Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
476
|
Posted - 2015.09.03 19:38:27 -
[1] - Quote
there is a huge gap in the hauler line up, a hauler with 400,000 m3 cargo capacity a would fill that gap. it would be nice if you could fit for hauling capacity vs tank with 400,000 m3 being the hauling fit and maybe 250,000 m3 being the tank fit.
Distrubution of mass, velocity and hauling capacity for racial variants would mirror the freighter class.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
Helia Tranquilis
State War Academy Caldari State
24
|
Posted - 2015.09.03 19:51:08 -
[2] - Quote
inb4 Orca and this has been suggested several times
At least that's what's been taught to say. 100k m3 + 40k m3 fleet hangar when anti-tanked. It and T2 haulers must do. Never ask for new ships. Adapt and always use Redfrog. |
Rivr Luzade
Exclusion Cartel The Kadeshi
1850
|
Posted - 2015.09.03 19:57:17 -
[3] - Quote
I used to be quite positively vocal about this in the past before CCP changed freighters. However, with my Providence with 3 Istabs, I do not necessarily see the need for such a freighter anymore.
Station Tab :: UI Improvement Collective
|
Media freak
His Majesty's Privateers Warden.
2
|
Posted - 2015.09.03 20:04:40 -
[4] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:there is a huge gap in the hauler line up, a hauler with 400,000 m3 cargo capacity a would fill that gap. it would be nice if you could fit for hauling capacity vs tank with 400,000 m3 being the hauling fit and maybe 250,000 m3 being the tank fit.
Distrubution of mass, velocity and hauling capacity for racial variants would mirror the freighter class.
tank fit freighter fit what you are looking for or cargo fit jump freighters. |
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
476
|
Posted - 2015.09.03 20:22:55 -
[5] - Quote
Helia Tranquilis wrote:inb4 Orca and this has been suggested several times
At least that's what's been taught to say. 100k m3 + 40k m3 fleet hangar when anti-tanked. It and T2 haulers must do. Never ask for new ships. Adapt and always use Redfrog.
You can choose to not ask for what you want thats your business. ill keep asking for things i think would benefit not just myself but the game as a whole.
As ive said before i always love it when someone thinks they are arguing against my idea when in fact they are actually improving upon my argument in support of the concept.
Why do people use orcas as general haulers, they certainly arent set up to do the job well since you cannot put general goods in a maintenance bay and the remaining hauling capacity is divided into two compartments so it is inefficient for general hauling as well, which means as general haulers orcas are grossly inefficient.
ANSWER: because the game has no 400,000 m3 hauler class so they are boot-strapping, the best sub-par solution available to them.
SOLUTION: add a 400,000 me general hauler to the game !
PS thanks for the orca example !
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
M1k3y Koontz
Respawn Disabled Initiative Mercenaries
791
|
Posted - 2015.09.03 20:30:42 -
[6] - Quote
Maybe I'm missing something, but there's a class of ships called the Freighter.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
476
|
Posted - 2015.09.03 20:34:41 -
[7] - Quote
Media freak wrote:Maldiro Selkurk wrote:there is a huge gap in the hauler line up, a hauler with 400,000 m3 cargo capacity a would fill that gap. it would be nice if you could fit for hauling capacity vs tank with 400,000 m3 being the hauling fit and maybe 250,000 m3 being the tank fit.
Distrubution of mass, velocity and hauling capacity for racial variants would mirror the freighter class. tank fit freighter fit what you are looking for or cargo fit jump freighters.
No, actually the align time difference and the warp speed difference would be substantial between this and my suggestion, since i basically created a hauler roughly half the size if the freighter class.
I think perhaps my 'mirror' comment wasnt clear i didnt mean they would be freighter sized just that the largest of this class would be Caldari, the smallest the Minmatar and they relevant stats would be distributed in a similar fashion to the freighter class.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
M1k3y Koontz
Respawn Disabled Initiative Mercenaries
791
|
Posted - 2015.09.03 20:36:34 -
[8] - Quote
So you want baby freighters?
