EVE Search - all industrial ships need reworking

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

all industrial ships need reworking

» 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)
ragewind	Posted - 2006.04.05 22:06:00 - [1] so we have the delivery systems of eve starteing with the basic industrial movein up to there largest vertion these are fine cheep easy for a singel player to use, these i feel are fine. next we have the transports or as there info says blockade runners smaller hold better speed bettegr arrmor but looking at ther stats they arnt that srong there bonus is the +2 to warp strenght so these do have a role but are somewhat limited in there use were is the next step we have gone from large van to oceanic cargo ship in some leap next we have a big jump to the frighter this is meant to be DADDY the big mother of the hauling world use by the mad traders or corps but then these ships are useless to put it simply they have no resistance to electronic warfair !! remember its smaller transport the blockade runer is more imune!! so if you fly one of tehse you can get stoped and killed by a bunch of t1 frigs as they can hold and stop the ship anywere and 15KM is a long way to a gate at 8ms the other main draw back is they are baned from takeing and making jet cans this is soley to stop macro miners but them macro miners stay in empire were you are only a warp distance from a station so they quite happerly use a macro hauler and leave it there keep ther risks low and there cost down now they are never going to use a 1.7 billon ship to macro mine its too risky and would look very out of place in empire but this i whats needed for mining in 00 there are feilds of nice ore out there and untill player owned defences are biult and implemented in the game no one mines as it takes twice the numder of ships to do then ncping dose as you need a fleet to protect anyone mineing. another thing id like expaning in the industrial area is why are there no faction ships im sure the caldari nave has frighters and im sure they would be stronger and abel to defend them selves in some form couple of basic weapon systems or a small drone or fighter bay is not an odd idea for a ship of its size and to stop mad mining just add the adtridute +500% to mining laser CPU ect this stops them becomeing the macros new frend. now on to can lets get rid of half the lag in the game by fixing the cans these are so small in space that they are useless and only ever used when you have about 40 per corp in a belt so can we make the ancereabel can have a decent size to atleast match a jet can so it makes it worth buying. with all the ideas on improved mining ships such as the capital miner the transporting sector needs an upgrade to cope with the ever growing needs of eve! test
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2006.04.05 22:12:00 - [2] Rubbish. There is something between T2 haulers and the Freighter, it's called the Carrier. Freighters are not allowed to load/unload outside stations for any number of balance reasons relating to their huge cargo capacity, macro mining being a very minor part of this. And no, they won't get slots - it's called a tradeoff. And no, you can't have huge secure cans for mining ops. Miners never had it so good. They don't also need a pony. "The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer
ragewind	Posted - 2006.04.05 22:43:00 - [3] yeah i gues they have it good stached in empire with rats that have balls of cotten wool for weapons and concord to protect there ass but as yet my corp or aliance has failed to get any 00 mining dose for the simple reason that a industrial isnt up to the job. and as for Carriers they have about the same cargo as the industrials and im prtiy sure ccp never desides to make Carriers to become cargo runers im sure they are there to make war so we are still left with the jump from 5K hold to 170K hold and no way of hauling latge amounts of mierals. then you have the capital mining ships that peole all whant that are acored for ages and mine like troupers even these with there holds will get rather full fast and then need emprting its the ideal job for tranports ect but industrials ect will still take years to do the job in secotors 10 jumps ect froma station. as for the frighter can issue id like to know what the other issues are as i cant see how picking up or droping a jet can is going to gimp and inbalace the game test
Kittamaru	Posted - 2006.04.05 23:04:00 - [4] get the Iteron 5 and some cargo expanders + 2 or 3 escourts. 6k base capacity, so with 3 named or t2 expanders, you'd breach what, 10k?
Valator Uel	Posted - 2006.04.06 02:59:00 - [5] I agree that there needs to be something inbetween an industrial and a freighter. The jump in both size and isk is way to big, you're going from a 5000m3 500k isk indy to a 750000m3 800000000isk freighter. An indy you can get within your first week, but when will I see myself flying a freighter? In a year? Two years? So am I stuck with my bestower for up to two whole years? It's ridiculous. We're not asking for something huge, just around say 15000m3 base. With mods and skill you could bring it to say, 40000m3 - it's not revolutionary nor unbalancing, just a step up from indies. Make it cost 100mil, that's not the problem, it's not having something inbetween that is causing the problem. Put it this way, imagine if you had to go from cruiser to carrier, with no BC or BS inbetween.
