vocal in "crying foul", since these very expensive rigs no longer contributed substantially and they could not be removed without being destroyed.
I stand corrected. I had assumed they were not idiots, but I have been proven wrong. Wouldn't a T2 cargo rigged Exhumer still have the most combined ore + cargo space than any other Exhumer fit? And didn't the Exhumer rebalance give them more storage space, so that after the rebalance, a T2 cargo rigged Exhumer had more combined storage space than before the rebalance? If so, why were people whining, other than the fact that they are hisec carebears who can't handle change? CCP gives them MORE storage after the rebalance and yet they still complain. So, yeah, apparently they are idiots.
-B aalzamon |
Scuzzy Logic
Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce
45
|
Posted - 2013.07.17 18:09:00 -
[749] - Quote
Beofryn Sedorak wrote:Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:CCP Rise:
What I find astonishing is, that the art team is too busy to change a few haulers - and it wouldn't even have to be a complete redesign, you could move one each of the spare Iterons to Amarr, one to Caldari and simply use recolored versions of their existing haulers, so every faction has 3 haulers, one for tank, one for cargo and one with a special bay.
Yet at the same time, that very same art team finds the time for the identical job - recoloring/retexturing 2 existing hulls - for two ships that only a handful of people will ever benefit from - and only as a trophy, not to fly them.
P.S. From a player's perspective I like the fact that i will only ever have to skill into one race's industrials. As a designer the lack of any balance therein makes me cringe. Your astonishment surely arises from your absolute and total ignorance of size, man hours, and current work load of the art team. You arrogantly assume to know more about what the art team can and can't do in any given time frame and also know more about what they are or aren't doing with their time currently. Please accept that this will always be true and stop being whiney about CCP not currently dedicating time on new industrial ship models and be happy that even after 10 years, EVE Online is still an amazing game and that maybe, JUST maybe, CCP has a clue how to do the whole game development thing.
CCP has no clue how to balance anything. They do know how to tether players to the sunken cost fallacy so hard their e-********* turn blue though.
Also, the 3d models in EVE are notoriously lazy. Yes, ships designed avter the V3 revit like the Corax are much better in this regard, but it doesn't change the fact a single individual can likely make a full ship's polygon and then put the textures for it in about 3 days' time. Stop licking CCP's boots. |
Muffcobb
737 Incorporated
3
|
Posted - 2013.07.17 18:52:00 -
[750] - Quote
Is it just too generic to just have each race have a max haul/min tank - min haul/good tank industrial and then make all of these specialty ships ORE industrials?
This way you can be a racist and train up your own type of industrial because you think it's cool and if you want some specialized hauler, than you train up the ORE industrial skill. Seems like it would fit into your system pretty well and prevent some of the cross training confusion. |
|
AstraPardus
Lightspeed Enterprises Fidelas Constans
263
|
Posted - 2013.07.17 21:17:00 -
[751] - Quote
Fire Ships: Now with real fire! :3 Every time I post is Pardy time! :3 |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4371
|
Posted - 2013.07.17 21:30:00 -
[752] - Quote
Scuzzy Logic wrote:Beofryn Sedorak wrote:Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:CCP Rise:
What I find astonishing is, that the art team is too busy to change a few haulers - and it wouldn't even have to be a complete redesign, you could move one each of the spare Iterons to Amarr, one to Caldari and simply use recolored versions of their existing haulers, so every faction has 3 haulers, one for tank, one for cargo and one with a special bay.
Yet at the same time, that very same art team finds the time for the identical job - recoloring/retexturing 2 existing hulls - for two ships that only a handful of people will ever benefit from - and only as a trophy, not to fly them.
P.S. From a player's perspective I like the fact that i will only ever have to skill into one race's industrials. As a designer the lack of any balance therein makes me cringe. Your astonishment surely arises from your absolute and total ignorance of size, man hours, and current work load of the art team. You arrogantly assume to know more about what the art team can and can't do in any given time frame and also know more about what they are or aren't doing with their time currently. Please accept that this will always be true and stop being whiney about CCP not currently dedicating time on new industrial ship models and be happy that even after 10 years, EVE Online is still an amazing game and that maybe, JUST maybe, CCP has a clue how to do the whole game development thing. CCP has no clue how to balance anything. They do know how to tether players to the sunken cost fallacy so hard their e-********* turn blue though. Also, the 3d models in EVE are notoriously lazy. Yes, ships designed avter the V3 revit like the Corax are much better in this regard, but it doesn't change the fact a single individual can likely make a full ship's polygon and then put the textures for it in about 3 days' time. Stop licking CCP's boots. Well great, get right on that sweet cheeks. Put your money where your pixels are. Do be sure to only do it in your spare time, as they already have other projects slated for their normal 8hr. shift. See you in 3 days. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium
3883
|
Posted - 2013.07.17 22:12:00 -
[753] - Quote
*snip*
Wrong thread Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Trinity Griffin
Clann Fian
2
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 00:17:00 -
[754] - Quote
What about the Bustard, you know the one that aligns slower than an Orca? The tech2 ship that has +2 warp strength but gives the aggressor enough time to fly 5 jumps to Jita, buy a faction +3 scram, fly back and point it before it enters into warp.
The description reads: Deep space transports are designed with the depths of lawless space in mind. Possessing defensive capabilities far in excess of standard industrial ships, they provide great protection for whatever cargo is being transported in their massive holds. They are, however, some of the slowest ships to be found floating through space.
The only thing that's true for the Bustard in that description is the last sentence. |
kal ho
Temp COP.
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 05:40:00 -
[755] - Quote
What will happen to the ship that we have already? Will they get changed automatically to new version? |
Anthar Thebess
REPUBLIKA ORLA C0VEN
106
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 07:46:00 -
[756] - Quote
What about http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Primae Can ccp add an BPC to some LP store , and buff this ship?
I know this is special edition ship but right now it is useless and tbh i like the hull.
Maybe it could be buffed to cheep mining/boosting ship ( 1 link ) .
- |
Oraac Ensor
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
270
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 07:57:00 -
[757] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:"Iteron Mk. IV" to "Miasmos"
This one carries ore, which means ice, minerals and gas. We've pretty much covered the first two with the Kryos name, so we decided to have some fun with gas. A "miasma" is a gaseous contagion - actually one of the first on record, from Greek mythology; and as we tend to sometimes mythologize Gallente ship names, it was a good fit. Another candidate was "Atreus", the dude who actually caused the plague by doing some horrible things (seriously, look him up), but it's far too similar to the Atron; so "Miasmos" it is. What about the special edition versions? |
Orakkus
Winds of Dawn Kraken.
108
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:58:00 -
[758] - Quote
Trinity Griffin wrote:What about the Bustard, you know the one that aligns slower than an Orca? The tech2 ship that has +2 warp strength but gives the aggressor enough time to fly 5 jumps to Jita, buy a faction +3 scram, fly back and point it before it enters into warp.
The description reads: Deep space transports are designed with the depths of lawless space in mind. Possessing defensive capabilities far in excess of standard industrial ships, they provide great protection for whatever cargo is being transported in their massive holds. They are, however, some of the slowest ships to be found floating through space.
The only thing that's true for the Bustard in that description is the last sentence.
They haven't started their balancing run on the Tech 2 ships yet, in which the Bustard will also be addressed. |
Razefummel
unknown dimension Alpha Volley Union
595
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 20:38:00 -
[759] - Quote
tl:dr (whole Threadnought)
2 questions wich i have atm...
1. Why renaming an Group of Ships witch have almost the same Design, ecept of the length, and wich is the Reason (probably) it was consecutively numbered ?
2. Why don-¦t just give all Races an equal Number of Industrials, probably 5 or 6 ?
(That would be an nice ISK-sink because of the BPO-¦s, AND an Player would-¦t be forced to train Skills of an second or third Race to get the benefits of the "special-usage Industrials" like the Iteron II, III and IV or the Hoarder.)
just an thought...
Greetings
Raze 21 Tage Trial: https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=5a429c6a-3cfd-4ecd-8ffc-0d8921dbbaad&action=buddy Difficile est saturam non scribere. |
Silivar Karkun
Imperium Aeternam Phantom Armada
88
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 02:09:00 -
[760] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:What about http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/PrimaeCan ccp add an BPC to some LP store , and buff this ship? I know this is special edition ship but right now it is useless and tbh i like the hull. Maybe it could be buffed to cheep mining/boosting ship ( 1 link ) .
i agree with the LP thing, but not convert it to a mining command ship, instead make it an specialized gas harvester, the venture can serve as a first step for new players and then jump to that one.
TBH there are 3 ships that would go really nice as specialized faction ships for mini professions:
-primae, now that the Epithal will be the dedicate PI ship, it could be transformed in an improved gas harvester.
-echelon, specialized in hacking, better performance than the common exploration ship
-zephyr, instead of keeping it as a shuttle, make it an archaeology ship, with improved analyzing capabilities.
the primae would be bought as BPC from the ORE LP store, the Echelon would be from CONCORD and the Zephyr from the Sisters of EVE LP store....
it isnt so hard to do.
adding to that, it would make sense to put Transport ships in the rebalance board right now, a change to the industrials cant come without a rebalance for their T2 counterparts, it is a must, DSTs need some love. |
|
Evette Viliana
Crimson Kings
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 18:18:00 -
[761] - Quote
So... anybody have a guesstimate as to the price range for these new industrial hulls? |
Utremi Fasolasi
The Jagged Edge Rebel Alliance of New Eden
264
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 20:52:00 -
[762] - Quote
Nothing was wrong with all the original names :-( |
Spotted Jaguar Bheskagor
Black Cat Trade and Indutries
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 21:36:00 -
[763] - Quote
Thank you CCP Rise for this DEV Blog and please keep up all your hard efforts.
As a pilot of many of these current versions of ships and reading thru most of this blog and will be following it routinely. I'd like to make some suggestions in changes as some have been made already.
General Changes: 1. Base warp speed should be the same all across the board for all T1 industrials. 2. Each race has a specific role to it's own story line (outlined basics below for each). 3. The Orca ore hold should be increased to compete with the 42,000 m3 capabilities proposed in the Iteron Mark IV (Miasmos) changes. 4. None of the specialty cargo holds can be increased thru modules and rigs. 5. Any future ships to be introduced should include Amarr and Minmatar based ships with bonuses to those races preferred weapons and tank repair specialties.
AMARR: Heavily armor based and a large general cargo capacity is the big and bold Amarr way.
Sigil GÇô The best armor of all the industrials having the best hit points of them all. 10% Armor HP + 5% Cargo Capacity.
Bestower GÇô Capable of having the largest universal cargo space of all the industrials. 10% Cargo Capacity + 5% Maximum Velocity. Also capable of 2 turrets.
FUTURE SHIP: Laser bonus based battle Amarr hauler.
CALDARI: Defensive is the reason for the Caldari State whether thru missile damage or being shield tanked.
Badger GÇô As proposed having the most potential and base cargo, this industrial is also capable of defending itself in a offensive manner. 10% Heavy and Heavy Assault Missile Damage + 5% Cargo Capacity. 0 turrets, 2 launchers. With a solid dual launcher DPS, it's tank suffers.
Badger Mark II GÇô A improved version of the Badger, yet why not be the industrial with the best shield tank? 10% Shield HP + 5% Cargo Capacity. Can carry only 2 heavy launchers yet doesn't get the damage bonuses as it's sister ship where it's shield tank is it's advantage. Also maybe needs a new name.
FUTURE SHIP: A balanced Badger utilizing both of the above at a lesser degree.
MINMATAR: Speed and the capability to re-supply fleets is its advantage.
Wreathe GÇô Speed is the advantage of this industrial. 10% Maximum Velocity + 5% Cargo Capacity. Has the best agility and speed of all industrials. SIDE NOTE: It was mentioned a POS Fuel Block specialist ship be made available and as you mentioned it isn't possible ATM. The Wreathe could be a possible candidate to get bonuses in hauling both gas and ice bi-products instead.
Mammoth GÇô Travel time is it's advantage. 10% Warp Speed + 5% Cargo Capacity. Also has a solid align time with a better then average base speed.
Hoarder GÇô The ammunition mover in space. It is capable of being accessible in space like a fleet hanger resupplying fleets with ammunition and cap boosters. There is also a "need" to include drones in this bay. 10% Ammunition Bay Capacity + 5% Maximum Speed.
GALLANTE: The drone based race and have the most diverse industrial ships.
Iteron GÇô The industrial mini-drone boat. Like the Badger, able to defend itself but with drones. 10% Drone Damage + 5% Cargo Capacity. Capability only to carry 6-7 light drones.
Kyros (Iteron Mark II) GÇô The mineral mover of space. Maybe increase it's mineral bay a bit.
Epithal (Iteron Mark III) GÇô The PI mover of space (Take over the Primae's role yet see note at the bottom). Cargo hold will need a cargo expander to fit a command center.
Miasmos (Iteron Mark IV)- The GÇ£Mini-OrcaGÇ¥ of space without the large tank, cargo hold, and huge bonuses. Instead of Maximum Velocity, why not something like a +10% tractor beam range and +10% Ore Capacity. Capable of its special bay to hold both compressed and standard ore, ice, and gas. With two high slots for a tractor beam and salvager to pull jettisoned cans and salvage wrecks. Not greatly tanked.
Iteron Mark V GÇô Average is not the word this boat should be known for yet instead awesome. Give it the capability of having a larger drone bay then its smallest sister. Capable of carrying 75 m3 of drones plus the proper fitting to be actively armor tanked with a 5% armor repair rate, 5% drone damage, and 5% cargo capacity will make grinding to the Mark V worth it. The big moving and fighting industrial ship. Also needs a new name.
PRIMAE: It was mentioned the Primae was the most under utilized ship in Eve. Two possible suggestions:
1. Many call for a ship that can move ships. Why not change the role of the Primae to become that such ship in the future? Capable of carrying 1 fitted battleship and less.
2. POS Specialist Ship GÇô Bay designed to carry at least one control tower or any equivalant m3 worth of POS Fuels and POS Modules. |
Oraac Ensor
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
270
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 01:00:00 -
[764] - Quote
Silivar Karkun wrote:-zephyr, instead of keeping it as a shuttle, make it an archaeology ship, with improved analyzing capabilities. The Zephyr is a SHUTTLE?????
I don't think so - I'm pretty sure it's a specialised exploration ship. |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1289
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 01:23:00 -
[765] - Quote
Utremi Fasolasi wrote:Nothing was wrong with all the original names :-( agreed. i am not particularly opposed to changing the names but i feel that it takes away the flavor of 10 years hauling history.