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
476
|
Posted - 2015.09.03 20:39:26 -
[9] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Maybe I'm missing something, but there's a class of ships called the Freighter.
Yes, and they are huge, have slow align times, low velocities and slow warp speeds. It is the reason you wont find many people carrying 10,000 m3 of cargo around in a freighter when smaller haulers get the job done much faster.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
476
|
Posted - 2015.09.03 20:40:53 -
[10] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:So you want baby freighters?
I didnt introduce a title for the class but i guess you could call them that.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
|
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3781
|
Posted - 2015.09.03 21:09:51 -
[11] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Maybe I'm missing something, but there's a class of ships called the Freighter. Yes, and they are huge, have slow align times, low velocities and slow warp speeds. It is the reason you wont find many people carrying 10,000 m3 of cargo around in a freighter when smaller haulers get the job done much faster.
But a freighter has a cargohold of what, 500km3 base?
Why the hell would a 400km3 base freighter class make any sense at all? |
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
476
|
Posted - 2015.09.03 21:30:06 -
[12] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:I used to be quite positively vocal about this in the past before CCP changed freighters. However, with my Providence with 3 Istabs, I do not necessarily see the need for such a freighter anymore.
Simce this discussion is about mid sized load haulers i feel justified in the following example....
Load: 200,000 m3
jumps: 4 each direction.
1. your istab provi is carrying less than half its capacity. (inefficient for this load).
2. Your provi cannot fit rigs, has twice the size and mass of the new class, so your round trip time for this load will be 'crawl' speed by comparison to the new class.
3. New class must give up capacity for round trip speed so its capacity is now, 275,000 m3 (efficient for this load).
In short, it doesnt matter how you set up your provi for mid sized loads it will always lose and by a considerable margin.
Equally important though, for large loads >400,000 m3 you win automatically, since even the fully rigged and modded Caldari variant tops out at 400,000 m3.
Lastly, and also equally imporant, for small loads the T1 and T2 small haulers will always best this new class in round trip delivery times as they should.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
476
|
Posted - 2015.09.03 21:35:17 -
[13] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:Maldiro Selkurk wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Maybe I'm missing something, but there's a class of ships called the Freighter. Yes, and they are huge, have slow align times, low velocities and slow warp speeds. It is the reason you wont find many people carrying 10,000 m3 of cargo around in a freighter when smaller haulers get the job done much faster. But a freighter has a cargohold of what, 500km3 base? Why the hell would a 400km3 base freighter class make any sense at all?
I wasnt clear, the 400.000 m3 would include the hull bonus, mods and rigs to achieve this capacity on the Caldari variant, it is the absolute max. The absolute max of the caldari freighter is above 1.2 million m3.
Sorry about the confusion.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
Haatakan Reppola
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
82
|
Posted - 2015.09.04 00:30:41 -
[14] - Quote
Looks like OP want a JF without the jump drive. Just ignore the jump drive and use a JF! |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Snuffed Out
8589
|
Posted - 2015.09.04 01:03:44 -
[15] - Quote
Sooooooooo...
You want "baby"Freighter that...
- hauls more than an Orca, but less than a Freighter
- aligns faster than a Freighter loaded with Inertial Stabilizers (for reference, this is about 20 to 25 seconds... a triple-plated battleship takes about 12 to 15 seconds) NOTE: without using the MWD-pulse trick, Orcas have the same align times as "naked" Freighters (about 35 seconds with max skills).
As long as you are not proposing that this mini-freighter also be able to field a tank equal to a tanked Orca (200k+) while having the proposed max cargo capacity... the quicker align time is really my only gripe. Even Deep Space Transports have long align times (about 15 seconds).
How did you Veterans start?
The Skillpoint System and You
|
Amarisen Gream
Divine Demise Apocalypse Now.
116
|
Posted - 2015.09.04 03:52:46 -
[16] - Quote
Here's an idea - rework the orca to be a better over all hauler.