Varis	Posted - 2006.04.06 07:34:00 - [6] I agree 100% We need a "battleship sized" industrial
Drizit	Posted - 2006.04.06 08:38:00 - [7] Edited by: Drizit on 06/04/2006 08:39:53 /signed Even something that will hold 50K max is better than what we have. I agree, to go from 5K base to 170K base is ridiculous and the difference in cost is way over the top. After finding out the Freighter can't pickup cans, it proved to me that I had absolutely no use for one at all. A 170K hauler with no slots at all, no protection against EW and can't even stop to have a look in an abandoned jet can is only good for taking 4 or 5 ships from one place to another to sell elsewhere. But hang on, it will take so long and cost so much just to train for a freighter that I may as well train to fly the ship I want to transport and repackage them for sale when I get there. I guess that means a freighter is completely useless then. Maya Rkell: Since when were carriers able to fly in highsec? AFAIK, they are limited to 0.0/lowsec so it seems there is nothing in highsec between indy and freighter. Even if they were able at some later date, you are still talking a billion isk to buy one. --
Ellaine TashMurkon	Posted - 2006.04.06 09:48:00 - [8] Originally by: Valator Uel I agree that there needs to be something inbetween an industrial and a freighter. The jump in both size and isk is way to big, you're going from a 5000m3 500k isk indy to a 750000m3 800000000isk freighter. An indy you can get within your first week, but when will I see myself flying a freighter? In a year? Two years? So am I stuck with my bestower for up to two whole years? It's ridiculous. We're not asking for something huge, just around say 15000m3 base. With not too much invetment, Iteron V culd get up to 20k, 25k with expensive extenders. I buy an Obelisk today. Skills are easy and I have money from inter-corporate inevstment program and some from my own trade. And I don't play 24/7. I'm half year old, but all the Obelisk Project took me less then 2 months. So, it is feasible. Unfortunately, the market of goods haulable by a freightener has a very big bad competition now :( BS-sized hauler wuld quickly dominate the market (just like BS dominates the combat ship market) and make Indys a rare sight. With that 40k expanded capacity, average hauler wuld get 6m per haul in Empire, witch is a quite good income for spending an hour AFK on autopilot. It wuld also kill all the small scale traders, unable to compete with the 1-2 month-old ones having a BS hauler. I don't say no, but it needs much balancing, as balance in hauiling is a very delicate topic. Unlike damage output in combat ships (here, people have diffrent preferences and opinions), in hauling every little meter of cargo counts. Iteron V beeing a little bit bigger then all the other industrials, is used buy like 60% of professional hauling players of all four races. And good cargohold expanders cost like hell.
ragewind	Posted - 2006.04.06 16:52:00 - [9] i had my hole point proved to me last night i picked up soem items in a badger mk2 froma station in core and on my way back i had to call in members of my aliance away from camping a station as some nice ncp's has spawned by the gate and in seconds a cursser has riped in to my armor. you really souldednt need a T2 industrial just to fly in core space T2 should be there to be used in war time when you have far better enermys than ncp's, this is all down to the industrials being set up wronge a badger 2 has 438 shilds from standered this is compared with a merlin at 375 shilds it shows how weak they are and for this reason no one will fit good named expanders to them as this just slows you down and increases the cost of the ship 10 fold as you wont risk an expander you can get 6 mil for in empire when ncp's are more than a match for any hauler due to there weakness and speed, i see no reason why a ship so large has such poor shilds as they are cruser/BC sized vessels with the hit points of a friget test
Dutarro	Posted - 2006.04.06 17:04:00 - [10] Originally by: Maya Rkell Rubbish. There is something between T2 haulers and the Freighter, it's called the Carrier.... Carriers would seem to fill the niche midway between haulers and freighters. They have a small hold of their own, but multiple industrials could dock at it, so its effective cargo capacity may be huge. What's the maximum m3 a carrier full of indys could carry, anyone know?
