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.
TFer Atvar	Posted - 2005.12.30 15:05:00 - [31] 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. If CCP does do this, I like this plan. However, I don't support the idea entirely. My reasoning is that you're going to be eliminating the need for indies in empire space entirely. There would be no reason to fly something that has smaller cargo space but extra slots if you don't need them for protection or added speed. You'd essentially be forcing our current haulers to small-capacity low-security runs. That's a role already somewhat filled by battleships with cargo expanders. They don't do it perfectly, and don't have as large a cargo capacity as a hauler, but they're far more secure than flying an industrial through 0.0 space. That means that haulers would basically be forced into the role of 0.3-0.5 medium capacity transports. Of course, you could still use a hauler, but it would no longer be the most efficient way, and you'd be foolish to do so with this new ship around. The new ship would be good for established players, but it'd put new players in a far deeper hole at the start. Instead of being able to train haulers relatively quickly to start helping their corporation on a real basis, they'd be stuck as second-class members for a far longer time. I'm not so far removed from my beginnings that I forget what it was like to not be able to help. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.
Sorja	Posted - 2005.12.30 15:18:00 - [32] A simple increase in Industrials cargo hold would do the trick, IMHO.
Kira Natel	Posted - 2005.12.30 15:46:00 - [33] Originally by: Wild Rho 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. While this is true- it is also true that freighters are out of range for most players
Jin Entres	Posted - 2005.12.30 16:09:00 - [34] Originally by: Kira Natel Originally by: Wild Rho 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. While this is true- it is also true that freighters are out of range for most players And rightly so. EVE is not a sologame.
St'oto	Posted - 2005.12.31 10:16:00 - [35] /sign How about upping the current freighter skill req to freighter lvl3, and make a smaller freighter with skill req lvl1 -----------------------------------------------
Tommy TenKreds	Posted - 2005.12.31 11:54:00 - [36] Originally by: Jin Entres EVE is not a sologame. This is another baseless argument. Eve is whatever game the players make of it, within the rules and framework provided. To say it is not a "solo" game says nothing of value, since it is clearly multiplayer by design. This does not preclude individual players from thriving independantly from others, nor should it.
sonofollo	Posted - 2005.12.31 12:38:00 - [37] as before mineral industrial ships - the ability (perhaps an ORE industrial ship) to compress minerals by 100% so instead f 1 million per 10,000 m3 - for trit perhaps allowing 2 mil per 10,000 m3 via a special ship class that compresses minerals using new nanotechnology. Something along those lines that only allow minerals in all other regards these would be the same as above (tritanium is the lowest value - worse mineral ISK wise to move) then i guess its also the eaisiest to get at. Fr all other classes of modules NPC trade goods etc the status quo seems fine (the effect on level 4 manufacturing missions for example with higher m3) would allow then to be more solo in nature. Im a happy little camper now - CCP 4tw.
Shinnen	Posted - 2005.12.31 14:40:00 - [38] /signed Make it a whole new class. Racial Industial Ship 4 + New ship skill - give it PG to fit 100mn MWD and Bonus to 10% less cap taken by MWD. Make them cheap, new T1 models. +2 warp core strength might also be good, however, make them very weak HP of a frigate I'd say... --- INFOD
Thecle Vifargent	Posted - 2005.12.31 14:46:00 - [39] /signed but... Im not for a mid ship hauler, but for a mid freighter. Something like 300-400k m3, exactly the same restrictions than freighter but able to carry assembled contenair (sorting in a freighter is a pain !) but unable to loot afk mining stuff or such. ________________________________________________ () () Braiiiiin (â;..;)â (")(") <= This is a vampire bunny.
Nightwing	Posted - 2005.12.31 15:02:00 - [40] I agree 100% that we need a ship that can haul 100k m^3 after expanders are put on it. But the solution is not a new ship with another skill to train. I propose that the transport class of ships have their cargo raised to 75k m^3 and with ship bonus/expanders it can reach 100k. While were at it jet cans that are used for mining due to the hulk coming out should be raised to 50k space so a new one is not needed every 30 min when solo mining.
Rafein	Posted - 2005.12.31 15:39:00 - [41] Edited by: Rafein on 31/12/2005 15:39:52 I don;t think it's a bad idea. just make it so it does not step on other roles currently occupied by other ships. It should cost around 300 Million base for 100 km3 of cargo hold, and have the same drawbacks as a freighter (cannot pick up from space, cannot dock at a POS).
Jin Entres	Posted - 2006.01.01 18:03:00 - [42] Originally by: Tommy TenKreds Originally by: Jin Entres EVE is not a sologame. This is another baseless argument. Eve is whatever game the players make of it, within the rules and framework provided. To say it is not a "solo" game says nothing of value, since it is clearly multiplayer by design. This does not preclude individual players from thriving independantly from others, nor should it. Let me reiterate my point: Freighters are out of range for most people through solo efforts because EVE is designed in a way to encourage player interaction and co-operation. This does not mean players should be or are prohibited to seek to achieve the same goals individually; it merely states they are more difficult to. In my stating "Eve is not a sologame" I am in no way trying to tell people how they should play EVE, but to emphasize that EVE is a game built on player interaction and rewarding all and any is the fundamental basis of it's design, unlike perhaps in many other multiplayable games.