"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 |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
323
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 08:00:00 -
[766] - Quote
Daniel Plain wrote:Utremi Fasolasi wrote:Nothing was wrong with all the original names :-( agreed. i am not particularly opposed to changing the names but i feel that it takes away the flavor of 10 years hauling history. 10 years of Itty V to rule them all? They have kept the iconic names. And only changed the ones in the middle that had been falling by the wayside anyway when it comes to it. |
Silivar Karkun
Imperium Aeternam Phantom Armada
88
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 16:05:00 -
[767] - Quote
Oraac Ensor wrote:Silivar Karkun wrote:-zephyr, instead of keeping it as a shuttle, make it an archaeology ship, with improved analyzing capabilities. The Zephyr is a SHUTTLE????? I don't think so - I'm pretty sure it's a specialised exploration ship.
sorry, my bad, but still, atributes wise, that thing is basically a shuttle.... |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
94
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 16:38:00 -
[768] - Quote
Was an opportunity missed here?
Many Sci-fi scenarios begin with an industrial ship under attack calling for help.
In eve, unless that industrial ship is a rorqual (which is so expensive none ever leave a POS*) there's no point putting out the call. You'll be in your pod before the transmission is even finished. Even if a rescue fleet is in system, Eve mechanics ensure that a it will not arrive for at least 30 seconds.
I think this is a shame, since it's an avenue of pvp that is closed to us.
Is there a case for a class of industrial ships that are hardened enough to actually fly through a blockade (like the blockade runners aren't) without popping in 2 seconds flat?
This kind of thing used for PI in WH space, lowsec or 0.0 could be the start of some really good, escalating fights.
Aren't they the best kind?
I am thinking along the lines of 500k ehp, but slow as hell into warp. A proper industrial ship that would not look out of place in a sci-fi film.
* In actual fact we used to use a rorqual for salvaging sleeper loot in c5 combat sites while the dreads were taking down the bad guys - it meant we could halve the exposure time to hostiles in a site, but hell, it was risky :-)
|
Whitehound
1560
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 18:55:00 -
[769] - Quote
So all players who have been training for the Iteron V only to get the biggest hauler will lose 1k m3 and will wish to have trained for a Bestower instead... Ouch. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |
Silivar Karkun
Imperium Aeternam Phantom Armada
88
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 19:02:00 -
[770] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Was an opportunity missed here?
Many Sci-fi scenarios begin with an industrial ship under attack calling for help.
In eve, unless that industrial ship is a rorqual (which is so expensive none ever leave a POS*) there's no point putting out the call. You'll be in your pod before the transmission is even finished. Even if a rescue fleet is in system, Eve mechanics ensure that a it will not arrive for at least 30 seconds.
I think this is a shame, since it's an avenue of pvp that is closed to us.
Is there a case for a class of industrial ships that are hardened enough to actually fly through a blockade (like the blockade runners aren't) without popping in 2 seconds flat?
This kind of thing used for PI in WH space, lowsec or 0.0 could be the start of some really good, escalating fights.
Aren't they the best kind?
I am thinking along the lines of 500k ehp, but slow as hell into warp. A proper industrial ship that would not look out of place in a sci-fi film.
* In actual fact we used to use a rorqual for salvaging sleeper loot in c5 combat sites while the dreads were taking down the bad guys - it meant we could halve the exposure time to hostiles in a site, but hell, it was risky :-)
Deep Space Transports are the solution, the problem is that they're awful right now..... |
|
Vayn Baxtor
Ultra High Ping Crew R O G U E
68
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 21:07:00 -
[771] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Was an opportunity missed here?
Many Sci-fi scenarios begin with an industrial ship under attack calling for help.
In eve, unless that industrial ship is a rorqual (which is so expensive none ever leave a POS*) there's no point putting out the call. You'll be in your pod before the transmission is even finished. Even if a rescue fleet is in system, Eve mechanics ensure that a it will not arrive for at least 30 seconds.
I think this is a shame, since it's an avenue of pvp that is closed to us.
Is there a case for a class of industrial ships that are hardened enough to actually fly through a blockade (like the blockade runners aren't) without popping in 2 seconds flat?
This kind of thing used for PI in WH space, lowsec or 0.0 could be the start of some really good, escalating fights.
Aren't they the best kind?
I am thinking along the lines of 500k ehp, but slow as hell into warp. A proper industrial ship that would not look out of place in a sci-fi film.
* In actual fact we used to use a rorqual for salvaging sleeper loot in c5 combat sites while the dreads were taking down the bad guys - it meant we could halve the exposure time to hostiles in a site, but hell, it was risky :-)
QFT.
Been also suggesting that one for the longest. Deaf ears so far :D - but good to see somebody else with the idea.
And likewise, one could simply put in PvE/NPCs doing un-migated damage so it won't be exploited as dummy tanks easily.
Nevertheless, that is exact how I saw it. Giving a lot more HP would give the players some time to call for help. It can't be that these hulking ships pop like a balloon easily. Tiericide helped much but it could be even better. 500k is certainly too much, but raising it to a very decent value would also allow people to be more brave rather than just trying to play safe all day long. Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all. |
Sunai Karvinoinas
2
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 13:57:00 -
[772] - Quote
I read a lot of arguments for and against this changes. Out of the always appearing "hater posts" I saw some good things. But unfortunately at least I'm sure there are possibilities given out of hand.
It's no fine way to force anybody skill other racial ship skills in order to get a chance to do anything specific. To have a ship what is kindly advised as a valuable transport and gank victim is no advantage at all. To have flighing empty, because specialised cargo bays have no opportunity to keep common cargo is a hard disadvantage. You may waste time and therefore money, while flying empty.
Real great chances are lost. What about ORE/Syndicate T1- or T2-Subsystems to customize industrials? Industrial not only means carrying cargo! Industry has different aspects what could require a ship subsystem. I don#t want to explain it here, because there are a lot of threads left, where it has been done already.
What about adaptable, specialized containers driven by a tug-boat?
What about a basic not much specialized role, expandable by modules (scan avoidance module, armoured or/and passphrase secured cargo modules, faster overdrive modules, warp tuning modules, manouverability enhancer and so on; for instance from Syndicate)? Syndicate could provide a lot of defensive modules what are make smuggling possible or easier.
What about to move some of Iterons to a redesign by Intaki Syndicate or ORE. So they can get new options (optimize smuggling or PI issues) while you only need to reskin the ship. What about reinventing the Primae?
Roles should be matching professions. So I see a role "smuggling", a role "industry" (not only cargo), a role "mining" (preferred for ORE industrial class enhancement) and so on. To have a non ORE industrial carrying ore will cause cross racial trainings what a re not my favorite although they are possible fast. Maybe you will move the cargo to a Minmatar industrial with a light new skin. This could match easily.
"ORE has redesigned this cargo ship with new technologies for ore and minerals compression (vacuumisation) in order to compress cargo. This is not possible with goods because they would be destroyed." So you get a reason and an advantage. In further expansions you may offer an ore bulk transporter. The ORE industrial class is poor right now. There are possibilities left for developement.
My summary might be: The roles are good thought but the way to match these roles is IMHO not the completely right one.
---
After the redesign of Industrials you may redesign the Orca (Rorqal I don't know and never will know...:)) soon. The ore capacity of it's ore cargo bay is too small at all. It have to match 3x-5x Mackinaw. IMHO the Orca common cargo bay could be reduced slightly. Another possibility would be an ORE subcapital freighter without the Industrial Command Ship options. But this would need a new ship model or a reskinned Fenrir. Reducing the command options down to 1 active link module while allow a much bigger drone bay and capacity could create a command ship for lower security areas.
There's still a lot to do and lot will be done, I'm sure. - this is an unskilled forum char |
Gorgoth24
Sickology
37
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 06:52:00 -
[773] - Quote
I'm loving the indy changes. I've used battle itty's as "trawling" bait behind my main duo/small gang in 0.0 to great effectiveness before, and I'm thoroughly looking forward to that practice getting buffed
+1 Rise |
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
31
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 13:38:00 -
[774] - Quote
I realize this is a done deal.
Nevertheless I think someone should point out that maybe the EMperor has no clothes.
That is the better solution after the skill change was to throw out extra pointless industrials convert extra one to 1 of 2 industrials per race.
I sort of believe if it does not haul general cargo and has all sort of special abilities...then its not a hauler anymore. Its become something like an mini-Orca.
So to save the work I suggest CCP start thinking about moving some of these new ships into other ship role lines.
The mining specialized ship should be predecessors of Industrial Command ship line as mini-Orca and mining support. The remainder need to move a specialized fleet support line and become more like combat ships sacrificing offense for charge cargo bay size and mobility...enhanced version of the old Exqueror roles or combat cousins of transports. Then obvious T2 versions could follow.
|
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
31
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 14:09:00 -
[775] - Quote
Gorgoth24 wrote:I'm loving the indy changes. I've used battle itty's as "trawling" bait behind my main duo/small gang in 0.0 to great effectiveness before, and I'm thoroughly looking forward to that practice getting buffed
+1 Rise
Of course with the new specializations baiting with empty ship will be a lot more difficult. Nothing like having a specific ship become THE Bait ship. Sure Badger had an edge before but now rebalancing will pretty much eliminate competitors for bait. Not sure you will see it used for anything else except...as an alternative to using BS to secure largish but still small high value cargos.
Heh baiting will still work. But you may actually have to carry valuables and let the victim scan out the prize first.
|
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
31
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 14:18:00 -
[776] - Quote
Vayn Baxtor wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Was an opportunity missed here?
Many Sci-fi scenarios begin with an industrial ship under attack calling for help.
In eve, unless that industrial ship is a rorqual (which is so expensive none ever leave a POS*) there's no point putting out the call. You'll be in your pod before the transmission is even finished. Even if a rescue fleet is in system, Eve mechanics ensure that a it will not arrive for at least 30 seconds.
I think this is a shame, since it's an avenue of pvp that is closed to us.
Is there a case for a class of industrial ships that are hardened enough to actually fly through a blockade (like the blockade runners aren't) without popping in 2 seconds flat?
This kind of thing used for PI in WH space, lowsec or 0.0 could be the start of some really good, escalating fights.
Aren't they the best kind?
I am thinking along the lines of 500k ehp, but slow as hell into warp. A proper industrial ship that would not look out of place in a sci-fi film.
* In actual fact we used to use a rorqual for salvaging sleeper loot in c5 combat sites while the dreads were taking down the bad guys - it meant we could halve the exposure time to hostiles in a site, but hell, it was risky :-)
QFT. Been also suggesting that one for the longest. Deaf ears so far :D - but good to see somebody else with the idea. And likewise, one could simply put in PvE/NPCs doing un-migated damage so it won't be exploited as dummy tanks easily. Nevertheless, that is exact how I saw it. Giving a lot more HP would give the players some time to call for help. It can't be that these hulking ships pop like a balloon easily. Tiericide helped much but it could be even better. 500k is certainly too much, but raising it to a very decent value would also allow people to be more brave rather than just trying to play safe all day long.
Seems you are talking about freighters :)
OK maybe smaller cheaper versions. But also keep in mind that it does not have to be slow to warp. It just has to be tackled. The problem with current haulers is that people will elect warp stabs or cargo before more tank in most cases. So basically you want to opt for haulers which are cheap enough for more folk and heavily armored/tanked is mandatory with anti-tackle and extra cargo options removed. Eh...still sounds like reduced frontier version of freighter. Maybe Minmatar version made from hollowed asteriod - lol |
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
31
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 14:24:00 -
[777] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:So all players who have been training for the Iteron V only to get the biggest hauler will lose 1k m3 and will wish to have trained for a Bestower instead... Ouch.
CCP has explained before Amarr is the biggest and oldest of the Empire factions -- and therefore should generally have the best ships except where tradition is allowed to rule. But in the cold hard school of trade traditional is not subsidized like in military.
By all logic of EVE story Amarr industrial and trade ships should be a clear step ahead in exploiting standard tech to the T1 limits. Only new cutting edge (i.e. T2) tech might be an occasional exception.
|
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
31
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 14:46:00 -
[778] - Quote
Spotted Jaguar Bheskagor wrote: 4. None of the specialty cargo holds can be increased thru modules and rigs. 5. Any future ships to be introduced should include Amarr and Minmatar based ships with bonuses to those races preferred weapons and tank repair specialties. ... PRIMAE: It was mentioned the Primae was the most under utilized ship in Eve. Two possible suggestions: ...
#3 why? I am assuming that the intent was that this hauler be faster transport between stations/systems therefore it doesnot compete with Orca haulling from belts and ore sites to the first station.
#4 has been true for all specialize holds so far (see barges, Orca etc)
#5 weapons and tank rep bonuses shouldn't apply to generic civilian haulers for reasons of economy including ship construction costs.
Now if the new specialized haulers get moved to combat fleet support line (and skills) then some combat ship bonus may well apply. But then combat ship prices should then also apply.
PRIMAE ...I don't think anyone should care unless CCP introduces BPs. I haven't been following but isn't Primae still a limited production special release ship whose limited numbers continue to dwindle every day? So eventually the problem takes take of itself.
However the idea of an EVE tug is interesting. The ability to steal... I mean move.. ships that you cannot fly. Obviously not moving with great agility and if the tug is destroyed the formerly towed ship can be boarded. Or can owner pilot ride towed ship but remain helpless while towed. Chances of towed ship being destroyed with tug should be maybe 10-20%. That idea would work better if you could overload and burn out basic hull engines (destroyed like armor) so that you could be stranded in space unless towed. |
Mera Ashborn
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 20:01:00 -
[779] - Quote
While it's nice CCP is taking the time to revamp Industrials have a few concerns.
1. the renaming. I rather like the names as they are now. MK I-V for Gallentes and mk I-II for Caldari make them feel, well, more industrial. that's what a efficiency-minded corporate ship designer would call them. But if we are renaming the Badger Mk II can we stay with the current naming scheme?
Caldari name their ships after A. Birds or B. Legendary creatures. While I can argue that a badger is pretty awesome and legendary, I had to google what a Tayra is. If anything i would say a Wolverine is a more applicable name, everyone has heard of them and have a pretty legendary reputation, while keeping with the furry Mustelidae family like the Badger.
2. I actually do like the specific cargoholds, what's the point of having so many gallente industrials anyways? But the planetary commodities was supposed to be Primae unique. I am still of the strong opinion that promotional ships should come with an insurance license allowing the holder to repurchase them when destroyed, i guess |
Rune Scorpio
Xion Limited Primal Force
23
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 13:29:00 -
[780] - Quote
Evelgrivion wrote:Alvatore DiMarco wrote:Evelgrivion wrote:Definitely an interesting revision, though I am not wholly sure about the ammo bay; ammunition support seems a bit closer to the prerogative of a black-ops ship operating far from home than a tech 1 cargo hauler. Well, it's not like you can't put a cloak on there and pretend it's a black-ops ship operating far from home. For a tiny fraction of the cost. Sans the crucial ability to warp while cloaked and the capacity to use a covert jump portal, but hey, details.
MWD cloak trick solves that easily enough. |
|
Rune Scorpio
Xion Limited Primal Force
23
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 13:36:00 -
[781] - Quote
Spotted Jaguar Bheskagor wrote:Thank you CCP Rise for this DEV Blog and please keep up all your hard efforts.