Why introduce a new ship - when we already have one that just needs some love. I'd almost go as far as - stripping all the bays
Give it a base 75-100k m3 cargo, 250-300 SMA, 50k fleet (remove ore bay) and give it a new speciality bay that fits Ore Minerals and PI materials
xoxo
Amarisen Gream
|
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
477
|
Posted - 2015.09.04 05:14:52 -
[17] - Quote
ShahFluffers wrote:Sooooooooo...
You want "baby"Freighter that...
- hauls more than an Orca, but less than a Freighter
- aligns faster than a Freighter loaded with Inertial Stabilizers (for reference, an I-Stab Freighter takes about 20 to 25 seconds to align... a triple-plated battleship takes about 12 to 15 seconds) NOTE: without using the MWD-pulse trick, Orcas have the same align times as "naked" Freighters (about 35 seconds with max skills).
As long as you are not proposing that this mini-freighter also be able to field a tank equal to a tanked Orca (200k+) while having the proposed max cargo capacity... the quicker align time is really my only gripe.
Hell... even Deep Space Transports have long align times... about 12 to 15 seconds.
edit: looking at the numbers... - if an I-Stab Freighter (with a cargo capacity of ~500-600k) takes about 20 to 25 seconds to align... - a MWD Orca (with a capacity of about 90 to 140k) takes about 35 seconds to align (10 seconds with the MWD trick)... - and a DST (with a capacity of ~62k) takes about 12 to 15 seconds to align (10 seconds with the MWD trick)...
- where does this new mini-freighter fit in? There are only small differences in align times relative to the massive differences in hauling capacities. And in warp the Orca is just as slow as a Freighter (2 AU/sec compared to 1.4) while the DST moves at cruiser speed (3.3 AU/sec).
I guess I am not seeing why you need a new ship. Freighters kinda already do what you are asking.
And to counter your point of "if you are not carrying max capacity, you are being inefficient"... this would only be true if you are using actual fuel (and thus you need to carry max capacity to make the most money). In EVE "time" is the only thing of actual value... and an I-stab freighter wastes only a relatively small amount more time than the "smaller options" that currently exist while having VASTLY more cargo space.
1. Yes, more than the generalized support ship [Orca] that by design is obviously not intended to be a dedicated hauler and the behemoth and specialized hauling class, the freighters.
2. You can put stabs in a freighter, why not the baby version. As to orca align times those ships are, i've always imagined, packed with components to carry out its various support jobs, as ive always been perplexed why it has such a long align time given its size.
3. My OP states, "capacity vs tank". Someone with as much experience playing EVE and forum posting as you have im confused why you're confused as to what i meant. Buy because you brought it up no, as with any ship you must pay for tank by giving up primary ability, which in this case means you lose capacity to tank.
4. The orca is not a dedicated hauler it really shouldnt be in a discussion about dedicated haulers as ships that haul as part of a swiss army knife of capabilities must rightly be punished for being arguably one of the most generalized and versatile ships in the game and its stats back up that sentiment, so i think CCP devs agree.
Even DST are not truly dedicated haulers. They dont get deep space tough via mods and rigs alone but by design so DSTs serve two masters hauling and toughness. A dedicated hauler on the otherhand serves only one master and that is hauling. Can you make your sigil, a dedicated hauler, tougher sure and i have, my sigil is one tough nut to crack for a small hauler but it has taken a big hit to its true and sole master: hauling capacity.
5. The MWD trick isnt a legitimate ship statistic it is a player contrived use of game mechanics and if we start down the road of every trick someone can do with a ship as a legitimate ship stat we will never get anywhere in this discussion since you can use a T1 hauler to bump ships as they undock to make those ships viable targets for scanning or destruction but countimg this as a legitimate balancing stat for T1 haulers would be a mistake.
6. As to the provi discussion just read it, i discuss in detail how baby freighters fit in between freighters and the smaller dedicated haulers.
7. ive discussed that neither the orca nor the DSTs are dedicated haulers so their stats. shouldnt be mixed in a discussion with the dedicated hauler series. Also you dismiss the difference between 2AU warp speed and 3.3 AU like it was nothing really but id die for a base 3.3 AU warp speed on my charon.