Nyxus	Posted - 2006.01.01 18:18:00 - [43] Edited by: Nyxus on 01/01/2006 18:22:52 Originally by: Jin Entres 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. I agree with Jin on this completely. Make it a ship that you have to specialize to use. Make it vulnerable. Make it costly. One addendum I would like to see is that it have 1 or 2 Utility highslots for a tractor beam. This ship would be a godsend to anyone piddling about with POS. Current industrials, both T1 and T2, are just not sufficient for this task while freightors can not be utilized. It also provides a good niche for smaller scale hauling services. Nyxus Edit: Making my Impel actually worth using by increasing it's cargo space to 75 or 100m3 would make me happy too, but I think it's power would be used for ebil afk mining. Changing all high slots to utility slots would be fine as that would render it unable to mount a mining laser. Plasmatique> "Cry 'Cartiff' and let slip the dogs of war!"
Selena 001	Posted - 2006.01.01 18:21:00 - [44] From what I remember, Barges sparked this kind of frenzied frothing-at-the-mouth discussion this seems to be doing... Barges still made it into the game didnt they? No-one complains about how efficent they are. CCP make the decision about what makes it into the game and what doesn't... Attempting to convince the forum dwellers that they need a new class of ship is pointless because they dont control what content is added. Make the point for the new ship and hope CCP consider it. P.S... I'm all for it. A 20km base indy with 2 or 3 low slots would be brilliant, and it wouldn't ruin the job that frieghters currently hold. ___________ Dont mind me, I'm Forum-Whoring cause I dont have anything better to do with my life...
xeom	Posted - 2006.01.01 20:00:00 - [45] 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. Able to jettison/scoop to cargo.-While in a POS Shield? I think this would fix the main problem.Sence people seem to be screaming for friegters that can be used in conjunction with a POS.The would still keep the indys in game for the miners and another small jobs.While still allowing larger cargos to be moved around POS's. I think that would be the perfect fix for all of this.
MOOstradamus	Posted - 2006.01.01 22:32:00 - [46] No. Not needed. Would make Freighters redundant. In fact I don't even agree that anything larger than the current stock of Industrials is needed to supply POSes. MOOrovingian "Following & supporting EVE (since Jan 2001) is like wiping your arse with sandpaper."
Shiboline M'Ress	Posted - 2006.01.02 00:00:00 - [47] 'Light Freighter' or 'Heavy Industrial'.... tottaly support the idea...
KHEN	Posted - 2006.01.02 11:31:00 - [48] Edited by: KHEN on 02/01/2006 11:33:51 What I would need : 1) Super Transport Ship with 100.000 m3 cargo when fitted with local hulls expanders 2) Super Freighter with 4.000.000+ m3 cargo and jumpdrive base speed 1) 60m/s, 300m/s with 100MN MWD 2 (no redundance with freighters due to speed and cargo size) 2) 55m/s 80% of my hauling jobs are around 100.000m3, using the freighter for these is necessary but boring
Eagle Wolf	Posted - 2006.01.07 01:15:00 - [49] I agree. This seems like a common sense addition that should have hapened alread. It would also ease traffic by not having to have as many ships/trips 2 move items
Dakath	Posted - 2006.01.07 01:29:00 - [50] After the LAG!Ö is nerfed this would be a great idea. Please make it a T1 ship. I'm tired of uber ships that no single player can get a hold on unless they already have a T2 monopoly "I WIN" ticket. Throw us regular guys a bone, CCP.
Chedburn Eve Defence Force Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.13 17:50:00 - [51] I'm thinking tier 2 tech II haulers :) Could have the same models as transport ships just different skins? Give them one extra low/med slot, at least 7-8 low slots and about 20,000 capacity? However make them very weak and expensive. Of course, there is always making freighters able to scoop cans.
Jenny Spitfire Caldari LoneStar Industries Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2006.08.13 17:54:00 - [52] Originally by: Chedburn I'm thinking tier 2 tech II haulers :) Could have the same models as transport ships just different skins? Give them one extra low/med slot, at least 7-8 low slots and about 20,000 capacity? However make them very weak and expensive. Of course, there is always making freighters able to scoop cans. Let the dead be ready? ---------------- Cruelty is God's way of showing kindness.
DubanFP Caldari	Posted - 2006.08.13 18:09:00 - [53] Edited by: DubanFP on 13/08/2006 18:12:36 Edited by: DubanFP on 13/08/2006 18:11:45 Personally I think a 100k m3 ship that goes faster then the frieghter would make the frieghter useless, 770,000 m3 is more then is really needed anyways. I would rather have a ship that would go the same exact speed as current frieghters, but only be able to carry 20-30k m3. since the 5k m3 of current designs are just not enough. It'd probebly cost around as much as a battleship, and it'd probebly have extra Warp strength "allow it to move through 0.0 without leting it carry cargo expanders making frieghters useless".
Andreask14 Sensus Numinis Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2006.08.13 18:13:00 - [54] Hm. I considered the proposal. And found it to be inadequate. Dismissed. ________________________________________________ Just a quick reminder that "Local" and "Instas" will always be what they are.
Lazuran	Posted - 2006.08.13 18:17:00 - [55] my $0.02: tier-3 transport ships - require L5 transport skill, have 7000-9000 base cargo capacity and 6-8 low slots. racial industrial skill bonus: +5% cargo, +5% velocity, 5% warp speed (or something useless like that, i.e. not resists like other transports), transport ship skill bonus: +5% shields, armor, hull hp per level (something like that). Penalty: 0% warp strength (= no wcs).
Bhaal Minmatar M. Corp Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.08.13 18:19:00 - [56] I have a Freighter alt in Empire. I would certainly approve of an intermediate size hauler with like 150-200k m3 capacity. I'd buy both and use both, guaranteed... It would not make my Freighter redundant one bit! ------------------------------------------------ Current Hobby other than EVE My Hero

Pages: 1 2 :: [one 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.