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2006.04.06 20:35:00 - [11] "lots" You can fit even more with mining barges btw. See the thread in Ships & Modules. And ohnoes, a carrier is a bill. Well, so's a freighter. And? "The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer
SentryRaven	Posted - 2006.04.06 22:31:00 - [12] Then why not refit to a Cargo-Carrier to have only 10% of the hangar of the original Carrier but about 200-250k Cargo Capacity. And less Drone bay pls... in any other case... check my signature :) Include Small Freighters into EVE
ragewind	Posted - 2006.04.07 00:25:00 - [13] this carryer full of industrials is in a way a bit of an exploit but again it turn one expensive ship of 900mil in to one really expansive ship including the industrials and any good cargo expanders levaing you with it being no cheeper than a frighter but then least this can fight pick up cans drop cans ect all the **** a frighter is baned for some un-known "balanceing issue" and last time i checked carryers in games or real life have never been a cargo hauler they were allways war ships whats the point in haveing ever role in eve carryed out by warships that arent used for combat? fix eves industrial sector! http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=319618&page=1
checkmarquet	Posted - 2006.04.07 11:59:00 - [14] Originally by: Maya Rkell Rubbish. There is something between T2 haulers and the Freighter, it's called the Carrier. Carriers cant go in 0.5+ and thats why they all are war ships.
Isabella Montague	Posted - 2006.04.07 16:18:00 - [15] Originally by: ragewind and as for Carriers they have about the same cargo as the industrials and im prtiy sure ccp never desides to make Carriers to become cargo runers im sure they are there to make war Who cares what CCP "decided" to make carriers for? The only question you have to ask yourself is "will it work?" Take Hummers for instance. I'm pretty sure the company builds those as offroad/military vehicles, but THOUSANDS of Hummers have never seen so much as a dirt road or a drop of mud.
Valator Uel	Posted - 2006.04.07 16:29:00 - [16] Originally by: Isabella Montague Take Hummers for instance. I'm pretty sure the company builds those as offroad/military vehicles, but THOUSANDS of Hummers have never seen so much as a dirt road or a drop of mud. You're talking about a rich-guy's personal toy. Well, if you consider a carrier your little toy then good for you, donate me a few isks so I can also get a toy. Also, any trader would think twice about buying a carrier if he can have a cheaper freighter with more cargo. Putting indies in a carrier? Sure it's an option, so's a portable POS.
Isabella Montague	Posted - 2006.04.07 17:21:00 - [17] Originally by: Valator Uel Originally by: Isabella Montague Take Hummers for instance. I'm pretty sure the company builds those as offroad/military vehicles, but THOUSANDS of Hummers have never seen so much as a dirt road or a drop of mud. You're talking about a rich-guy's personal toy. Well, if you consider a carrier your little toy then good for you, donate me a few isks so I can also get a toy. Also, any trader would think twice about buying a carrier if he can have a cheaper freighter with more cargo. Putting indies in a carrier? Sure it's an option, so's a portable POS. The statment was against his "intended use" argument. The "intended use" of a Hummer is an offroad/military vehicle, but people use it to cruise around LA. yes,the "intended use" of a carrier is a military ship, but you CAN use it to haul loads of mineral if you see fit. The guy I quoted said you couldn't because that's not what CCP had in mind when they created them.
ragewind	Posted - 2006.04.07 17:36:00 - [18] i wasnt saying you couldent just pointing out that ine one move CCP have made there gimping of the frighter pointless and silly as tere is no an alternative that now pack a hell of a lot of firepower so now its like sending a letter to you nan in a B2 stelth bomber kind of over kill fix eves industrial sector! http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=319618&page=1
Spoon Thumb	Posted - 2006.04.07 17:50:00 - [19] FYI, Bustard can make 20k+ m3u with expanded cargohold I's (+15% x5)and giant secure cans. Skills wise you are actually very close to a freighter once you have a T2 indy, and the freighters are actually in some cases faster. I've said this before, that even if I could afford a freighter, it'd not get too many opportunities to completely fill it. So to have something in-between is perfect. For stuff a Transport ship can't fit (e.g. 50k m3u), a freighter is overkill *** Spoon Thumb - I can scoop ice cream with my thumbs!