8. About inefficiency. Whatever you can do in a istab freighter for mid sized loads the baby freighter would do it significantly better. My current round trip is 18 jumps his istab freighter would take a lot longer to complete this task than the baby freighter would.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
477
|
Posted - 2015.09.04 05:25:13 -
[18] - Quote
Amarisen Gream wrote:Here's an idea - rework the orca to be a better over all hauler.
Why introduce a new ship - when we already have one that just needs some love. I'd almost go as far as - stripping all the bays
Give it a base 75-100k m3 cargo, 250-300 SMA, 50k fleet (remove ore bay) and give it a new speciality bay that fits Ore Minerals and PI materials
1. the Orca has flight characteristics near identical to a freighter.
2. The orca is a mining support ship first and foremost it will never properly work as a hauler it can haul but game balance prohibits making into a ship that would rival a baby freighter in hauling ability because game balance wont allow it.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
477
|
Posted - 2015.09.04 05:29:43 -
[19] - Quote
Haatakan Reppola wrote:Looks like OP want a JF without the jump drive. Just ignore the jump drive and use a JF! i'll let you fly a 7 billion isk ship around highsec, might i suggest your first flight include uedama.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
Barrogh Habalu
Forever Winter Absolute Zero.
1051
|
Posted - 2015.09.04 05:52:43 -
[20] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:In short, it doesnt matter how you set up your provi for mid sized loads it will always lose and by a considerable margin. Real ships always lose to dream ones, yeah
Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
|
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2608
|
Posted - 2015.09.04 06:03:19 -
[21] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:a hauler with 400,000 m3 cargo capacity Fenrir has 435,000m3 cargohold.
We definitely need light freighters, but your numbers are too high. Large industrials haul up to almost 40,000m3; Deep Space Transports haul up to almost 70,000m3 without being cargo fit. Fenrir, the next in line, hauls at minimum 435,000m3 (456,750m3 at skill 1). We need something with a base cargohold of around 100,000m3, which when fit with 3 cargohold expanders will still be under 300,000m3. That's how you justify giving it better agility than large freighters, it needs to haul a lot less. Otherwise it's worthless.
Helia Tranquilis wrote:inb4 Orca and this has been suggested several times
At least that's what's been taught to say. 100k m3 + 40k m3 fleet hangar when anti-tanked. It and T2 haulers must do. Never ask for new ships. Adapt and always use Redfrog. Every time this is suggested, it takes about 5 minutes before some loon, in their infinite wisdom, has the gall to suggest that the Orca is a functional light freighter. Leaving aside the price and training implications, it has absolutely none of the benefits over a full-size freighter that a light freighter would have.
Pirate ship Nightmare, can you fathom
Larger but with smaller spikes than Phantasm
The Succubus looks meaner
But the Revenant cleaner
Seems as they get bigger, the smaller spikes they has'm
|
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
477
|
Posted - 2015.09.04 06:33:51 -
[22] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Maldiro Selkurk wrote:a hauler with 400,000 m3 cargo capacity Fenrir has 435,000m3 cargohold. We definitely need light freighters, but your numbers are too high. Large industrials haul up to almost 40,000m3; Deep Space Transports haul up to almost 70,000m3 without being cargo fit. Fenrir, the next in line, hauls at minimum 435,000m3 (456,750m3 at skill 1). We need something with a base cargohold of around 100,000m3, which when fit with 3 cargohold expanders will still be under 300,000m3. That's how you justify giving it better agility than large freighters, it needs to haul a lot less. Otherwise it's worthless. Helia Tranquilis wrote:inb4 Orca and this has been suggested several times
At least that's what's been taught to say. 100k m3 + 40k m3 fleet hangar when anti-tanked. It and T2 haulers must do. Never ask for new ships. Adapt and always use Redfrog. Every time this is suggested, it takes about 5 minutes before some loon, in their infinite wisdom, has the gall to suggest that the Orca is a functional light freighter. Leaving aside the price and training implications, it has absolutely none of the benefits over a full-size freighter that a light freighter would have.
