EVE Search - Petition for a mid-size hauler class of ship

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Petition for a mid-size hauler class of ship

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Tommy TenKreds	Posted - 2005.12.30 11:53:00 - [1] We badly need a class of hauler vessel with a 100 km3 capacity in game IMO. Frankly, I consider it bizarre and anachronistic, to say the least, that this type of ship does not exist already. For supporting and opposing arguments (overwhelmingly supporting actually) please see this thread in the Ships Forum. I am posting this petition here, in general discussion, because of comments that it will be more visible to the devs here. Please sign if you support the need for this class of ship.
Jin Entres	Posted - 2005.12.30 11:58:00 - [2] We badly need a class of frigate vessel with a citadel launcher capacity in game IMO. No thank you.
Tommy TenKreds	Posted - 2005.12.30 11:59:00 - [3] Originally by: Jin Entres We badly need a class of frigate vessel with a citadel launcher capacity in game IMO. That seems quite illogical to me and you make no constructive argument whatsoever.
Wild Rho	Posted - 2005.12.30 12:02:00 - [4] A mid range ship would make freighters redundant, it's that simple. Freighters are big slow and expensive, but move a hell of alot of cargo and so they've developed a niche in the industry. A mid range ship that can carry large quantities of cargo alot faster would eliminate the need for freighters at all.
Testy Mctest	Posted - 2005.12.30 12:04:00 - [5] /signed 'Light Freighter' or 'Heavy Industrial' sound good to me. Same base skills as a freighter maybe, a lot lower production cost, maybe costing in the region of ~250m to produce. Keep them expensive, if they're too cheap they'll render indies useless. No hardpoints at all, freighter style. Able to loot/jettison like normal ships, maybe an answer to the fact that freighters cannot and this can be slightly annoying? Educating Eve forum denizens as to the error of their ways since 2005.
Tommy TenKreds	Posted - 2005.12.30 12:11:00 - [6] Originally by: Wild Rho A mid range ship that can carry large quantities of cargo alot faster would eliminate the need for freighters at all. That is an extremely weak argument that is entirely disproved by the co-existence of many different classes of pure fighter ship. Does the availability of Battleships make Cruisers redundant? For that matter, does the availability of Freighters make Industrials redundant? No, of course not. The Freighter niche will still exist for moving huge volumes - which is what it should be used for.
000Hunter000	Posted - 2005.12.30 12:14:00 - [7] been talked over before and most people agreed, a class between the freigther (too big) and a hauler (too small) but it should also be able to service a pos, but perhaps not be able to fly into roidbelts. A 100k m3 size would be more then enough for my needs, tbh i don't need a big thing like a freighter, there just too big and too slow without instas, and the fact u can only go from station to station is just st00pid imo.
Wild Rho	Posted - 2005.12.30 12:31:00 - [8] Originally by: Tommy TenKreds Originally by: Wild Rho A mid range ship that can carry large quantities of cargo alot faster would eliminate the need for freighters at all. That is an extremely weak argument that is entirely disproved by the co-existence of many different classes of pure fighter ship. Thats the problem with your argument there. Your comparing combat ships to non-combat ships and the situation is very different. Does the availability of Battleships make Cruisers redundant? Originally by: Tommy TenKreds For that matter, does the availability of Freighters make Industrials redundant? No, of course not. The Freighter niche will still exist for moving huge volumes - which is what it should be used for. No offence but thats just plain silly. Freighters don't replace indies for the simple reason that both ships carry out different roles that the other can't do: - Freighters can't be used in mining ops where as indies can. - Freighters are very big, slow and vulnerable without slots to fit wcs plus the long alignment time. With a smart setup and pilot an indy with instas can somtimes break through even camped gates. - Indies can be used to refuel a POS where as a freighter cannot. In comparison - Freighters can carry huge volumes of goods and even some items that cannot be fitted inside the cargo bay of other indies.
Zhanra	Posted - 2005.12.30 12:35:00 - [9] As I stated in the other thread, how about a tier 5 transport that started off at 25-30,000m^3 and could still fit the 5-6 expanders? It would have to be slow obviously. The expander market wouldn't really be affected, and the high skill cost would keep it from making the current industrials irrelevant.
turnschuh	Posted - 2005.12.30 12:39:00 - [10] there is a 6 page discussion on the feature and ideas forum about that topic. http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=234417 no need to start a new thread.