Drizit	Posted - 2006.04.07 18:54:00 - [20] Edited by: Drizit on 07/04/2006 18:56:13 Originally by: Ellaine TashMurkon It wuld also kill all the small scale traders, unable to compete with the 1-2 month-old ones having a BS hauler. Nobody said the skills have to be any less extensive to get a medium sized hauler. An indy can be bought by a noob but the training for it is minimal. A Freighter is a lot more skill intensive and takes longer to train for, as well as being well out of a noobs reach financially. Something in-between can be half the cost 500m isk and with just as much skill requirement as a Freigher. Therefore a 2 month noob could still not get there. I can't see many noobs earning 500m isk in two months in Empire space, if they do, I really want to know how they did it because I have just made my half billion after 3 months of hard work with a years worth of skills behind me. Granted, I have a BS worth 100m and two retrievers and a few medium sized ships totalling 200m but the 300m in assets has been gained slowly over a year. Without the retrievers, I would never have even got the BS by now. For a noob saving up 500m is like you saving your wages to become a millionaire. It's possible if you live in a tent and eat baked beans every day. The problem is for a noob, there are skills to buy, mods to install and a decent ship to save up for first. Thats just to earn enough isk to buy a hauler, let alone a 500m isk medium freighter. Even from my standpoint, a freighter is well out of my reach financially, even if I had the intention of buying one. I often want to haul my minerals to the factory so I can manufacture stuff. Sometimes it take 3 or more trips over 4 jumps just so I can manufacture a few items to sell. A medium sized freighter would save me 3 trips and get that stuff onto the market. Those with the big freighters are often buying it all up to sell somewhere with a more lucrative market. So my having something larger would help those who have something larger still. How can that ever hurt the economy? The point about mining with a freighter is ridiculous. It still takes just as much time to mine it whether you have one or two haulers towing it back to the station. A freighter would mean one hauler much less frequently but it doesn't increase mining yield. Even if they made medium and large freighters a corporation assets only so that NPC corporations cannot own them. In other words, a corporation can own them and buy them but an individual cannot and the ship is owned by the corp and cannot be flown by non-corp members. That means that a corp cannot buy it and then give it to a non-member for the same price. If an individual owns it, it would be easy to escrow the corp assets to the CEO of the corp they join next so long as it is not an NPC corp. Although I'd prefer not, it would mean that macro miners would have to leave the safety of their NPC corps and then they could be war dec'd. No macro outfit would ever risk that, especially with a multi million isk ship. If it comes to it, barges and haulers of any size could be linked as corp assets in that way to force macro miners into their own private corp. It would reduce macro mining, isk farming and a host of other pursuits that CCP frown on. If that's how it has to be done, thn do it that way. It allows the real players to have the ships we need in the game instead of being nerfed because of macro miners and isk farmers. --
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2006.04.07 19:09:00 - [21] No, but of course there would be a lesser skill requirement. Basis tenant of skills in Eve. Unless you want to jack the existing freighters, which would make them even MORE useless in the situation than they would otherwise be. And you're right - it'd very rapidly ruin the market. That's why it won't happen. There are VERY solid game economy reasons behind CCP's refusal to even consider these. "The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer
ragewind	Posted - 2006.04.07 23:15:00 - [22] the general feeling im geting from this an other thread is there is no midlevel due to balanceing the markets so it stops sudden floods of stuff which is ok but then the frous need to be adressed as to why they are all so god dam weak industrials are large ships atleast a match for cursers and more proberly battelcrusser size ships but there strecght in shileds armor is that of a distroyer these need changeing so they can be used singually in 00 without rates doing t6hem over in about 3K of travel is anything they should be better shileded than crussers they need ballenceing as they pop to easyerly fix eves industrial sector! http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=319618&page=1
James Duar	Posted - 2006.04.08 01:32:00 - [23] If there are game economy reasons behind why this shouldn't be done then CCP should fix the damn game economy. Namely, ALL market goods should be player-buildable and have a use. The situation with trade goods is just ridiculous.