I realized i should not have used the max fit capacity in my discussion. The 400,000 would be the modded and rigged max capacity of the Caldari variant. the 400,000 baby freighter would carry about 1/3 the capacity of the Charon, comparing the Caldari variants.
Thus it could be about one-third the size of the charon with accompanying appropriate stat profile.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
843
|
Posted - 2015.09.04 06:54:46 -
[23] - Quote
I have never understood the mindset of players who immediately come back with "x is not needed, you can already so something similar if you shoehorn Y"
New Eden has a problem. There is a class of criminal that cannot be contained. They like to blow up freighters. Industries everywhere would start working on solutions. One of those would certainly be faster ships that could avoid these criminals.
Also... Anyone who can't see that there is room in the hauling line up between industrials and freighters is working an angle. Fuel isn't the only efficiency station to be considered. Like all else in EVE but an ship under an active cloak, these things will be shot down for the where hell of it. A range of options from the pocket change of an industrial to the 1+ billion of freighters should certainly exist in this sort of environment. I mean come on, the base stats jump from around 4k to 400k m3 between the two classes. At the very least a base t1 line in the 40k area seems reasonable, and probably one that splits the difference at a base of around 200k as well.
To save brain sweat it could be introduced as an Interbus series of faction ships, with a few hulls based on role: speed, capacity, security. Similar to the ORE ships we could have the base models as the 40k variety, and t2 as the 200k variety.
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1682
|
Posted - 2015.09.04 06:58:18 -
[24] - Quote
I would have absolutely no use for such a ship, but that does not mean it is a bad idea. While a big part of me just wants to say, "Use a Freighter," that is one ship I have no interest in flying or even owning. The slow warp speed and slow align, plus the need to babysit it at all times is just a complete pain. So, I could support a smaller class of Freighter with an absolute max of 400k m3 capacity (if fitted for capacity) and half the align time of a Freighter (if fitted for agility).
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
424
|
Posted - 2015.09.04 08:15:17 -
[25] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:5. The MWD trick isnt a legitimate ship statistic it is a player contrived use of game mechanics It may have been player contrived (I don't know) but it used to be listed on the tips page on the old eve-o... back in 2005... If it was an unintended mechanic then it falls into the same category as jet-can mining; fully embraced by CCP.
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:I realized i should not have used the max fit capacity in my discussion. The 400,000 would be the modded and rigged max capacity of the Caldari variant. Regardless, it's too large. As has already been stated the current freighters aren't significantly bigger (Fenrir <10% larger) so the capacity you're discussing is seems to obsolete them. 250,000m3 fully expanded is about the limit I could consider... |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
843
|
Posted - 2015.09.04 09:20:17 -
[26] - Quote
Jacob Holland wrote:Maldiro Selkurk wrote:]I realized i should not have used the max fit capacity in my discussion. The 400,000 would be the modded and rigged max capacity of the Caldari variant. Regardless, it's too large. As has already been stated the current freighters aren't significantly bigger (Fenrir <10% larger) so the capacity you're discussing is seems to obsolete them. 250,000m3 fully expanded is about the limit I could consider...
Why would having the top end of the smaller freighters being close to the unenhanced base of the larger freighter be so out of line? It's not making the larger one obsolete except in edge cases where the larger one would be fit for maximum survivability and still be underloaded. That circumstance is part of the reason the baby freighter is desired in the first place.
|
admiral root
Red Galaxy
3265
|
Posted - 2015.09.04 09:36:29 -
[27] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:New Eden has a problem. There is a class of criminal that cannot be contained. They like to blow up freighters. Industries everywhere would start working on solutions. One of those would certainly be faster ships that could avoid these criminals.
First of all, that's an opporunity, not a problem.
Secondly, when was the last time you had as many people in your freighter fleet as the gankers had in theirs and still wound up with a freighter lossmail? Hell, you only need two people to move a freighter and you're 99.9% immune to gankers, just so long as the second guy is flying a rapier with dual webs. Make the third guy an interceptor pilot and you've got redundancy in the event of you being the 0.1%.