As a pilot of many of these current versions of ships and reading thru most of this blog and will be following it routinely. I'd like to make some suggestions in changes as some have been made already.
General Changes: 1. Base warp speed should be the same all across the board for all T1 industrials. 2. Each race has a specific role to it's own story line (outlined basics below for each). 3. The Orca ore hold should be increased to compete with the 42,000 m3 capabilities proposed in the Iteron Mark IV (Miasmos) changes. 4. None of the specialty cargo holds can be increased thru modules and rigs. 5. Any future ships to be introduced should include Amarr and Minmatar based ships with bonuses to those races preferred weapons and tank repair specialties.
AMARR: Heavily armor based and a large general cargo capacity is the big and bold Amarr way.
Sigil GÇô The best armor of all the industrials having the best hit points of them all. 10% Armor HP + 5% Cargo Capacity.
Bestower GÇô Capable of having the largest universal cargo space of all the industrials. 10% Cargo Capacity + 5% Maximum Velocity. Also capable of 2 turrets.
FUTURE SHIP: Laser bonus based battle Amarr hauler.
CALDARI: Defensive is the reason for the Caldari State whether thru missile damage or being shield tanked.
Badger GÇô As proposed having the most potential and base cargo, this industrial is also capable of defending itself in a offensive manner. 10% Heavy and Heavy Assault Missile Damage + 5% Cargo Capacity. 0 turrets, 2 launchers. With a solid dual launcher DPS, it's tank suffers.
Badger Mark II GÇô A improved version of the Badger, yet why not be the industrial with the best shield tank? 10% Shield HP + 5% Cargo Capacity. Can carry only 2 heavy launchers yet doesn't get the damage bonuses as it's sister ship where it's shield tank is it's advantage. Also maybe needs a new name.
FUTURE SHIP: A balanced Badger utilizing both of the above at a lesser degree.
MINMATAR: Speed and the capability to re-supply fleets is its advantage.
Wreathe GÇô Speed is the advantage of this industrial. 10% Maximum Velocity + 5% Cargo Capacity. Has the best agility and speed of all industrials. SIDE NOTE: It was mentioned a POS Fuel Block specialist ship be made available and as you mentioned it isn't possible ATM. The Wreathe could be a possible candidate to get bonuses in hauling both gas and ice bi-products instead.
Mammoth GÇô Travel time is it's advantage. 10% Warp Speed + 5% Cargo Capacity. Also has a solid align time with a better then average base speed.
Hoarder GÇô The ammunition mover in space. It is capable of being accessible in space like a fleet hanger resupplying fleets with ammunition and cap boosters. There is also a "need" to include drones in this bay. 10% Ammunition Bay Capacity + 5% Maximum Speed.
GALLANTE: The drone based race and have the most diverse industrial ships.
Iteron GÇô The industrial mini-drone boat. Like the Badger, able to defend itself but with drones. 10% Drone Damage + 5% Cargo Capacity. Capability only to carry 6-7 light drones.
Kyros (Iteron Mark II) GÇô The mineral mover of space. Maybe increase it's mineral bay a bit.
Epithal (Iteron Mark III) GÇô The PI mover of space (Take over the Primae's role yet see note at the bottom). Cargo hold will need a cargo expander to fit a command center.
Miasmos (Iteron Mark IV)- The GÇ£Mini-OrcaGÇ¥ of space without the large tank, cargo hold, and huge bonuses. Instead of Maximum Velocity, why not something like a +10% tractor beam range and +10% Ore Capacity. Capable of its special bay to hold both compressed and standard ore, ice, and gas. With two high slots for a tractor beam and salvager to pull jettisoned cans and salvage wrecks. Not greatly tanked.
Iteron Mark V GÇô Average is not the word this boat should be known for yet instead awesome. Give it the capability of having a larger drone bay then its smallest sister. Capable of carrying 75 m3 of drones plus the proper fitting to be actively armor tanked with a 5% armor repair rate, 5% drone damage, and 5% cargo capacity will make grinding to the Mark V worth it. The big moving and fighting industrial ship. Also needs a new name.
PRIMAE: It was mentioned the Primae was the most under utilized ship in Eve. Two possible suggestions:
1. Many call for a ship that can move ships. Why not change the role of the Primae to become that such ship in the future? Capable of carrying 1 fitted battleship and less.
2. POS Specialist Ship GÇô Bay designed to carry at least one control tower or any equivalant m3 worth of POS Fuels and POS Modules.
Kyros? Bad Jaguar! Bad! Names similar to other ships make the intel gods unhappy! |
TheCoylee
DUST CORE DARKSTAR ARMY
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 16:38:00 -
[782] - Quote
its a nice step forward but as haulers go the Bestower and Interon V are still better you can load up a Bestower with 13 giant cargo containers giving you 50700m3 and the Inty V 46800m3 space which is way more then the ore or mineral bays on the specialized ships. The PI ship makes sense so you can drop in the hold directly and same for ammo if your doing a supply run but for making a run to Jita or the equivalent the special bays seem useless unless they change cargo containers or allow cargo containers in the special bays(which defeats the purpose) |
Mikhem
Taxisk Unlimited
58
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 21:00:00 -
[783] - Quote
Long time ago I suggested that there could be industrial ship with small maintenance bay. This could allow refitting frigate size ships in space.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=208898&find=unread Mikhem
Before Retribution I was lonely guy. After Retribution Im now WANTED. Bee sound effect |
Ace Uoweme
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
496
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 13:05:00 -
[784] - Quote
Rees Noturana wrote:After pissy tweet I expected changes made in anger but I'm liking these better. See, just put a little love into something that isn't designed solely for shooting people in the face and you can make people happy.
^^^This.^^^
The only downside here is that those gatecampers can now distinguish what industrial is moving what, without even a need of a scanner (as the bays are too specific).
Would be nice if we had a sub-system for storage options, especially for those who prefer flying certain racial ships. To leave folks guessing what ship is carrying what (which is the current system's mystery). "In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." ~George Orwell
|
Kraschyn Thek'athor
Asgard Ammunitions
13
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 00:47:00 -
[785] - Quote
Ace Uoweme wrote: The only downside here is that those gatecampers can now distinguish what industrial is moving what, without even a need of a scanner (as the bays are too specific).
Would be nice if we had a sub-system for storage options, especially for those who prefer flying certain racial ships. To leave folks guessing what ship is carrying what (which is the current system's mystery).
99% of all Gatecampers will kill you just for the sake of getting an killmail.
Highsec Pirates now know your general content, I think of this as an.... new tank style. Bulk Tanking. So much worthless stuff to haul arround as an pirate, that it is a waste of time and Catalysts. |
Drogdasan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 03:59:00 -
[786] - Quote
Lucky me, now I get to rip out 400 mil worth of rigs. I used to use two Itty V's to haul ice in fleet ops, now they fit 4 blocks less and I have to switch to a bloody bestower. |
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
229
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 04:54:00 -
[787] - Quote
Drogdasan wrote:Lucky me, now I get to rip out 400 mil worth of rigs. I used to use two Itty V's to haul ice in fleet ops, now they fit 4 blocks less and I have to switch to a bloody bestower.
Or you could be slightly less whiny and realize that you can put 63 blocks of ice into a itty 4 without a single mod or rig. Your call. |
Andrew Indy
Four Pillar Production Headshot Gaming
14
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 08:18:00 -
[788] - Quote
Drogdasan wrote:Lucky me, now I get to rip out 400 mil worth of rigs. I used to use two Itty V's to haul ice in fleet ops, now they fit 4 blocks less and I have to switch to a bloody bestower.
You only loss about 1000m3 with this change. Not to mention that the Bestower has a 2 second slower align time.
Hardly the end of the world. Now imagine if you where a Amarr pilot who flew a Bestower with 10k Less m3, less tank and slower align time for the past 10 years (or however long indys have been around.)
PS, nothing is forcing you to remove the rigs. you can still use the ship and get better performance from the ship.
Edit - Sorry it was 14k less m3 between the old Bestower and the Inty 5, 1k is nothing in comparison. |
Drogdasan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 04:41:00 -
[789] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote:Drogdasan wrote:Lucky me, now I get to rip out 400 mil worth of rigs. I used to use two Itty V's to haul ice in fleet ops, now they fit 4 blocks less and I have to switch to a bloody bestower. Or you could be slightly less whiny and realize that you can put 63 blocks of ice into a itty 4 without a single mod or rig. Your call.
Still making my Itty V worthless. |
Drogdasan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 04:44:00 -
[790] - Quote
Andrew Indy wrote:Drogdasan wrote:Lucky me, now I get to rip out 400 mil worth of rigs. I used to use two Itty V's to haul ice in fleet ops, now they fit 4 blocks less and I have to switch to a bloody bestower. You only loss about 1000m3 with this change. Not to mention that the Bestower has a 2 second slower align time. Hardly the end of the world. Now imagine if you where a Amarr pilot who flew a Bestower with 10k Less m3, less tank and slower align time for the past 10 years (or however long indys have been around.) PS, nothing is forcing you to remove the rigs. you can still use the ship and get better performance from the ship. Edit - Sorry it was 14k less m3 between the old Bestower and the Inty 5, 1k is nothing in comparison.
Because previously you'd train Amarr to get into Freighters, you didn't train Gallente to fly an Obelisk. And it's only 1K difference if you're using T1 rigs, I wouldn't give a damn then, and it sure as hell wouldn't be valued at 400mil, I guess reading is just too hard for some folks. |
|
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
23
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 10:25:00 -
[791] - Quote
This looks excellent. Glad I'm already trained to Gallente industrial V!!! |
Meditril
T.R.I.A.D
306
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 10:51:00 -
[792] - Quote
So the Industrials now have a higher in warp speed than every Cruiser? What kind of logic is this? |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2100
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 11:36:00 -
[793] - Quote
Drogdasan wrote:Lucky me, now I get to rip out 400 mil worth of rigs. I used to use two Itty V's to haul ice in fleet ops, now they fit 4 blocks less and I have to switch to a bloody bestower. I've had rigs removed intact with a politely-worded petition in the past when a ship's role changed. Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
Ex02
Turalyon Plus
12
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:49:00 -
[794] - Quote
Has CCP said:
- if existing iteron bpos will be upgraded to the new named ships?
- if existing iteron 2, 3, 4 bpcs will be changed to produce the new named ships?
- if existing iteron 2, 3, 4 ships will automatically become the new ships?
I assume yes to all, but you know about what assumptions do.
- dropped any hints other than "summer" when this change may happen? It is now August and fall for some is soon to begin.
Thanks
|
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
233
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:39:00 -
[795] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:Drogdasan wrote:Lucky me, now I get to rip out 400 mil worth of rigs. I used to use two Itty V's to haul ice in fleet ops, now they fit 4 blocks less and I have to switch to a bloody bestower. I've had rigs removed intact with a politely-worded petition in the past when a ship's role changed.
The ship role isn't changing. |
Sunai Karvinoinas
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 15:33:00 -
[796] - Quote
I've overseen, here's already the second approach to get an Industrial Ship role concept. Sh** happens.
A real simple thing would be to replace the special cargo ships to the ORE Industrial family (skill path). They can get new skins matching ORE and are easily done. The ammo ship could get a Syndicate skin but keeps the ORE skill path.
I often read about ship transport ships or "micro carrier". Well IMHO it's no job for a common industrial ship or hauler. Maybe you can carry 2 or 3 ships of frigate size... I think a good approach would be to have overhauled and new (sub)capital industrials (Thread W-Ore Ships). But that's worth another thread. Oh, no, there are a huge amount of threads about, of curse. But CCP has trained to ignore them.
A real good idea for roles would be industrial gang assistance. A ship with fleet hangar or maintenance bay has been introduced earlier this thread. Maybe a ship or module/subsystem what's able to do ore compression... A ship/module/subsystem what provides a clone bay... A T1 industrial could provide 1 assisting solution, a T2 could combine 2 of them. But only a capital (Rorqual) can have all of them. But a Rorqual never have see in HiSec, while the mentioned industrial ships could be worthy to be used there.
An ammo ship could be the first step to "tactical haulers". They also could assist and do background services like fuel service, repair and so on. They could provide an unique station service.
But I'm in dept, that the special cargo ships (except ore hauler) will come in heavy usage.
---
Don't worry about the keyword PRIMAE recently. It only should show possibilities. I never meaned their settings. It's a unique ship presented once by CCP in past. But the thought behind was a step to the right direction of spreading up industrial roles instead of carrying cargo only. We even have much enough haulers yet. There's no need of further ones. But real industrial ships are rare.
And once more I like to introduce the ORE container tugger. Dependend on skill level you may anchor, unanchor and adapt 1 to 5 Containers with up to 27,500m-¦ capacity each. Special cargo containers could be possible too. There's no need to get it as a T1 ship. But sorry, this could make haulers obsolete. Each tugged container will rise the align time and reduce the subwarp speed. Warp speed might be about 2.5 AE/s. This ship could also assist (speed up) anchor and unanchor procedures and delivers gang/fleet/corp assistance due to "anchoring for third party" possibilities. Opens the door to more detailed and specialized service contracts.
As far as you see, I act as an industrial guy. I'm not interested in any fighting or PvP options. But I respect the guys who like to have...
- this is an unskilled forum char |
Insidiousbag
Intentionally Dense Angeli Mortis
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:04:00 -
[797] - Quote
I find the changes to the T1 haulers quite good but i do have one question.
Why has the Hoarder unpacked volume changed?
None of the other haulers have had this treatment. |
Endeavour Starfleet
914
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:38:00 -
[798] - Quote
Insidiousbag wrote:I find the changes to the T1 haulers quite good but i do have one question.
Why has the Hoarder unpacked volume changed?
None of the other haulers have had this treatment.
Mineral compression.
|
Blastil
The Reblier Alliance
93
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 20:08:00 -
[799] - Quote
Drogdasan wrote:Ersahi Kir wrote:Drogdasan wrote:Lucky me, now I get to rip out 400 mil worth of rigs. I used to use two Itty V's to haul ice in fleet ops, now they fit 4 blocks less and I have to switch to a bloody bestower. Or you could be slightly less whiny and realize that you can put 63 blocks of ice into a itty 4 without a single mod or rig. Your call. Still making my Itty V worthless.
I'll take it off your hands for free. Still going to use mine! |
Beofryn Sedorak
Sedorak Corporation Eve Engineering
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 22:19:00 -
[800] - Quote
Ex02 wrote:Has CCP said: - if existing iteron bpos will be upgraded to the new named ships? - if existing iteron 2, 3, 4 bpcs will be changed to produce the new named ships? - if existing iteron 2, 3, 4 ships will automatically become the new ships? I assume yes to all, but you know about what assumptions do. - dropped any hints other than "summer" when this change may happen? It is now August and fall for some is soon to begin. Thanks
As 1.1 will make combat changes in addition to industrial changes, It's doubtful we'll see it before the end of the Alliance tournament.
So Sometime between then and the end of summer.