Jin Entres	Posted - 2005.12.30 12:44:00 - [11] Originally by: Tommy TenKreds Originally by: Jin Entres We badly need a class of frigate vessel with a citadel launcher capacity in game IMO. That seems quite illogical to me and you make no constructive argument whatsoever. If you had read the other threads about this suggestion, you'd have found my constructive criticism. And my exaggerating imitation of your opinion was intended to express the imbalance of the suggestion in ships' roles. Originally by: Tommy TenKreds That is an extremely weak argument that is entirely disproved by the co-existence of many different classes of pure fighter ship. The existence of different ship sizes and roles does not in and of itself prove anything about their balance. Originally by: Tommy TenKreds Does the availability of Battleships make Cruisers redundant? No because Battleships can do something Cruiser can not and vice versa, and both their advantages are somewhat in balance. Originally by: Tommy TenKreds For that matter, does the availability of Freighters make Industrials redundant? No, of course not. The Freighter niche will still exist for moving huge volumes - which is what it should be used for. The Freighters can do something the industrials can not: haul big quantities. The industrials can do something freighters can not: move fast and survive better. What you are asking for is almost comparable to a Battlecruiser with Battleship firepower and cruiser agility and signature radius. The best of both classes, in other words, although even you agree there has to be a drawback: So, as a drawback to being more agile than the freighter (and as a bonus for being less agile than an industrial) you are suggesting a cargo bay of around 100,000 m3 that lands in between he two existing classes. What you fail to see, in my opinion, however is that this would already be enough, as in too much, to supersede the freighters' primarily role, which is not the transportation of quantities close to it's maximum capacity but more importantly all quantities that are, for convenience and timewise easier to deal with in a freighter instead of an industrial. 100,000 m3 means atleast 3 trips in a maximized industrial, and is hence easier, more convenient and takes less or as much time to transport in a freighter. If a middleclass would be introduced, it would have to either have a much smaller cargo bay than you have suggested, or another drawback such as the skill specialization need I brough up in my other answer. Does that qualify as constructive?
Tommy TenKreds	Posted - 2005.12.30 12:44:00 - [12] Originally by: Wild Rho Thats the problem with your argument there. Your comparing combat ships to non-combat ships and the situation is very different. No, I am trying to make the point in broad strokes so it is apparent how weak your argument actually is. But, let's take a closer look by all means. Originally by: Wild Rho Freighters don't replace indies for the simple reason that both ships carry out different roles that the other can't do: - Freighters can't be used in mining ops where as indies can. - Freighters are very big, slow and vulnerable without slots to fit wcs plus the long alignment time. With a smart setup and pilot an indy with instas can somtimes break through even camped gates. - Indies can be used to refuel a POS where as a freighter cannot. In comparison - Freighters can carry huge volumes of goods and even some items that cannot be fitted inside the cargo bay of other indies. Everything that currently applies to Industrials could also apply to a larger version (T3 if you like) industrial. What would be the problem with that? In reality, pilots will use the size of vessel to suit their needs - trading off volume for speed as they do already. There are some haulage jobs that I will user a Badger for and others that only require a Frigate. In those cases, I will use a frigate because it's faster. Ultimately, a mid-size class of hauler will simply allow more player choice. It will most assuredly not negate the appeal of Freighters for those jobs that call for a Freighter.
Tommy TenKreds	Posted - 2005.12.30 12:46:00 - [13] Originally by: turnschuh there is a 6 page discussion on the feature and ideas forum about that topic. http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=234417 no need to start a new thread. My reasons for posting this thread here are stated in my first post. Did you have anything constructive to add or are you just trolling?
Tommy TenKreds	Posted - 2005.12.30 12:52:00 - [14] Edited by: Tommy TenKreds on 30/12/2005 12:52:22 Originally by: Jin Entres If you had read the other threads about this suggestion, you'd have found my constructive criticism. If you had read my first post, you would have noticed that I have linked to the same thread. I started this thread as a petition to add these ships to the game. As you have astutely observed, there are already several threads debating their merits. Despite the many vocal arguments against these ships, you will find, from a cursory examination of those threads, that the support for the introduction these ships is overwhelming.
Wild Rho	Posted - 2005.12.30 12:56:00 - [15] Thats becuase everyone wants thing made more convienient for them, that doesn't mean it's well balanced for the game though.
Tommy TenKreds	Posted - 2005.12.30 12:59:00 - [16] Edited by: Tommy TenKreds on 30/12/2005 13:03:54 Originally by: Wild Rho Thats becuase everyone wants thing made more convienient for them, that doesn't mean it's well balanced for the game though. Nor does your general and unfounded opposition. Anyway, what's so wrong with greater convenience? I don't stage a sit-in over T2 ammo because it makes killing people more convenient do I? As I say, they would simply allow more player choice. There are a number of ways that haulers of various sizes can be balanced to separate their usefulness. Please visit the thread I have linked to read through these arguments.