Drizit	Posted - 2006.04.08 12:07:00 - [24] If there was a market economy issue at stake, we would never have got the freighter. OMG, a single ship that can almost empty an entire station full of trade goods and fly off with it is not unbalancing the market? If CCP decided that a freighter would not unbalance the market, I am sure that creating a smaller version is going to have even less impact. The skills may not be the same as freighter but enough of a variant that it won't be a direct link from one to the other, similar to having the frigate>destroyer and frigate>cruiser tree where the destroyer is not a logical step up to cruiser. in this way, CCP can hobble any quick step up from hauler to med freighter to large freighter the same way as they managed it with indies to transports to freighters, (transport is not a required skill for freighter). Maya, I also want to know how you seem to be so "in touch" with CCP's in-game economics strategy while the rest of us remain so "ignorant" of it. Is there some web site where I can read this strategy so I too can be just as in tune with CCP's plans for the future of Eve's market economy? Personally, I'll believe your arguement when I hear it straight from a Dev or ISD member. Otherwise it just sounds like you are fishing for ways to back an arguement against something you just don't like the idea of. If there was any issue reagarding this, I am sure a Dev or forum moderator would have commented by now since this is about the 8th time I have seen this idea posted. (Twice in the forums first page even now). --
Kittamaru	Posted - 2006.04.08 12:18:00 - [25] Originally by: Isabella Montague Originally by: ragewind and as for Carriers they have about the same cargo as the industrials and im prtiy sure ccp never desides to make Carriers to become cargo runers im sure they are there to make war Who cares what CCP "decided" to make carriers for? The only question you have to ask yourself is "will it work?" Take Hummers for instance. I'm pretty sure the company builds those as offroad/military vehicles, but THOUSANDS of Hummers have never seen so much as a dirt road or a drop of mud. the military HumVee and the civilian Hummer are nothing alike. For even CONFUSING the two... you loose your privilage to speak :P
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2006.04.08 13:37:00 - [26] Edited by: Maya Rkell on 08/04/2006 13:38:29 Drizit, incorrect. The balance to the freighter is the speed and transit time, as well as the high cost. Everyone wants something bigger than 30k m¦, and quicker and cheaper than the freighter. Won't happen. Why do I seem in-touch? Well, I've done economics 101 and seen other MMO economies. Most people just have no clue about economics (As opposed to business). And the devs only comment here when an idea is worthwhile, rather than the other way round. "The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer
Drizit	Posted - 2006.04.08 14:46:00 - [27] And I have done business law, marketing and economics but it doesn't make me a legal advisor or an authority on MMO economics. In a MMO the devs decide how the economic system works and can change it at any time they chose. In RL it's not possible to just suddenly change how the economic system works and increase or decrease market quantities or minimum sell orders at your leisure to balance the world market. Or in this case make it fair for the person who has a truck over a person who has a van. If vehicle manufacturers decided there needs to be something between a van and a car boot, would the government jump in and say it would be unfair on the van driver if they allowed them to be sold? The unfortunate part is that we are not the ones who can just create a new model of ship because we feel that there is a market for it, there are no "ship designers" in the game who can do it or it would get really unbalanced in combat. In short, you can't just apply RL knowledge to a game, you can compare it and make simulations but the rules in a sim can be changed on a whim to suit the requirements. No space flight dynamics is a prime example of changing the rules. It's a game. Therefore change the rules to gimp the ships so they can only carry ore/mins because it's mostly miners who want it, not traders who already have the freighter. It's mostly the traders who are fighting against this idea. --
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2006.04.08 14:55:00 - [28] Guess what, I have studied MMO games. More detals, if you want them, privately. You can study the Eve economy and understand what the faucets and drains of irts open economic system are, and how to control them. Trying to ask for a pony, which is precisely what you're doing, isn't going to happen. CCP were VERY careful not to make the T2 indies that much larger, and with the size and pricing of the freighters. For some very good reasons, as explained in this thread. "The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer
NE Weevil	Posted - 2006.04.09 00:07:00 - [29] Maya Rkell you seem to be very opinionated, perhaps you could put your point of view across in a less insulting manner? As for your MMO analysis, there is no "good" reason not to add a ship inbetween, it would not make a blind bit of difference to the way EVE is balanced. Think about it - everything I can do my competition can do, no big deal. It would make hauling of ore faster, but at 200 million ISK would not be too useful in 0.0 anyway (risk/ gain). They do have to be careful when introducing bigger industrial ships, otherwise there wont be too many asteroid belts left but there are plenty of ways around that too. The truth of the matter is; Frigate Mining Iteron Hauling Cost: Under 1 million ISK Gain: Slow This is fine, but if a player spends 250 times more ISK getting a Covetor and a much bigger industrial - why shouldn't they make a hundred times more ISK? If CCP don't want belts to disappear then make asteroid belts realistic, make them huge. (thousands of asteroids per belt) Btw I am 100% PvP - so this is an un-biased opinion, having said that - it does give me more to kill.
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2006.04.09 00:14:00 - [30] You say that then you make blunt statements as fact yourself. Cast no stones. And you as you admit know nothing about the economic systems, while I'm highly interested in them... "The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer

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.