Little known fact, It's still "summer" until it ends. |
|
Syrias Bizniz
Space-Brewery-Association 24eme Legion Etrangere
216
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 11:48:00 -
[801] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Yes, we will be rebalancing the manufacturing requirements in a similar manner to other recent rebalance efforts.
Yes, on to HACs =)
I completely agree that this rebalance paves the way for more industrial ship rebalancing in other classes, but those efforts aren't on the short term radar. There's just so many ships to work on! And new ones to create! And we really want to start chipping away at mod rebalance as well.
Oh boy you're making me feel all funny in my belly.
On a sidenote:
Is there going to be a hauler with a specialised Cargohold designed for carrying fuel? Like Fuelblocks, Isotopes, Liquid Ozone etc...
|
Magnus Coleus
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 19:27:00 -
[802] - Quote
Hate most of the new names (or rather, the names are alright, but most don't seem to suit the ships at all), and I can't say the idea of having holds for different materials makes full sense (either in terms of physics or lore - what's so special about a mineral hold that doesn't allow it to carry ore, or vice-versa?), but I guess adding some uniqueness to each ship is a good thing.
Maybe the different hold types could be justified by something like shielding / temperature control / pressurization / etc., so the "ore" hauler can't carry normal cargo (ex., janitors, exotic dancers, ship modules) in its hold because it lacks radiation shielding, temperature control and a breathable "atmosphere", and the generic haulers have less overall cargo space because they need the systems to support all those things.
Still can't quite justify why ore and minerals need different hold types, though. |
Daoden
The Scope Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 03:10:00 -
[803] - Quote
Havnt read every post in here but they could add a caldari or amarr hauler that has a specialty bay for cap components or station componenets since everyone wants those races to have something special and both take alot of space to move, and I've already seen the ones for pos fuel/moon goods and other that I agree with. |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld White Mountain Coalition
307
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 23:06:00 -
[804] - Quote
Quick thought, how about making an extra badger model, I.e, a badger mkIII that is optimised for collecting salvage, give it 3 high slots to allow the fitting of 2 tractor beams and a salvager combo, it would be a good entry level salvager for newer characters to use that can't yet afford a noctis, whilst its obviously not as good as a noctis it is a fun idea that fits in well with the new diversity and specialization that we are all mostly supportive off.
A specialist salvage bay is not really required, but it would be a nice touch and in principle isnt any different to the ammo bay of the minmatar industrial. Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction... |
MainDrain
7th Deepari Defence Armada Apocalypse Now.
216
|
Posted - 2013.08.11 11:46:00 -
[805] - Quote
May have been asked already, but...
If i have an iteron mark 2, with it's new mineral bay, and i fill the bay to the max, and then store the itty inside my rorqual ship maintence bay what happens? Does it work.
Same applies to all other new specialised indy ships |
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
288
|
Posted - 2013.08.11 23:27:00 -
[806] - Quote
MainDrain wrote:May have been asked already, but...
If i have an iteron mark 2, with it's new mineral bay, and i fill the bay to the max, and then store the itty inside my rorqual ship maintence bay what happens? Does it work.
Same applies to all other new specialised indy ships
Normally you can't store a ship that has anything other than ammo/scripts in a hanger bay, so I don't think you'll be able to put it in there. |
Balzac Legazou
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
28
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 06:16:00 -
[807] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote:MainDrain wrote:May have been asked already, but...
If i have an iteron mark 2, with it's new mineral bay, and i fill the bay to the max, and then store the itty inside my rorqual ship maintence bay what happens? Does it work.
Same applies to all other new specialised indy ships Normally you can't store a ship that has anything other than ammo/scripts in a hanger bay, so I don't think you'll be able to put it in there.
But that would mean the dedicated "charge" (ammo) hauler would have an advantage over every other type.
BTW, what's the in-game justification for not allowing ships with cargo to be stored inside maintenance bays? I mean, the cargo is inside the ship so the ship's volume is the same, right? Why does the maintenance bay care if my ship is full of metal bars instead of metal bullets?
This whole "this type of cargo can go into this box, but not into that box" and "this box can go into that box, but only if the outer box likes the things inside the inner box" approach seems incredibly arbitrary and messy. I'm sure there are gameplay implications, but when things get this confusing and this full of (illogical, unjustified) special cases, maybe they should fix the base gameplay mechanics instead of adding extra layers of stuff on top. |
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
288
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 06:28:00 -
[808] - Quote
Balzac Legazou wrote:Ersahi Kir wrote:MainDrain wrote:May have been asked already, but...
If i have an iteron mark 2, with it's new mineral bay, and i fill the bay to the max, and then store the itty inside my rorqual ship maintence bay what happens? Does it work.
Same applies to all other new specialised indy ships Normally you can't store a ship that has anything other than ammo/scripts in a hanger bay, so I don't think you'll be able to put it in there. But that would mean the dedicated "charge" (ammo) hauler would have an advantage over every other type. BTW, what's the in-game justification for not allowing ships with cargo to be stored inside maintenance bays? I mean, the cargo is inside the ship so the ship's volume is the same, right? Why does the maintenance bay care if my ship is full of metal bars instead of metal bullets? This whole "this type of cargo can go into this box, but not into that box" and "this box can go into that box, but only if the outer box likes the things inside the inner box" approach seems incredibly arbitrary and messy. I'm sure there are gameplay implications, but when things get this confusing and this full of (illogical, unjustified) special cases, maybe they should fix the base gameplay mechanics instead of adding extra layers of stuff on top.
Because CCP knows that players think about things from a mineral compression PoV. And they did notice that the hoarder, which is the ammo specific truck, would be attractive for mineral compression so they increased the unpackaged volume of the ship. It may not make sense from a traditional PoV, but it makes sense because MMO players are sneaky gits who will try to abuse any mechanic they can to get an advantage. |
Rekindle
Tritanium Industries and Technology Tribal Band
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 15:43:00 -
[809] - Quote
tl:dr the itty 5 is getting 1k m3 nerf.
I fly a lot of itty 5s where I live. If I want blockade runners or anything other than cargo I go Viator or Occator. This is a nerf for me and not part of any major improvement to my life. I mean, ill survive with the 1000m3 less cargo but tahts all this is , a nerf. |
Rekindle
Tritanium Industries and Technology Tribal Band
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 15:45:00 -
[810] - Quote
also id like to share the idea that specialized cargo holds are a terrible idea. its a step in the wrong direction and is over complicated. |
|
ElQuirko
Jester Syndicate S0UTHERN C0MF0RT
1765
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 16:29:00 -
[811] - Quote
Don't really understand why you're sorting out industrial ships for combat roles. That definitely will never occur in a fight, nuh-uh. We will never see mining barges fighting haulers. Save the Domi model! Spacewhales should be preserved. |
Vayn Baxtor
Ultra High Ping Crew Spears of Destiny
72
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 21:57:00 -
[812] - Quote
Well, anything that has drones can kill anything. Nice one nonetheless.
I don't know why people are so defensive on that subject either. It is "that easy" to just use the hull and have it refitted or whatever to a more appropiate combat support. These ships should not be paper either. And there is a lot of room for creativity to make them viable for a new playstyle while letting the rest of the world to continue flying their HACs or whatever crap. Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all. |
jeproghnem
Sacred Skies
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 05:21:00 -
[813] - Quote
just read this thread and all i could think was... "where is my Amarrian hauler with a dedicated 'cattle' bay?" |
Tekumze Wolf
Thirtyplus Spaceship Samurai
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 08:10:00 -
[814] - Quote
Personally I think this hauler thing is too bloated and unnecessarily complicated.
It could be done in a much simpler way and not forcing people to buy several ships to do basically the same thing.
It's like if they made racial miners and make them good at different things just so you have to build several of them. One for mining Matari Ice, one for caldari..., one for each ore...
Would be much easier and simpler to introduce low slot "cargo holds" for different types of cargo. Then you can mix and match the setup on your hauler to get the optimal cargo hold for ya.
|
Dav Varan
Spiritus Draconis Sicarius Draconis
46
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 10:23:00 -
[815] - Quote
Iteron 5 has too much capacity ( maxed ) to be considered "average"
It has 2nd best capacity in class according to your numbers. Given the spec holds of Itty 2-4 I think Iteron 5 should have lowest capacity in class with expanders otherwise Gal industrial skill is more useful than the other races.
|
Meyr
Shiva The Retirement Club
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 13:59:00 -
[816] - Quote
THANK YOU, so VERY much, for making my Itty V, already stupidly easy to gank, even EASIER to kill.
What, you haven't already made gankers lives easy enough? You gave them Tier 3 BC's, you gave them 'Tags for Sec Status', now you gift them with even thinner loot pi+¦atas to shoot at?
When will you stop catering to the whiniest player base in Eve? |
GreenSeed
632
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 14:03:00 -
[817] - Quote
Drogdasan wrote:Ersahi Kir wrote:Drogdasan wrote:Lucky me, now I get to rip out 400 mil worth of rigs. I used to use two Itty V's to haul ice in fleet ops, now they fit 4 blocks less and I have to switch to a bloody bestower. Or you could be slightly less whiny and realize that you can put 63 blocks of ice into a itty 4 without a single mod or rig. Your call. Still making my Itty V worthless.
what is wrong with you?
if you have an IttV, it means you have GAll indus V, previously you had a 38433.1 hauler, now you get 37152. a 63k dedicated ore hauler and a 64.5k mineral hauler. and a monster PI hauler so you wont have any excuses not to have an efficient factory planet set up. and keep in mind all 3 of this ships can fit around 2.5x the tank the itty V can, while still filling the lows with nanos + DCUII.
and on top of it all, you get a cheap and very fast mini transport for when you have to go shipping for some cheap crap and cant be bothered to manually fly it.
if you had the bestower trained to V, you get 39,201 of cargo that should never, ever be filled because the ship simply cant offer protection to the value. and a small tanky sigil that doenst get any tankier the more levels of amarr indus you have trained.
gallente gets the best deal by far, specially because all the gallente ships will perform better per level of industrial trained for their role. having +5% speed on a minnie industrial means ****, but having +5% agility on a gall one? or +10% cargo? gimme gimme gimme |
Clara Xavier
Orion's Fist
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 18:18:00 -
[818] - Quote
Seriously, just give it up already.
Make a series of ORE haulers, 1 for each "role" you envision. Replace peoples skills and ships with something that would match up to it.
You came up with the Primae (PI) and Noctis (Salvaging), use that hull and come up with a "Hauling" ship and insert as many special variants with random bays to suit everyone (Ore, Modules, Ammo, Covert Cloak Speedy, Big Fat Cargo Hold Version, whatever). Match the skill levels to the role if you want or just require them all to have level 1 and bonus each ship based on the level.
Take anyone with **Racial** industrial blah and give them SP back and grant them the ORE industrial skill book if they don't have the skill (NPC value in ISK if they do added to wallet). I know this breaks your I trained **race** level 5 for the cloaky hauler thing, be happy. You got your SP back now you can spend it on the ORE skill or if you had more than 1 race you got some extra SP to throw into something else.
What do you do w/the Freighters? They all require the racial industrial right? Easy, don't require it, require ORE industrial to 3, or maybe just add different requirements that would complement the survival of a freighter. It's only a racial 3 pre-requisite it won't break the world if it was gone. |
DetKhord Saisio
Seniors Clan Get Off My Lawn
25
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 20:04:00 -
[819] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:BADGER MARK II - Launcher, Most Base Cargo
Caldari Industrial Skill Bonuses: +5% Cargo Capacity +5% Max Velocity
Slot layout: 2H, 5M(-1), 4L(+1); 1 turrets , 1 launchers(+1) How does adding slots to t1 industrial ships translate over to their t2 versions? So for example, will the t2 bustard get a Launcher hardpoint as well?
|
DetKhord Saisio
Seniors Clan Get Off My Lawn
25
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 20:30:00 -
[820] - Quote
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:Quick thought, how about making an extra badger model, I.e, a badger mkIII that is optimised for collecting salvage, give it 3 high slots to allow the fitting of 2 tractor beams and a salvager combo, it would be a good entry level salvager for newer characters to use that can't yet afford a noctis, whilst its obviously not as good as a noctis it is a fun idea that fits in well with the new diversity and specialization that we are all mostly supportive off.
A specialist salvage bay is not really required, but it would be a nice touch and in principle isnt any different to the ammo bay of the minmatar industrial. No. Not when the exploration frigates can do this better, faster, and cheaper. Those frigates (Magnate/Heron/Imicus/Probe) have racial frigate skill bonus per level: 5% bonus to Salvager cycle time
Acutally, what makes more sense is add a small tractor beam and/or salvaging bonus to beginner frigates (Impairor/Ibis/Velator/Reaper). |
|
Luciel Abraxas
Insurgent New Eden Tribe RAZOR Alliance
45
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 07:12:00 -
[821] - Quote
Too many pages to be all read, so i'm gonna give my suggest anyway, not sure if already given: make the Iteron Mark II a mineral specialized transporter (but this should includes EVEN ice products), make the Iteron Mark IV an ore specialized transporter (this should includes asteroid ore, ice ore and gas). Moreover, the Iteron Mark IV should have a significant larger specialized bay than the Iteron Mark II, since the ore products are really larger than refined products. I figure the Iteron Mark IV as the main industrial ship used by miners for the belt->station travel, but the only 7.000m3 more cargo than a mackinaw are not really attractive. This ship is not even attractive for a trader who wants just move some profitable ore from a station to another. |
Stevrand
Power Absolute Absolute Damage Inc.
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 15:10:00 -
[822] - Quote
I find it absurd that ccp decide which haulers carry which cargo. The decision on what to haul should belong to the owner of the hauler, as in the real world. It would seem to me that adding additional slots for mods that change the cargo type would be a much better idea and that would leave cargo type in the hands of the owner. |
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
306
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 15:24:00 -
[823] - Quote
Luciel Abraxas wrote:Too many pages to be all read, so i'm gonna give my suggest anyway, not sure if already given: make the Iteron Mark II a mineral specialized transporter (but this should includes EVEN ice products), make the Iteron Mark IV an ore specialized transporter (this should includes asteroid ore, ice ore and gas).
As far as I understand this is how it works. The itty 2 handles all refined materials, the itty 4 handles all raw gas, ore, and ice.
Luciel Abraxas wrote:I figure the Iteron Mark IV as the main industrial ship used by miners for the belt->station travel, but the only 7.000m3 more cargo than a mackinaw are not really attractive. This ship is not even attractive for a trader who wants just move some profitable ore from a station to another.
It's not just 7,000 m3 because of the hull bonus. At galente industrial 5 the cargo hold sizes of the specialized haulers are: itty 2: 64500 m3 itty 3: 67500 m3 itty 4: 63000 m3
They're far better than their generic hauler competitors, so much so that it's questionable if the other races compete at all. The hardest part to justify is that they're able to do this without any fittings at all, which allow them to focus every module slot on mobility or tank as desired, while the generic haulers have to focus every slot on expanding cargo which leaves them even more flimsy and gankable.