Wild Rho	Posted - 2005.12.30 13:06:00 - [17] The simple fact that people have said they want a faster cheaper indy with a bigger cargo capacity that can open cans in belts already says "more convenient"
Tommy TenKreds	Posted - 2005.12.30 13:09:00 - [18] Originally by: Wild Rho The simple fact that people have said they want a faster cheaper indy with a bigger cargo capacity that can open cans in belts already says "more convenient" Such a clever argument. I'm dumbfounded. Why is that the first people to respond to new threads are always the negative ones with too much time on their hands?
Jin Entres	Posted - 2005.12.30 13:14:00 - [19] Originally by: Tommy TenKreds Originally by: Wild Rho The simple fact that people have said they want a faster cheaper indy with a bigger cargo capacity that can open cans in belts already says "more convenient" Such a clever argument. I'm dumbfounded. Why is that the first people to respond to new threads are always the negative ones with too much time on their hands? How about you start commenting on our arguments with your own ones instead of resorting to ad hominem?
Tommy TenKreds	Posted - 2005.12.30 13:16:00 - [20] Edited by: Tommy TenKreds on 30/12/2005 13:17:44 Originally by: Jin Entres How about you start commenting on our arguments with your own ones instead of resorting to ad hominem? I have responded to the (tired and pointless) arguments against these ships as much as I need to. In any case, I respond in kind. Attempting to further obfuscate the petition by means of off-topic posting is a low tactic. How about you respect the wishes of the thread starter by allowing the thread to proceed as petition and not as a debate thread?
Jin Entres	Posted - 2005.12.30 13:29:00 - [21] Originally by: Tommy TenKreds Edited by: Tommy TenKreds on 30/12/2005 13:17:44 Originally by: Jin Entres How about you start commenting on our arguments with your own ones instead of resorting to ad hominem? I have responded to the (tired and pointless) arguments against these ships as much as I need to. In any case, I respond in kind. Attempting to further obfuscate the petition by means of off-topic posting is a low tactic. How about you respect the wishes of the thread starter by allowing the thread to proceed as petition and not as a debate thread? I disagree with your petition and expressed the reasons. I don't see that being off-topic. This metacommunication was by your initiative. And, as I have understood it, these boards are only meant for discussion. Not petitions.
Raem Civrie	Posted - 2005.12.30 13:47:00 - [22] As it is, industrials are around twice size of cruisers, and pack around 3k base cargo, while freighters are 10x larger than battleships and pack, um, 750k cargo. A battleship-sized industrial with around 12k base cargo isn't unreasonable in my mind. Or a larger one, 2x the size of the normal battleship (or apoc, in this case) with 24k base cargo. I'm getting these numbers from comparing Volume and cargo, they're not COMPLETELY arbitrary. --- God-King of Genitalia
Dario Wall	Posted - 2005.12.30 13:53:00 - [23] I see no problem with a new industrial, as long as it doesn't exceed a few limitations... 50-73m3 capacity MAX. No faster than 100m/sec. Able to jettison/scoop to cargo. Shields/Armor/Hull equal to, or less than, that of transports. Tech 1 Industrial resistances. No slots whatsoever. No drone bay. Of course, that's just my opinion on the matter. Feel free to comment on it. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- CEO, MegaCorp Enterprises
Jin Entres	Posted - 2005.12.30 14:04:00 - [24] Originally by: Dario Wall I see no problem with a new industrial, as long as it doesn't exceed a few limitations... 50-73m3 capacity MAX. No faster than 100m/sec. Able to jettison/scoop to cargo. Shields/Armor/Hull equal to, or less than, that of transports. Tech 1 Industrial resistances. No slots whatsoever. No drone bay. Of course, that's just my opinion on the matter. Feel free to comment on it. This suggestion sounds rather reasonable. Base mineral cost 400M, requiring indy V, adv. spaceship cmd V and I approve.
Rodge	Posted - 2005.12.30 14:08:00 - [25] Originally by: Jin Entres Originally by: Tommy TenKreds How about you respect the wishes of the thread starter by allowing the thread to proceed as petition and not as a debate thread? And, as I have understood it, these boards are only meant for discussion. Not petitions. Yep, this is a public discussion board. If the OP wants to petition, there's a nice button available in game for exactly that purpose. There's also an "Ask a Question" button available on the left hand side on these forums. If he wants the public to discuss his proposal, then this is the place for it. Personally, I think it's a horrible idea. He wants the huge cargo space of the freighter coupled with the versatility of a hauler (hence he refers to it as a large hauler, not a small freighter). No consideration of game balance, only wanting to make the game more convenient to himself. Originally by: Tommy TenKreds For supporting and opposing arguments (overwhelmingly supporting actually) please see... Two pages of posts does not, in any way, reflect the wishes of the Eve public. Especially since there's no real agreement with exactly what you want on that thread from a majority of people. Originally by: Tommy TenKreds Please sign if you support the need for this class of ship. You're not allowed to post threads where all everyone does is "/signed" And finally: Originally by: Tommy TenKreds For supporting and opposing arguments (overwhelmingly supporting actually) please see this thread in the Ships Forum. I am posting this petition here, in general discussion, because of comments that it will be more visible to the devs here. Cross posting is bad and against the forum rules, mkay? [ 2005.04.17 00:34:30 ] Nagilam > u better leave Rodge, u will not gank any1 else 2nite......
Tommy TenKreds	Posted - 2005.12.30 14:12:00 - [26] Originally by: Jin Entres I disagree with your petition and expressed the reasons. I don't see that being off-topic. This metacommunication was by your initiative. And, as I have understood it, these boards are only meant for discussion. Not petitions. Fair enough Jin. I just get tired of people voicing ill-considered and often knee-jerk reactions to ideas threads, so I tend to respond dismissively. Essentially though, we disagree fundamentally. I feel new ships can be introduced in a balanced way that will allow the same potential benefits for all players, whereas you do not. I respect your opposing opinion, but my main concern here is to bring this matter to the attention of the devs and to let them see the wide support that exists for these ships.
Rodge	Posted - 2005.12.30 14:13:00 - [27] Originally by: Dario Wall I see no problem with a new industrial, as long as it doesn't exceed a few limitations... 50-73m3 capacity MAX. No faster than 100m/sec. Able to jettison/scoop to cargo. Shields/Armor/Hull equal to, or less than, that of transports. Tech 1 Industrial resistances. No slots whatsoever. No drone bay. Of course, that's just my opinion on the matter. Feel free to comment on it. I've highlighted in bold exactly what the issue is with this request. If it can move at 100m/s with that kind of cargo space, then it's made the existing T2 haulers like Impels and Occators useless. The T2 haulers have nice armour and resistances, but at the end of the day that's not what anyone uses them for. They just want the 30k cargo space, which makes these ships INCREDIBLY slow. If there's a hauler/freighter that has a bigger cargo hold than a fully expanded Impel, then it CANNOT be able to load/unload in space. That includes POSs. [ 2005.04.17 00:34:30 ] Nagilam > u better leave Rodge, u will not gank any1 else 2nite......
Jon Xylur	Posted - 2005.12.30 14:16:00 - [28] Mini Freighter/Big Hauler would rule! And it should be able to pick up cans. Just give it high skill regs to prevent macroers abusing it so easily. It would make big mining ops so much easier as it could carry multiple jetcans.
Galaxion	Posted - 2005.12.30 14:33:00 - [29] As it stands, and someone said earlier in the thread, industrials are already capable of outrunning gate camps if they are smart. However, with a freighter, they are much easier to kill as long as you take care of the scort and kill it before the logoff timer expires (just a genral observation that quite a few freighter pilots like to log off - no names mentioned). I would not support the introduction of a new mid-class if it made it easier for my enemies to get into 0.0 space. In other words, it has to have similar agility to a freighter. -----------------------------------------
Jin Entres	Posted - 2005.12.30 14:43:00 - [30] Tommy, I am not fundamentally against introducing new ships, but I feel that this particular ship that is being suggested is very difficult, if not impossible to implement without imbalancing the existing ships, and people who support it seem to disregard or understate the issue and be driven by selfish motivation rather than an objective view on what is good for the game. I am not against continuing the discussion if my arguments are addressed, rather than more random people posting "yes I want one". Originally by: Wild Rho Any mid range ship that could handle cans outside a station would kill off indies and replace them no matter what the cost or skill training time. Money and time are both restrictive elements. People that don't have them will always need indies - it's just a matter of how many, and to balance that the requirements can be tuned up. As such, I don't see why there couldn't be further specialization into hauling - but I agree that the amount needed should be very steep.

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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