Welcome to balance. |
Luciel Abraxas
Insurgent New Eden Tribe RAZOR Alliance
45
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 21:37:00 -
[824] - Quote
Stevrand wrote:I find it absurd that ccp decide which haulers carry which cargo. The decision on what to haul should belong to the owner of the hauler, Are you crazy? Unistall eve online |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld White Mountain Coalition
321
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 22:22:00 -
[825] - Quote
Stevrand wrote:I find it absurd that ccp decide which haulers carry which cargo. The decision on what to haul should belong to the owner of the hauler, as in the real world. It would seem to me that adding additional slots for mods that change the cargo type would be a much better idea and that would leave cargo type in the hands of the owner,where it belongs.
Nothing wrong with specialization man, on the road we have trucks that are configured differently to carry gas, commodities, fluids, food etc, why should eve be any different. Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction... |
Vayn Baxtor
Ultra High Ping Crew Spears of Destiny
74
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 23:16:00 -
[826] - Quote
Which would bring us back to the idea of controlling the holds via some abstract subsystem-style approach or whatever that is similiar. Real world or not, this is a game, so I don't think we need to be worrying about realworld vs game. Games bend rules. Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
684
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 23:31:00 -
[827] - Quote
Vayn Baxtor wrote:Which would bring us back to the idea of controlling the holds via some abstract subsystem-style approach or whatever that is similiar. Real world or not, this is a game, so I don't think we need to be worrying about realworld vs game. Games bend rules. If flexibility is your thing they've already got you covered with 8 unspecialized haulers. Besides, bending rules is what got us the specialized haulers. Highest capacity hauling of ammo or PI goods never required anything specific before but due to non reality-based rules it does now. |
Druthlen
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 14:28:00 -
[828] - Quote
I think 2 ORE industrials should be created. One holds Ore and the other holds Minerals. It shouldnt go to gallente. Galentte could have trade goods hold for mission running. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
685
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 19:49:00 -
[829] - Quote
Druthlen wrote:I think 2 ORE industrials should be created. One holds Ore and the other holds Minerals. It shouldnt go to gallente. Galentte could have trade goods hold for mission running. This sounds a bit too selective in usefulness to warrant a dedicated hull. There is only one mission I'm aware of which would even benefit from using it over any of the other high capacity general haulers. That seems a very weak premise for a ship.
|
Vayn Baxtor
Ultra High Ping Crew Spears of Destiny
74
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 19:57:00 -
[830] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Vayn Baxtor wrote:Which would bring us back to the idea of controlling the holds via some abstract subsystem-style approach or whatever that is similiar. Real world or not, this is a game, so I don't think we need to be worrying about realworld vs game. Games bend rules. If flexibility is your thing they've already got you covered with 8 unspecialized haulers. Besides, bending rules is what got us the specialized haulers. Highest capacity hauling of ammo or PI goods never required anything specific before but due to non reality-based rules it does now.
The game is mostly getting flooded with single ships not really worth much as they are just for the specific task - and usually just one or two being the big deal. One can easily see that with the Gallente changes. I know what tiericide is about well enough, but it's this industrial ship subject that could and should get more attention. If there were was a way to interchange bays via modules and/or a similar fashion of subsystems, it would be the players who could define their ships a bit more. And it doesn't have to be over-the-top crap. It is also not like it will hurt anybody to do such as - at least in this case - it has nothing to do with combat.
In the end, it would be better if we could see more ORE vessels ranging between BC and ORCA sizes, but that's a different subject. Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all. |
|
Indoril Siconus
Renzler Industries Northern Associates.
5
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 13:35:00 -
[831] - Quote
Am I the only one that doesn't like the idea of cargo specific industrials? I understand it's an easy fix but forcing any ship into one super specific role seems foolish and contradictory to the spirit of EVE, not to mention doesn't make a lot of technological sense. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium
3975
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 15:42:00 -
[832] - Quote
Indoril Siconus wrote:I understand it's an easy fix but forcing any ship into one super specific role seems foolish and contradictory to the spirit of EVE, not to mention doesn't make a lot of technological sense.
Every freighter, mining barge, exhumer, industrial capital ship and mining frigate would seem to disagree with you in terms of being "contradictory to the spirit of EVE".
And as far as technological sense: the ships that we lovingly call "Dolly Partons" are pretty specialised. Try carrying any standard cargo containers on those things. Not going to happen. You can carry a heck of a lot more gas on a Dolly Parton than a standard container ship. Then there are your typical supertankers, specifically designed to carry bulk crude oil. Then there are ships specially designed to carry bulk grain. A specialised ship can perform its task better than a generalist ship.
These modified industrials are capable of mounting some kind of offensive modules, and you have rig slots. There's nothing stopping you fitting a battle-Miasma GÇö it's got enough PG to fit a MWD, what you can do with that is up to your imagination. Of course you'll need an "all-5s" pilot to fit an MWD and keep it running longer than a minute. Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Druthlen
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 17:25:00 -
[833] - Quote
Ok well how about a modular bay system?
Large Ore Storage Bay: Low power fitting(less robotic inventory control required) (1?)PWG and (40?)cpu requirements to be determined by ccp(can only be fit on industrial ships).
Bay has 10k storage but can only fit the approriate item.
General Cargo Storage Bay: Medium power fitting(More robotic inventory control required) (10?)PWG and (55?)CPU much higher then Ore Storage Bay.(Industrial ships only)
Bay has only 5k storage but can fit any kind of cargo.
Each kind of bay added adds to the cargo hold for that kind of item(general adds to general cargo.)
Change the industrial skill affects on each ship to 5% agility per level and 5% modular bay storage capacity per level. Each ship could be custom fit for what the player needs based on tank/agility or storage capacity. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium
3975
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 22:49:00 -
[834] - Quote
Druthlen wrote:Ok well how about a modular bay system?
T3 industrials!
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Yabba Addict
Red Shift Enterprises
65
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 23:07:00 -
[835] - Quote
Gotta say it Rise, i used to love your kil2 vids and streams and i really thought that New Eden had lost out when you went to CCP. I was wrong |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium
3975
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 00:40:00 -
[836] - Quote
So far I've managed to get almost two minutes of MWD out of the Miasmos. That's great for sprints into mission spaces where the belts are 40-60km from the entry point. Now to abuse the living daylights out of it until CCP decide to take all the nice ores away from mission spaces
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Kor Kilden
Thukker Tribe Holdings Inc. Gathering Of Nomadic Explorers
22
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 19:51:00 -
[837] - Quote
Stevrand wrote:I find it absurd that ccp decide which haulers carry which cargo. The decision on what to haul should belong to the owner of the hauler, as in the real world. It would seem to me that adding additional slots for mods that change the cargo type would be a much better idea and that would leave cargo type in the hands of the owner,where it belongs. You can carry the specialized ores in the unspecialized haulers, you could even use a cargo rigged black ops if so inclined. Apparently the only thing stopping you is a desire to min/max beyond utility. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
158
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 23:16:00 -
[838] - Quote
My view is that on the whole the new industrials are welcome. I say this because I have tested a few of them on sisi.
How did I do this?
I tanked them up the the *rse and flew them into a combat site.
You'd be stunned how long they last. When these ships arrive on TQ, PI runs are going to be something special - the usual PITA lone bomber or cloaky tengu will have a go and not kill you instantly - not even close.
You'll have time to call in a rescue fleet, and maybe even point the b*stard, and he'll have to either retreat or call in reinforcements.
Good fights will ensue, and we'll all have stories to tell our grandchildren.
This is a good change.
|
DetKhord Saisio
Seniors Clan Get Off My Lawn
25
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 23:04:00 -
[839] - Quote
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:Stevrand wrote:I find it absurd that ccp decide which haulers carry which cargo. The decision on what to haul should belong to the owner of the hauler, as in the real world. It would seem to me that adding additional slots for mods that change the cargo type would be a much better idea and that would leave cargo type in the hands of the owner,where it belongs. Nothing wrong with specialization man, on the road we have trucks that are configured differently to carry gas, commodities, fluids, food etc, why should eve be any different. True enough. Though, the diesel truck itself does not necessarily change. The cargo portion has a container type, such as box-body van, liquid fuel, open-cargo (dump truck), toxic chemicals, inert gas, milk, etc. As those container types change, minor adjustments are needed due to regulations for safety, health, and environment. So, a dump truck appears different from a fuel truck. I think that type of specification change for haulers should possibly be left to t3 industrial variants.
1. OP idea should be in-line with barge & exhumer changes (ore holds add mining functionality)... indy variants (ammo, PI, ore, etc) need to increase functionality, customization, and EHP. Also, OP changes sound unbalanced if only certain ships have an extra bay (ex: iterons have mineral bay, hoarder have ammo bay, and iteron mark IV have ore bay).
2. Customization and functionality win in my book, so t3 industrial haulers are the better option.
The functionality suggested by OP sounds similar to t1 mining barges' ore hold and t2 exhumers' slightly larger ore hold. Since training for mining barges or exhumers gives access to all the ships in those categories (three each category), racial industrial training should give you access to one of each variation (ammo, PI, ore, etc). Hmm, that direction may make it too complicated. A simple solution is likely best, but OP seems to allow an industrial imbalance.
Maybe changes to t1 industrial ships should either follow mining barge/exhumer style of training plan or a separate t3 indy ship. I do like how flexible a t3 version of industrial ship would be, but the higher training requirements of t3 may be excessive. An idea for industrial t3 module/subsystem hold I call ship compression chamber, which focuses on carrying packaged ships.
|
Azul Winter
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 14:25:00 -
[840] - Quote
I would like to see a Iteron specialized at transporting packaged ships...
A battleship should fit in it with skills at lvl V.
Gives plenty of oppertunities to haulers & gankers ;) |
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
176
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 15:24:00 -
[841] - Quote
Azul Winter wrote:I would like to see a Iteron specialized at transporting packaged ships...
A battleship should fit in it with skills at lvl V.
Gives plenty of oppertunities to haulers & gankers ;)
If this happens, CAT 1 wormholes will change. At the moment no battleship can travel through a wormhole into a CAT 1 system. Not even when packaged in a cargohold, because there is no ship small enough with a hold big enough.
I guess this was to protect new players in low class wormholes. It doesn't of course, because they can still be ganked by tech 3 ships, battlecruisers, cruisers and bombers.
|
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
57
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 16:46:00 -
[842] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
I guess this was to protect new players in low class wormholes.
Wait, what? This would be the first time i ever see low/00/wh is a safezone for anyone. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
176
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 16:52:00 -
[843] - Quote
Lephia DeGrande wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:
I guess this was to protect new players in low class wormholes.
Wait, what? This would be the first time i ever see low/00/wh is a safezone for anyone.
Yeah, the more I think about it, I think it was to protect the sleepers...
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
8624
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 03:28:00 -
[844] - Quote
The Iteron Mk III definitely needs a command center bay. It currently can't even hold one without expanders, which seems pretty counter-intuitive for a "specialized PI hauler." Twitter: @EVEAndski
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest.-á |
Meyr
Shiva The Retirement Club
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.25 21:18:00 -
[845] - Quote
How about making Industrials that are cargo-fit actually able to survive a gank by a solo frigate?
You've taken away damned near ALL of the risk for gankers, with Tier 3 BC's, Tags For Sec-Status, Cargo Scanners, and massive DPS from destroyers. How about you show you actually give a damn about those who produce those items?
I'm not asking for an Orca-calibre tank on an Iteron V, but is 25-35,000 too much, compared to the value of the cargo they can carry, even if it's only Veldspar?
You like to brag about how you're working to balance Risk vs. Reward, but what you're doing with Industrials and gankers just gone to show how that is only so much lip-service - to the gankers.
Try taking away cargo scanners, if you simply cannot bear the thought of making a cargo-fit Industrial a bit tougher. How about you actually bring SOME 'risk' to ganking.
Then the rest of us can enjoy ganker tears by flying empty Industrials through Udaema, and the other popular systems.
Stop catering to the biggest bunch of whiners in the game, the gankers, and make them actually accept some risk. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
224
|
Posted - 2013.08.25 21:27:00 -
[846] - Quote
You've seen the new industrials on sisi?
They can be made quite tough now.
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Meyr
Shiva The Retirement Club
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.25 21:51:00 -
[847] - Quote
Take the Iteron V - the proposed change for this ship is ENTIRELY negative.
Less armor, less hull (for a Gallente hull? Really?), less cargo, same PG.
Similar modifications for all of the 'cargo' versions. This patch will make an entire category of already ridiculously fragile ships even easier to kill.
It makes these hulls absolutely useless, and nothing more than 'Loot-Pi+¦atas' for gankers.
Giving them the EHP of the weakest cruiser hull is only sensible. Make the 'tanky' haulers TOUGH! Giving THEM cruiser-class EHP is still a joke. They're already slow, align like my Dominix, and will still die to 2-3 T1-fit Catalysts, meaning that its still stupidly easy and economical to kill.
Crap like this is what you get when we have 'leet PVP' pilots trying to do an Industrial rebalance. The toughness of the hull should be in-line with its intended mission.
An Iteron V, cargo-fit, should be able to tank enough firepower in its mid-slots to successfully haul a cargo of Hi-sec ore (not minerals, just ORE) if it encounters the level of firepower that its dropped cargo can pay for. Anything less, and you're simply kissing the asses of the gankers at the expense of the haulers/industrialists.
As it stands, the proposed change to the Iteron V will allow it to be killed by two frigates if it is cargo-fit. |
Viceorvirtue
The Hatchery Team Liquid
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.26 05:50:00 -
[848] - Quote
You can sill tank your ship. The tanky haulers will be able to potentially survive 2 tornados, and 2 catalysts would surely die to gateguns before they killed you. Add to this the fact that they would need to be on 0, which isnt going to happen unless they get absurdly lucky on where you decloak from a gate, or you happen to be autopiloting or undocking. Undocking can be delt with via instas and autopiloting can be dealt with by paying attention to your ship.
Oh and in hisec you also have gateguns shooting at your attacker, so the frigates you speak of will likely die before they break a triple mse fit with a dcu. Cargo focused haulers are meant to carry high volume low cost things, ore, trit, mex, planetary interaction materials, etc. If you want to carry cargo values exceeding 100-200m then you have the tanky versions of the haulers that can do that.
Have something low volume high cost? Blockade runners are great for that, even a brick tanked t3 or battlecruiser can work for that purpose. Something high volume and high cost you have DSTs, orcas, freighters, jump freighters. The biggest complaint you have is that you need to specialize into hauling in order to move more expensive/larger volumes and the cheap t1 haulers dont meet all of your needs. |
Silenciel
Penguins at school
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.26 09:59:00 -
[849] - Quote
About the Iteron V, i propose a specialized bay for packed ships and reduce sighly the normal bay. I suggest a packaged volume up to 50K (one BS) for this new bay.
So, the Iteron V is keeping the biggest cargo rank but in specialized way.
For special big hauler (45K max with rigs and cargohold ?), i suggest an ORE Hauler with level V skill requirement. |
Meyr
Shiva The Retirement Club
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 07:24:00 -
[850] - Quote
Viceorvirtue wrote: If you want to carry cargo values exceeding 100-200m then you have the tanky versions of the haulers that can do that.
What exactly are you trying to say?
Seriously.
You just proposed carrying 100 million worth of cargo in a ship that, at max tank in 'cargo' configuration, will be readily destroyed by, what, 30 million (before drop & salvage) worth of gank ships. If that much. Personally, I'd bet on 2-3 frigates being able to kill a cargo-fit new Itty V.
You just made my point. There's absolutely ZERO upside to the new 'cargo' versions of the Industrials. They're a failure in every metric you can apply to them. You literally cannot use their cargo capacity, because, in doing so, no matter what you fill that cargo space with, it will, if dropped, fully reimburse the cost of the ships required to kill it.
F A I L.
|
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
236
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 09:32:00 -
[851] - Quote
I think like every other part of eve, there are tradeoffs to be done with industrials.
If you want to transport 35,000m3 of goods in one then all the mods you fit are going to be cargohold mods, leaving little powergrid for good shield defences.
However if you're willing to accept a smaller cargohold then you can start getting stronger shield extenders and boosters on there with the help of a few fitting mods.
For transporting low-value high-volume ore, weak defences are nor normally a problem. If you want to transport high value (usually smaller) items then a refit is probably on the cards.
If the iteron V isn't capable of achieving the buffer/tank you need, then the new nyrios (is that how you spell it?) could be a candidate.
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Tim Valentine
Valentine Logistics Galactic Skyfleet Empire
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 16:54:00 -
[852] - Quote
I Like it. The Wreathe was my favourite ship when i started playing and now it even becomes much better in all ways.... \o/ |
Brewlar Kuvakei
Adeptio Gloriae
237
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 17:54:00 -
[853] - Quote
Are any of these changes a stealth nerf to high sec solo suicide ganking if so which ones? Or are hauler tanks being kept at sensible levels unlike current barge battleship levels? |
Jelizza Arlath
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
16
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 18:06:00 -
[854] - Quote
We also need a new mid-size freighter, with 300-450km3 cargo capacity.
The Orca is too small for only carrying 130km3 (excluding the ore bay cause most of the time you aren't moving ore).
And the new ships only carry 43.000m3 (if you use a role specific one).
I want to see a midsize freighter with 300-450km3 cargo, improved warp speed over the regular heavy Freighter and somewhat improved agility / align time.
I'd buy that so fast. |
Kordran Ke'Azir
PonyWaffe Insidious Empire
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 18:09:00 -
[855] - Quote
Meyr wrote:Viceorvirtue wrote: If you want to carry cargo values exceeding 100-200m then you have the tanky versions of the haulers that can do that.
What exactly are you trying to say? Seriously. You just proposed carrying 100 million worth of cargo in a ship that, at max tank in 'cargo' configuration, will be readily destroyed by, what, 30 million (before drop & salvage) worth of gank ships. If that much. Personally, I'd bet on 2-3 frigates being able to kill a cargo-fit new Itty V. You just made my point. There's absolutely ZERO upside to the new 'cargo' versions of the Industrials. They're a failure in every metric you can apply to them. You literally cannot use their cargo capacity, because, in doing so, no matter what you fill that cargo space with, it will, if dropped, fully reimburse the cost of the ships required to kill it. F A I L.
30 mill in gank ships v 100m cargo. You just made every one else's point.
When do the loot gods EVER drop 100% (or even 50% for that matter) of the loot in a ship?
I'll make it nice and easy for you..... NEVER.
From what I can tell, 30ish% is a good guesstimate of drop rate on average, although not necessarily 30% of value.
In case you don't get it, 30% of 100m is OH LOOK 30m - the cost of the ships you said would be needed to gank said hauler. Unless their entire reason to play is ganking (and I bet you profit is their main reason) then they won't be ganking your ship once they figure out it's not a profitable option.
If you want to take the risk and move higher value cargo, use one of the ships mentioned earlier in the thread. |
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
328
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 18:58:00 -
[856] - Quote
Brewlar Kuvakei wrote:Are any of these changes a stealth nerf to high sec solo suicide ganking if so which ones? Or are hauler tanks being kept at sensible levels unlike current barge battleship levels?
The small/agile haulers and specialized haulers can fit buffer tanks in the range of 2xLSE and some hardeners. The specialized haulers can also fit damage controls as they don't get much benefit from fitting cargo expander lows. The large general haulers are still paper tanked loot pinatas. |
Meyr
Shiva The Retirement Club
6
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 20:54:00 -
[857] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote:Brewlar Kuvakei wrote:Are any of these changes a stealth nerf to high sec solo suicide ganking if so which ones? Or are hauler tanks being kept at sensible levels unlike current barge battleship levels? The small/agile haulers and specialized haulers can fit buffer tanks in the range of 2xLSE and some hardeners. The specialized haulers can also fit damage controls as they don't get much benefit from fitting cargo expander lows. The large general haulers are still paper tanked loot pinatas.
Make that "Even more easily ganked loot pi+¦atas."
Besides, hisec ganking could use a bit of a nerf. CCP already gave you Tier 3 BC's, Tags for Sec Status, and allows ganking from NPC corporations, where you're immune to a war dec.
What else do you want, haulers to simply self-destruct their ships for you? How about accepting some actual RISK for your reward? |
Serena Wilde
State War Academy Caldari State
16
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 04:24:00 -
[858] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:First page all positive, I'm outta here
Well, the only thing that I will say that I dislike is that the ships are specific to "ORE hold" rather than the hold being dependent on a module or rig. If I was Minmatar and liked doing PI, I need to train a different races' ship just to get the bonus PI holder, or ORE holder, or gas holder, etc. As well, people seeing those ships on overview will know exactly what they are being used for. If it were a rig that you can attach or a module you use to gain the specific ore hold, then any race can have access to that bonus, which I would think would be much better.
Just a thought. |
Meyr
Shiva The Retirement Club
6
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 07:11:00 -
[859] - Quote
Kordran Ke'Azir wrote:Meyr wrote:Viceorvirtue wrote: If you want to carry cargo values exceeding 100-200m then you have the tanky versions of the haulers that can do that.
What exactly are you trying to say? Seriously. You just proposed carrying 100 million worth of cargo in a ship that, at max tank in 'cargo' configuration, will be readily destroyed by, what, 30 million (before drop & salvage) worth of gank ships. If that much. Personally, I'd bet on 2-3 frigates being able to kill a cargo-fit new Itty V. You just made my point. There's absolutely ZERO upside to the new 'cargo' versions of the Industrials. They're a failure in every metric you can apply to them. You literally cannot use their cargo capacity, because, in doing so, no matter what you fill that cargo space with, it will, if dropped, fully reimburse the cost of the ships required to kill it. F A I L. 30 mill in gank ships v 100m cargo. You just made every one else's point. When do the loot gods EVER drop 100% (or even 50% for that matter) of the loot in a ship? I'll make it nice and easy for you..... NEVER. From what I can tell, 30ish% is a good guesstimate of drop rate on average, although not necessarily 30% of value. In case you don't get it, 30% of 100m is OH LOOK 30m - the cost of the ships you said would be needed to gank said hauler. Unless their entire reason to play is ganking (and I bet you profit is their main reason) then they won't be ganking your ship once they figure out it's not a profitable option. If you want to take the risk and move higher value cargo, use one of the ships mentioned earlier in the thread.
How about I make it easy for you, instead...
Why do you regard a hauler as the only class of ship that you cannot use to its full potential? Why should a pilot need to limit their fit, gimp it, in effect?
The purpose of an Industrial is to relocate items. There is absolutely no item in Eve that, when an Iteron V is filled with it, will not pay several times over for the firepower needed to kill the hauler. You can't find an item that inexpensive. Period. By definition, your argument calls for not utilizing a 'cargo-class' Industrial to its full potential.
What, then, is the purpose of these vessels? If it's not cargo capacity, then, what? Their currently laughably thin tank is being further reduced, so don't even start to suggest that they should be fit with tanking modules. They simply are absolutely incapable of doing anything better than another ship in the Industrial category.
Q.E.D., they are USELESS. What is the point of spending your ISK on a ship that is supposed to move items from Point A to Point B, but cannot be filled to capacity without putting a price on your head, cannot be fitted with a rudimentary tank, even at the price of no expanded cargo capacity, that will survive a single Catalyst in a 0.5 system, cannot utilize speed as a defense instead of shields/armor/hull, cannot fight back with enough force to frighten anything more dangerous than a shuttle, and has no other, secondary purpose, unless you count padding ganker's killboards as a purpose.
Weak haulers should be able to tank like the proposed 'tanky' Industrials, and the 'tanky' ones should be able to mount a defense that will enable them to call for help. Decrease their cargo capacity, but make them able to survive long enough for friends in-system to arrive on-scene, if they get jumped by 2-3 Catalysts. Make it about "fights" with these ships, make them actually capable of fulfilling their potential, not incapable of doing anything better than any other hauler, except die in a fire.
Every ship has, needs, a purpose, something that it does, and does well, but the 'cargo' Industrials have absolutely nothing to encourage someone to purchase them. You can't even use them as an inexpensive bait ship, because a cargo-scanner will show them to be empty, or only partially loaded.
You can use every other ship in Eve to the utmost of its and your capacity to do the job it was designed for, or a different job you created for it. Why not these? |
Tux88
Tux factory
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 11:28:00 -
[860] - Quote
If you really want change with industrials... remove race version and create a new interbus industrial class
frigate industrial freighter jumpfreighter T2 version PI specialized
In the same line remove all bonus of scan on vessel and create a new sister of eve class vessel :
frigate cruiser BS with special scan bonus for fleet fight frigate t2 with cloaking cruiser t2 with expanded launcher cruiser moon specialized
Just changing name vessel is just confusing...... |
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
247
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 12:04:00 -
[861] - Quote
Meyr wrote:How about I make it easy for you, instead...
Why do you regard a hauler as the only class of ship that you cannot use to its full potential? Why should a pilot need to limit their fit, gimp it, in effect?
The purpose of an Industrial is to relocate items. There is absolutely no item in Eve that, when an Iteron V is filled with it, will not pay several times over for the firepower needed to kill the hauler. You can't find an item that inexpensive. Period. By definition, your argument calls for not utilizing a 'cargo-class' Industrial to its full potential.
You could use the same argument to make the proposition that a megathron is useless since it's sole purpose is to apply DPS but we are forced to gimp it horribly by wasting slots on tank that keep it alive.
Eve ships are by their nature, general purpose. Sure they have bonuses for certain modules but there's no rule book that says that these modules are mandatory.
pvp ships make tradeoffs between speed, tank, range, dps and ewar capability.
Industrials make tradeoffs between cargo space and survivability
mining ships make tradeoffs between mining efficiency and survivabillity.
Sorry, what's the problem?
Are you saying that you want a cargo ship with a huge cargo bay and battleship ehp?
There is already one - it's called an Orca.
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Dr Prometheus
HIFI INDUSTRIAL The Kadeshi
86
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 12:30:00 -
[862] - Quote
Quote:The Epithal will have a bay dedicated to commodities produced through planetary interaction.
Erm don't we have the Primea for that? (you know the Noctis in better colors.) Dude, where is my Charon? |
Sevena Black
The Black Redemption
22
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 16:00:00 -
[863] - Quote
I like the idustrials being changed, but I dont like these changes
CCP is telling me what ship to use for what activity more and more. I'm a bigger fan of me deciding that.
I would prefer to see each race having 3 different looking T1 industrials - Gallente loses 2, Amarr and Caldari gain 1.
The difference between the industrials would have 2 aspects; their race and their size
Version 1: Small, "fast" and least cargospace Version 2: Average Version 3: Big, even slower and most cargospace
Caldari & Minmatar: Shield and speed Gallente and Amarr: Armor and HP
Since the discovery of sleepers and their technology, all empires have given the order to upgrade their most vulnerable ships with this new technology. Following the succes of the strategic cruisers. Each industrial can now fit 2 industrial subsystems (more skills for the subsystem department )
Possible subsystems: - specialized ammobay: reduces base cargocapacity with 500m3 and adds a 1000m3 bay that can only carry ammo fuel etc - specialized ore bay: reduces ..... only ore - advanced engine thrusters: reduces base cargocapacity with 500m3 and increases agility with 5% - cool sounding engine subsystem: reduces... increases speed with 10%
other examples are subsystems that increase warpspeed, increase tractorspeed etc. The most important thing here is to keep the bonusses these subsystems provide to T1, from overpowering the T2 industrials' field of expertise.
Advantages:
- race will impact choice, but less than now and more based on their racial stats (slots, resists, race specialty in EVE) - less need for crosstraining to get into the industrial you need - more skills for the subsystem department - skills allow specialization based on choice (you dont have to train them if the subsystems they unlock dont fit your needs) - more integration of sleeper tech within the EVE universe and "story" - specialization of industrial ships without forcing me to choose the ship CCP has chosen for me (sandbox anyone?) - T2 industrials remain more specialized in their respective fields.
TL;DR Dont worry, the message of this post requires a sound reading capability, meaning it would have been lost on you anyway. |
Torrema Sinclair
Justified Chaos
50
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 16:38:00 -
[864] - Quote
Can you with these changes and t2 rigs move stuff like Battleships? (Havent bothered trying those Prepatch EFT) |
Meyr
Shiva The Retirement Club
11
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 16:47:00 -
[865] - Quote
Like your proposal, Sevena.
Mournful - an individual hull in a combat ship has several different options:
Thorax, Glass Cannon - Neutron Blasters, shield extender, damage mods Thorax, Balanced - Ion Blasters, Armor or Shield tank Thorax, Tanky - Electron Blasters, Armor Tank, Trimarks
Now, the Iteron V (or any other of the racial 'max-cargo' Industrials proposed here):
Itty, Max Cargo capacity - big cargo bay, paper thin tank, can be ganked by one, maybe two frigates (assuming a 0.5 system) Itty, Balanced - slightly smaller cargo bay, slightly less paper thin tank, can still be ganked by one, maybe two frigates Itty, MAX TANK - still a loot pi+¦ata, can be ganked by a single T-1 fit Catalyst
See the difference? There's no option in which the Itty V, as proposed, is a viable candidate for ANYTHING if you try to utilize the full cargo capacity, because you simply cannot put anything in it that won't easily and readily cover the cost of killing the hauler.
There's nothing it can do that can't be done better by another hull. The Thorax has practical uses in every configuration, it merely depends upon which trade-off the pilot is willing to make, and ranges from extreme DPS at the expense of tank, or a very solid tank at the expense of DPS.
The Iteron V has absolutely ZERO capacity to make that kind of trade-off. In max-cargo configuration, you cannot fill it up with ANYTHING and reasonably hope to survive encountering any type of hazard. In max-tank configuration, it still has a laughably thin tank, and will die in a fire the first time someone looks at it with bad intentions. |
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
332
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 18:24:00 -
[866] - Quote
Meyr wrote:Like your proposal, Sevena.
Mournful - an individual hull in a combat ship has several different options:
Thorax, Glass Cannon - Neutron Blasters, shield extender, damage mods Thorax, Balanced - Ion Blasters, Armor or Shield tank Thorax, Tanky - Electron Blasters, Armor Tank, Trimarks
Now, the Iteron V (or any other of the racial 'max-cargo' Industrials proposed here):
Itty, Max Cargo capacity - big cargo bay, paper thin tank, can be ganked by one, maybe two frigates (assuming a 0.5 system) Itty, Balanced - slightly smaller cargo bay, slightly less paper thin tank, can still be ganked by one, maybe two frigates Itty, MAX TANK - still a loot pi+¦ata, can be ganked by a single T-1 fit Catalyst
See the difference? There's no option in which the Itty V, as proposed, is a viable candidate for ANYTHING if you try to utilize the full cargo capacity, because you simply cannot put anything in it that won't easily and readily cover the cost of killing the hauler.
There's nothing it can do that can't be done better by another hull. The Thorax has practical uses in every configuration, it merely depends upon which trade-off the pilot is willing to make, and ranges from extreme DPS at the expense of tank, or a very solid tank at the expense of DPS.
The Iteron V has absolutely ZERO capacity to make that kind of trade-off. In max-cargo configuration, you cannot fill it up with ANYTHING and reasonably hope to survive encountering any type of hazard. In max-tank configuration, it still has a laughably thin tank, and will die in a fire the first time someone looks at it with bad intentions.
Good thing you don't do this analysis for the amarr industrials. The bestower is the perma paper tanked hauler, and the supposedly tank specialty sigil fails to be tanky because of the discord between armor tanking and cargo. At least galente got 3 specialized haulers that are good and 1 ok tanky aligny hauler. |
Meyr
Shiva The Retirement Club
11
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 22:41:00 -
[867] - Quote
Not going to disagree with that - as bad as the Gallente Iteron V is, the Amarr Industrials got completely screwed. I just don't fly the Amarr cruisers (aside from the Awesome Arbitrator!) often enough to make a valid comparison like I did with the Thorax. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
250
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 23:15:00 -
[868] - Quote
Meyr wrote:Like your proposal, Sevena.
Mournful - an individual hull in a combat ship has several different options:
Thorax, Glass Cannon - Neutron Blasters, shield extender, damage mods Thorax, Balanced - Ion Blasters, Armor or Shield tank Thorax, Tanky - Electron Blasters, Armor Tank, Trimarks
Now, the Iteron V (or any other of the racial 'max-cargo' Industrials proposed here):
Itty, Max Cargo capacity - big cargo bay, paper thin tank, can be ganked by one, maybe two frigates (assuming a 0.5 system) Itty, Balanced - slightly smaller cargo bay, slightly less paper thin tank, can still be ganked by one, maybe two frigates Itty, MAX TANK - still a loot pi+¦ata, can be ganked by a single T-1 fit Catalyst
See the difference? There's no option in which the Itty V, as proposed, is a viable candidate for ANYTHING if you try to utilize the full cargo capacity, because you simply cannot put anything in it that won't easily and readily cover the cost of killing the hauler.
There's nothing it can do that can't be done better by another hull. The Thorax has practical uses in every configuration, it merely depends upon which trade-off the pilot is willing to make, and ranges from extreme DPS at the expense of tank, or a very solid tank at the expense of DPS.
The Iteron V has absolutely ZERO capacity to make that kind of trade-off. In max-cargo configuration, you cannot fill it up with ANYTHING and reasonably hope to survive encountering any type of hazard. In max-tank configuration, it still has a laughably thin tank, and will die in a fire the first time someone looks at it with bad intentions.
Sir, have you actually logged in to SISI, fitted up a new industrial for MAX TANK and flown it into a combat site?
I am guessing not. I have done precisely this. I watched with amusement as various ships, including an ishtar, tried to break the dual-asb tank.
There was more than enough time for concord (or corp members if you're in W-space, low or null) to turn up.
I simply do not recognise or agree with your conclusions. I think they are premature and unfounded.
Sorry.
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
333
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 01:16:00 -
[869] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Sir, have you actually logged in to SISI, fitted up a new industrial for MAX TANK and flown it into a combat site?
I am guessing not. I have done precisely this. I watched with amusement as various ships, including an ishtar, tried to break the dual-asb tank.
There was more than enough time for concord (or corp members if you're in W-space, low or null) to turn up.
I simply do not recognise or agree with your conclusions. I think they are premature and unfounded.
Sorry.
Were you flying the Iteron Mk V, Bestower, Mammoth, or Badger Mk II when you did this test? How did it fare against actual alpha gank ships such as tornados or talos (taloses?)? I'm suprised that two medium ancillary shield boosters were able to sustain against a ishtar, perhaps you could share your fit. |
Eric Raeder
No Fee Too High
65
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 06:43:00 -
[870] - Quote
Does anyone know if any of the new specialized industrials will be able to carry ice products? The description at the beginning of the thread only mentions ice ore, not refined ice products.
If so, which ship(s)? The Kyros carries minerals, does that include refined ice? The Hoarder carries ammo and charges, since some ice products are used up by jump drives and cynos, do they count as ammo? Or possibly they go in the Miasmos, which carries ice ore? |
|
Meyr
Shiva The Retirement Club
11
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 07:15:00 -
[871] - Quote
The whole point of my posts about the proposed changes is simply this:
The 'max-cargo' Industrials are pointless. There is simply no item in Eve that you can use to fill it to capacity where, even at a 30% drop rate, it won't pay for the cost of killing it several times over. It has damned near zero tank, even if you fit it with shield extenders, hardeners, a DC II, Reinforced bulkheads, an EANM, and shield rigs. It just can't tank worth a damn, can't hope to survive a gank, is incapable of defending itself, and has no power grid to fit expanded defenses or an MWD for some speed.
In short, its primary selling point, cargo capacity, is what draws gankers to it like flies, and it will crumple like the tissue paper it's made from if you sneeze at it.
That other haulers are able to fit some modicum of defenses has absolutely no bearing upon this matter - these ships SUCK. The concept behind the proposed changes is, at best, poorly thought out, and, at worst, yet another handout to the ganking community by CCP devs who don't seem to understand that, if you make a stupidly easy to gank ship EVEN EASIER TO KILL, it defeats the purpose of even building that ship, much less buying or flying it.
My prediction: if these changes go through, the market movement for this particular sub-class of ships will plummet to near zero. You won't be able to give them away, and the only ones seen flying will be te ones people already own.
A hauling ship needs to be able to survive an attack that will be repaid by the loot it drops if it is cargo-fit and filled with the least-valuable cargo possible. As the value of the cargo goes up, the capacity should be sacrificed in order to achieve greater defenses, yes, but these particular ships don't have that option. |
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
333
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 07:58:00 -
[872] - Quote
Meyr wrote:The whole point of my posts about the proposed changes is simply this:
The 'max-cargo' Industrials are pointless. There is simply no item in Eve that you can use to fill it to capacity where, even at a 30% drop rate, it won't pay for the cost of killing it several times over. It has damned near zero tank, even if you fit it with shield extenders, hardeners, a DC II, Reinforced bulkheads, an EANM, and shield rigs. It just can't tank worth a damn, can't hope to survive a gank, is incapable of defending itself, and has no power grid to fit expanded defenses or an MWD for some speed.
In short, its primary selling point, cargo capacity, is what draws gankers to it like flies, and it will crumple like the tissue paper it's made from if you sneeze at it.
I think the term you're looking for is "noobtrap." |
DetKhord Saisio
Seniors Clan Get Off My Lawn
26
|
Posted - 2013.08.31 00:11:00 -
[873] - Quote
Sevena Black wrote:I would prefer to see each race's industrial category have 3 ships i.e. Gallente loses 2; Amarr and Caldari gain 1. I think cargo size and mobility need to separate the 3 industrial ships within each race:
- small and fast
- medium
- large and slow
Okay, I edited your post slightly for clarity, but I think it gets your point across.
Adding subsystems to t1 industrial haulers makes them t3 ships, which would then come with appropriate levels of prerequisites. I think t1 industrial ships need to have optional cargohold modules, so players have flexibility to only train 1 race of haulers as custom-hauling needs change.
Either that or make all these new ammo/pi/ore/etc cargohold changes fully customizable on a (t3) strategic industrial cruiser, which would likely originate from ORE secretly facilitating between Core Complexion, CreoDron, Lai Dai, and Viziam. |
Psycros
OCD Enterprises
6
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 05:05:00 -
[874] - Quote
DetKhord Saisio wrote:Sevena Black wrote:I would prefer to see each race's industrial category have 3 ships i.e. Gallente loses 2; Amarr and Caldari gain 1. I think cargo size and mobility need to separate the 3 industrial ships within each race:
- small and fast
- medium
- large and slow
Okay, I edited your post slightly for clarity, but I think it gets your point across. Adding subsystems to t1 industrial haulers makes them t3 ships, which would then come with appropriate levels of prerequisites. I think t1 industrial ships need to have optional cargohold modules, so players have flexibility to only train 1 race of haulers as custom-hauling needs change. Either that or make all these new ammo/pi/ore/etc cargohold changes fully customizable on a (t3) strategic industrial cruiser, which would likely originate from ORE secretly facilitating between Core Complexion, CreoDron, Lai Dai, and Viziam.
YES. This is the only kind of revamp that would truly make sense..which is why CCP will never implement it. The industrial changes, like nearly every other ship change since forever, have only one purpose: to make ganking even more of a zero-risk activity. We have dedicated, dirt-cheap T1 tacklers now, for God's sake. The problem with a game that supports piracy is that to make it work you have to keep giving the pirates new advantages to overcome any possible defense. Only by providing industrials the same "efficiency vs safety" options as other ships can we level the playing field. BTW, I would also make the medium haulers the most adaptable, possibly through a higher assortment of mid & low slots. Let them be the jack of all trades but master of none. But as I said, that would make far too much sense for CCP (Constantly Coddling Pirates) so we'll never see it happen. |
Josilin du Guesclin
University of Caille Gallente Federation
93
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 06:15:00 -
[875] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote: Good thing you don't do this analysis for the amarr industrials. The bestower is the perma paper tanked hauler, and the supposedly tank specialty sigil fails to be tanky because of the discord between armor tanking and cargo. At least galente got 3 specialized haulers that are good and 1 ok tanky aligny hauler.
On the plus side, a shield tanked Sigil can mount a decent sized medium weapon and thus equal or exceed a Badger with gun and launcher in DPS. Probably not worth having only ~20K EHP vs ~30K EHP when fitted for 10K m3 cargo, but there it is.
|
Josilin du Guesclin
University of Caille Gallente Federation
93
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 06:26:00 -
[876] - Quote
Meyr wrote: The 'max-cargo' Industrials are pointless. There is simply no item in Eve that you can use to fill it to capacity where, even at a 30% drop rate, it won't pay for the cost of killing it several times over. It has damned near zero tank, even if you fit it with shield extenders, hardeners, a DC II, Reinforced bulkheads, an EANM, and shield rigs. It just can't tank worth a damn, can't hope to survive a gank, is incapable of defending itself, and has no power grid to fit expanded defenses or an MWD for some speed.
In short, its primary selling point, cargo capacity, is what draws gankers to it like flies, and it will crumple like the tissue paper it's made from if you sneeze at it.
And yet, the new Bestower will be able to mount much the same tank as the current one if you settle for the same hold as today's can have. Today there are still are tons of Bestowers in use (despite the Itty V being objectively better), mostly untanked or nearly so. This makes your argument suspect, because following your logic the sky should have been ganked clean of T1 haulers by now.
|
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
345
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 08:10:00 -
[877] - Quote
Josilin du Guesclin wrote:Meyr wrote: The 'max-cargo' Industrials are pointless. There is simply no item in Eve that you can use to fill it to capacity where, even at a 30% drop rate, it won't pay for the cost of killing it several times over. It has damned near zero tank, even if you fit it with shield extenders, hardeners, a DC II, Reinforced bulkheads, an EANM, and shield rigs. It just can't tank worth a damn, can't hope to survive a gank, is incapable of defending itself, and has no power grid to fit expanded defenses or an MWD for some speed.
In short, its primary selling point, cargo capacity, is what draws gankers to it like flies, and it will crumple like the tissue paper it's made from if you sneeze at it.
And yet, the new Bestower will be able to mount much the same tank as the current one if you settle for the same hold as today's can have. Today there are still are tons of Bestowers in use (despite the Itty V being objectively better), mostly untanked or nearly so. This makes your argument suspect, because following your logic the sky should have been ganked clean of T1 haulers by now.
I have a mule that flys the bestower, but I don't haul anything valuable in it. The most it carries is either some kernite for that stupid 'materials for war' storyline mission, or enough tech 1 missiles to keep me shooting for a week or so. Anything more than a few mil and I pull out the orca and haul on my main instead of letting my bestower mule autopilot in the background.
The update really isn't helping anything, except my mule will be using a sigil because it's faster and has enough cargo to hold what I'm hauling. |
bilingi
Ghosts of the Storm
37
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 15:32:00 -
[878] - 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.
SOme of us arent happy but we learned long ago not to expect anything about saying it... Why beat your head on a brick wall.. |
bilingi
Ghosts of the Storm
37
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 15:35:00 -
[879] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:I think like every other part of eve, there are tradeoffs to be done with industrials.
If you want to transport 35,000m3 of goods in one then all the mods you fit are going to be cargohold mods, leaving little powergrid for good shield defences.
However if you're willing to accept a smaller cargohold then you can start getting stronger shield extenders and boosters on there with the help of a few fitting mods.
For transporting low-value high-volume ore, weak defences are nor normally a problem. If you want to transport high value (usually smaller) items then a refit is probably on the cards.
If the iteron V isn't capable of achieving the buffer/tank you need, then the new nyrios (is that how you spell it?) could be a candidate.
except the gankers now have no trade off.. even sec penaltys can be bought off now.. They basicly have no risk what so ever.. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
290
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 15:49:00 -
[880] - Quote
bilingi wrote: except the gankers now have no trade off.. even sec penaltys can be bought off now.. They basicly have no risk what so ever..
Yes that's right.
You've just described Eve Online.
Winter marauders - Mutant Ninja Space Turtles
|
|
Claude Olerie
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 05:21:00 -
[881] - Quote
The new industrials with Specialized bays are overpowered.
Unlike normal industrials, they do not need cargohold expanders or cargo optimization rigs. Instead they can fit a full rack of warp stabs and low friction nozzle joint rigs.
-ultra cheap -many warp stabs -lots of agility -oversized bay
Just like ventures, these ships are totally out of balance with any other ships of their class. This sort of ship specialization is T2 domain, not ultra cheap T1's. They simply have too much bang for their buck.
They should be easier to catch (fewer lowslots), have less cargospace or be an expensive T2 ship. |
Meyr
Shiva The Retirement Club
30
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 07:35:00 -
[882] - Quote
Wah, wah, wah, boo-hoo.
You got the two most popular Industrial hulls in the game, the Iteron V and the Bestower (which someone earlier asked why it's so popular, it was a broken mechanic that let you fly it with only one skill level invested), made even easier to gank, giving you a plethora (look it up) of targets, and you're complaining that you actually have to WORK at catching a few of the newer designs?
Take the advice you 'elite PVP'ers' always use when responding to carebears - HTFU! Bring help, plan better, use the tools you have available, or STFU.
Personally, I hate the new Industrial line-up, but I'll either sell or scrap my Iteron V's & Bestowers, and adapt.
I suggest you do the same.
|
Edam Neadenil
Bax Corporation
10
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 11:39:00 -
[883] - Quote
I just upped the grid on a Nereus with a couple of Power diagnostics and managed to fit an Improved Cloak and a 10MN MWD ... and still had grid for a Large Shield Extender II and invuls. Thats without using any rigs at all.
A total of 23k EHP, whilst managing a cloak and MWD in an industrial was previously unheard of . |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
303
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 11:44:00 -
[884] - Quote
Edam Neadenil wrote:I just upped the grid on a Nereus with a couple of Power diagnostics and managed to fit an Improved Cloak and a 10MN MWD ... and still had grid for a Large Shield Extender II and invuls. Thats without using any rigs at all.
A total of 23k EHP, whilst managing a cloak and MWD in an industrial was previously unheard of . Can you squeeze a large ASB on there? One of those fully loaded gives more EHP than an LSE.
Confirming that I will never engage a Nereus in a wormhole without backup... I made that mistake with a skiff recently - cost me 2 T3 ships for 1 skiff ...
Killboard link Winter marauders - Mutant Ninja Space Turtles
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
148
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 14:21:00 -
[885] - Quote
Claude Olerie wrote:The new industrials with Specialized bays are overpowered.
Boo ****ing hoo. "I sense a great disturbance in EVE, as if thousands of pathetic gate campers suddenly cried out in terror, and were silenced..." I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld White Mountain Coalition
342
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 16:04:00 -
[886] - Quote
Claude Olerie wrote:The new industrials with Specialized bays are overpowered.
Unlike normal industrials, they do not need cargohold expanders or cargo optimization rigs. Instead they can fit a full rack of warp stabs and low friction nozzle joint rigs.
-ultra cheap -many warp stabs -lots of agility -oversized bay
Just like ventures, these ships are totally out of balance with any other ships of their class. This sort of ship specialization is T2 domain, not ultra cheap T1's. They simply have too much bang for their buck.
They should be easier to catch (fewer lowslots), have less cargospace or be an expensive T2 ship.
Whaaaaa, Whaaaa my soft targets have gone.... Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction... |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
308
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 16:24:00 -
[887] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Claude Olerie wrote:The new industrials with Specialized bays are overpowered. Boo ****ing hoo. "I sense a great disturbance in EVE, as if thousands of pathetic gate campers suddenly cried out in terror, and were silenced..."
Star Wars parodies are best parodies Winter marauders - Mutant Ninja Space Turtles
|
Parum Succurro
Heavy Machinery Inc.
1
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 01:09:00 -
[888] - Quote
It seems that the market seeded BPOs for the ships that received EHP buffs were not increased in value as they have been for other ship classes. CCP is this oversight or working as intended?
Wreathe for example. |
Servian Scargotti
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
0
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 07:31:00 -
[889] - Quote
I'm a new player, and I hate the changes (read: nerf) to the Iteron Mark V.
I started playing Eve about a month ago, and chose the Gallente race. Since then I've joined a corp and braved the wilds of low-sec. I have quickly learned that not getting blown up all the time requires having good ships with good fittings. And... that required ISK. LOTS of ISK!
So like a noob, I've tinkered with missions, mining, trading and hauling. I learned about markets and the whole "buy low then sell high" concept. Being a noob without the bankroll to make the cost of freight services affordable, I saw an opportunity to make some ISK by buying stuff in Jita and risk hauling it out to our CORP base in lowsec, where I could sell it and make some decent noob cash. I just needed a decent hauling ship.
The training path to Blockade Runners and Jump Frigates is a long and expensive one. So I turned to the one ship in the Gallente fleet that a poor noob like me could afford: the Iteron Mark V. I found that I could actually survive cargo runs from Jita to low-sec with just T1 fittings, and some practice with Cloak. I didn't even use an MWD. I just tanked my ship the best I could, bought as much Jita junk as my noob wallet would let me buy, and ran like hell to our base way out in lowsec.
I found what items were in short supply at our low-sec base, flew to Jita and back to put that stuff on the market. I had to work fast, before the experienced players could buy that stuff in Jita with their alts trained to all 5's in Trading skills, and contract ship it back without having to leave the base. My advantage was that I could haul it myself faster than the freight contractors could get around to moving those items in their T-infinity ships. I took the risk, and if I bought the right stuff and it actually sold for a decent markup, I might make 10 to 20 million ISK per run. Don't laugh, I'm a noob...
Anyway, the thing that made this grand venture in to markets and low-sec hauling possible was my faithful Ity V. But now the Ity V has been nerfed all to hell, and there is now no Gallente industrial ship within reach of this noob's skills level and budget that has even a slight chance of surviving hauling into low-sec. The new changes have now put lights, bells and pyrotechnics around the "Gank Me" sign on my Iteron Mark V. Low-sec gate camps were risky enough for me with my 6500 hp Ity V. However, what was once the poor man's Blockade Runner, is now just a guaranteed KillMail entry.
Unless things change, I'll be keeping my Iteron Mark V in the low-sec Corp dock, and flying my Venture back to high-sec to mine until I get bored enough to never log back into Eve.
|
Josilin du Guesclin
University of Caille Gallente Federation
111
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 11:41:00 -
[890] - Quote
Well, you came along at a time when the Itty V was as easy to fly as all the other haulers and a ton better. Not so long ago it was harder to fly in compensation, and the state of affairs you enjoyed was always intended to be temporary. Now things are different.
So, you want a T1 entry-level losec hauler? Well rather than throwing up your hands because your Itty V got made redundant in that role, consider your other choices. For example, the Nerus (was the 'Iteron') - it won't carry as much as your old Iteron V, but it's much tougher (though I'd probably go with a Badger out of the fast & tanky choices). Or, train for the Bestower, which can mount a half-reasonable tank and carry more cargo than it did before the patch.
|
|
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld White Mountain Coalition
348
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 19:58:00 -
[891] - Quote
Servian Scargotti wrote:I'm a new player, and I hate the changes (read: nerf) to the Iteron Mark V as well as all this stuff about different ships with special holds for hauling different things. As a noob, I didn't even know what PI was when I read it in the OP. It seems like all these changes are going to make things even more confusing for us new players, require lots more ISK and training time, and make life easier for the gankers.... When I started playing Eve about a month ago, I chose the Gallente race. I didn't have the wildest clue how it would matter. I didn't know how biased this whole game is towards seasoned players. I was a noob... remember what that felt like? What do I do to make this game fun? How do I make ISK? Should I join a CORP? Which one? Holy-hell!! Why did that guy just blow up my ship?!! Should I put money in that BLINK thing? What skills should I train? Why do individuals in a civilization advanced enough to be capable of space travel not have the cognitive ability to plan what skills they will train farther out than a 24 hour queue? Since then I've joined a corp and braved the wilds of low-sec. I have quickly learned that not getting blown up all the time requires having good ships with good fittings. And... that requires ISK. LOTS of ISK! So like a noob, I've tried to make some ISK tinkering with missions, mining, trading and hauling,etc. I learned about markets and the whole "buy low, sell high" thing. Being a noob without the bankroll to make the cost of freight services affordable, I saw an opportunity to make some ISK by buying stuff in Jita and risk hauling it out to our CORP base in lowsec, where I could sell it and make some decent noob cash. I just needed a decent hauling ship. The training path to Blockade Runners and Jump Frigates is a long and expensive one. So I turned to the one ship in the Gallente fleet that a poor noob like me could afford: the Iteron Mark V. I found that I could actually survive cargo runs from Jita to low-sec with a few T1 fittings, some practice with Align/Cloak, and balls of pure steel. I didn't even use an MWD, because I didn't have the skills for the Improved Cloaking Device. I just tanked my ship the best I could, bought as much Jita junk as my noob wallet would let me buy, and ran like hell to our base way out in lowsec. I found what items were in short supply at our low-sec base, flew to Jita, then back to put that stuff on the market. I had to work fast, before the experienced players could buy that stuff in Jita with their alts trained to all 5's in Trading skills, and have a freight Corp ship it back, all without having to leave their cozy captains quarters at home base. My advantage was that I could haul it myself faster than the freight contractors could get around to moving those items in their T-infinity ships. I took the risk. So long as my ship held together, and if I bought the right stuff that actually sold for a decent markup, I might make 10 to 20 million ISK per run. Don't laugh, I'm a noob... And the thing that made this grand venture in to markets and low-sec hauling possible was my faithful Ity V. When someone told me that changes to Industrial ships were coming, I thought "Great! They'll probably make my Iteron Mark V a little harder to destroy... mabye make it as hard as punching through two or three wet paper bags, instead of just one!" I had secret hopes of seeing T1 industrials get buffed with a +1 to warp core stabilzers, or some such thing... But now I learn that the Ity V has been nerfed all to hell. So there is now no Gallente industrial ship within reach of a noob's skill level and budget that has even a remote chance of surviving hauling runs into low-sec, or holding up against endless waves of roving WT squads flying Insta-lock Thrashers. The new changes have now put lights, bells and pyrotechnics around the already glaring "Gank Me" sign hanging on the back of my Iteron Mark V. Just yesterday, I finally completed skills training to use the Improved Cloaking Device. I was ready to haul some more stuff from Jita and dole out major doses of demoralizing failure to the WTs and low-sec gate campers... courtesy of my newly fitted Cloaky/MWD Iteron Mark V!!! For a noob, low-sec gate camps are terribly risky because a noob-fitted Ity V has roughly a whopping 6500 hitpoints. I felt a supernova sized let down today when I discovered that, without me having to unfit any rigs or modules from my ship, the hitpoints have now dropped to only 4300! And, as a bonus kick in my formerly steel nether-regions, my freight hauler is SLOWER! Sadly, what was once the poor man's Blockade Runner, is now just a guaranteed Killmail generator. Truely, I felt like a god breaking through Chatgris' gate camp in my noobtastic, all T1 fit, Iteron Mark V... Now I am forced to abandon my budding trade-hauling-industry career. Unless things change, I'll be keeping my Iteron Mark V in the low-sec Corp dock, and flying my Venture back to high-sec to mine Veldspar until I get bored enough to never log back into Eve.
Dude just pick a different ship, they are dirt cheap. Anyhow think how lucky you are. There was a time when every ship you trained for was nerfed and skill trained was invalidated. It's the nature of the game...
Spaceship Command 3 and a L1 racial skill is hardly the end of the world... Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction... |
Melek D'Ivri
617 Squadron
26
|
Posted - 2013.09.07 14:53:00 -
[892] - Quote
Honey HAM Badger doesn't give a crap. But I do, and I like it!
Would be nice to have a Fleet Hangar option for the awesome 2 gun Hoarder for fleet restocking on the fly as the Hoarder takes down frigates or something |
Mr Beardsley
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
17
|
Posted - 2013.09.09 05:37:00 -
[893] - Quote
I've looked, I've studied, I've tried out a few different industrial setups...and I have to say that overall I'm mildly displeased with the changes. About all I can say is, "it could have been worse". The mighty Mk V is now obsolete - I think the majority of us can agree on that. Gallente at least gains the only specialized ship worth using, the Miasmos. As for the other special haulers..let's be honest, nobody is going to stop using Orcas and blockade runners in favor of a Nereus or whatever. Caldari pilots seem to be the major winners with the Tayra replacing the Mk V as the general hauler of choice, although I think its maybe a bit less tankable now. The more I think about it the more I'm starting to side with the people saying we just need low slot specialized bays that eat up most of your cargo space. Devs could still control which ships can use which bays either through base cargo requirements or simply limiting which ships can equip them. |
Josilin du Guesclin
University of Caille Gallente Federation
112
|
Posted - 2013.09.09 12:26:00 -
[894] - Quote
Mr Beardsley wrote:I've looked, I've studied, I've tried out a few different industrial setups...and I have to say that overall I'm mildly displeased with the changes. About all I can say is, "it could have been worse". The mighty Mk V is now obsolete - I think the majority of us can agree on that. Gallente at least gains the only specialized ship worth using, the Miasmos. As for the other special haulers..let's be honest, nobody is going to stop using Orcas and blockade runners in favor of a Nereus or whatever. Caldari pilots seem to be the major winners with the Tayra replacing the Mk V as the general hauler of choice, although I think its maybe a bit less tankable now. The more I think about it the more I'm starting to side with the people saying we just need low slot specialized bays that eat up most of your cargo space. Devs could still control which ships can use which bays either through base cargo requirements or simply limiting which ships can equip them.
Not sure why you'd take a Tayra over a Bestower - this is not a role where tank should even be relevant. As for the notion that people would replace Orcas or Tech II haulers with these - why would anyone think that they would? These ships are not intended to compete with blockade runners or the Orca. They're intended to give a cheap and fairly easy to learn to fly option for low SP pilots, and for when you don't need the capability of the more expensive ships. If the new Wreathe competed with the Prowler CCP would have screwed up. It doesn't, and they didn't.
|
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld White Mountain Coalition
366
|
Posted - 2013.09.09 19:32:00 -
[895] - Quote
Loving the new industrials, well done CCP! Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction... |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
2673
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 09:52:00 -
[896] - Quote
Unpinning, 1.1 has been released. |
|
Servian Scargotti
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
2
|
Posted - 2013.09.24 02:52:00 -
[897] - Quote
I was actually relieved when my Iteron Mark V got blown up the other day... the stupid nerf made it a worthless piece of junk. The only time I see an Iteron Mark V these days is when a noob posts their kill mail. |
Mr Coffee
The Coffee Collective
6
|
Posted - 2013.09.29 01:50:00 -
[898] - Quote
Great scott! It's a hauler update! Spiffy!
While I'm excited (and I'm always excited thanks to CAFFINE! -HAVE YOU HAD YOUR COFFEE TODAY? I KNOW I HAVE!-) about these changes I do have to say, seems a bit out of left field! Didn't know the wheel had to be reinvented when it comes to something like 'hauling' which should be pretty straight forward, but we all know that coffee is great when there are at least seventy million more flavors available at your local caffeinatin establishment!
So three cheers for excitement and here's to no lost brain cells trying to figure out why!
*salute!* |
|
|
|
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] |