No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
|
Luscius Uta
153
|
Posted - 2015.09.04 10:00:42 -
[28] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
We definitely need light freighters, but your numbers are too high. Large industrials haul up to almost 40,000m3; Deep Space Transports haul up to almost 70,000m3 without being cargo fit. Fenrir, the next in line, hauls at minimum 435,000m3 (456,750m3 at skill 1). We need something with a base cargohold of around 100,000m3, which when fit with 3 cargohold expanders will still be under 300,000m3. That's how you justify giving it better agility than large freighters, it needs to haul a lot less. Otherwise it's worthless.
^^ This. There were so many times when I had to haul between 100k and 200k m^3, making it too much to fit in an Orca or DST, but to little to make it worth using a Freighter. I would also add that it should be rather crucial for those "light" Freighters to have much shorter train than "standard" Freighters (no Advanced Spaceship Command V please). That would make them very popular ships.
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2609
|
Posted - 2015.09.04 10:28:23 -
[29] - Quote
Luscius Uta wrote:I would also add that it should be rather crucial for those "light" Freighters to have much shorter train than "standard" Freighters (no Advanced Spaceship Command V please). That would make them very popular ships.
Part of me feels they should simply use the same skills as the big freighters. I think both should only require Advanced Spaceship Command 4 or less anyway, they don't do much. For being a capital ship, all you're actually paying for is a big hull. It shouldn't be significantly more difficult to train for than a transport which actually does have special functions.
Alternatively: make freighter skills require ASC 1 or something, and make large freighters carry an additional skill requirement of ASC 5.
Pirate ship Nightmare, can you fathom
Larger but with smaller spikes than Phantasm
The Succubus looks meaner
But the Revenant cleaner
Seems as they get bigger, the smaller spikes they has'm
|
Tappits
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
175
|
Posted - 2015.09.04 11:31:16 -
[30] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote: No, actually the align time difference and the warp speed difference would be substantial between this and my suggestion, since i basically created a hauler roughly half the size if the freighter class.
Well that's not how eve works, just because it can haul half the amount/half the size does not mean its 2x the speed.
A blank Occator can move 66,400 m3 and has a stock align time of 17.8s with max skills. A blank Fenrir can move 543,750 m3 and has a stock align time of 36s with max skils |
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
845
|
Posted - 2015.09.04 12:13:15 -
[31] - Quote
admiral root wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:New Eden has a problem. There is a class of criminal that cannot be contained. They like to blow up freighters. Industries everywhere would start working on solutions. One of those would certainly be faster ships that could avoid these criminals. First of all, that's an opporunity, not a problem. Secondly, when was the last time you had as many people in your freighter fleet as the gankers had in theirs and still wound up with a freighter lossmail? Hell, you only need two people to move a freighter and you're 99.9% immune to gankers, just so long as the second guy is flying a rapier with dual webs. Make the third guy an interceptor pilot and you've got redundancy in the event of you being the 0.1%.
Well... Um... Yar, and stuff. It's not all about you brother. I wasn't really talking about ganks as much as I was that with the situation being what it is, someone would build a more appropriate platform for shipping that didn't either cost a billion ISK, or else held more than a thimble. We have pickups, we have cargo ships... we kinda need some semi-tractor trailers, maybe some 5th wheel heavy duty trucks, and who knows but some mid range box trucks as well.
This is not a new idea, there were numerous threads on this on the original forums. People have been begging for this for years. The T2 industrials do not really fill the need, and the Orca is a fine ship but it's not really in the line nor filling the need either.
|
Luscius Uta
154
|
Posted - 2015.09.04 12:41:10 -
[32] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Alternatively: make freighter skills require ASC 1 or something, and make large freighters carry an additional skill requirement of ASC 5.
Which sounds just about right since it cuts the training time by some 20 days. |
Anthar Thebess
1286
|
Posted - 2015.09.04 13:11:43 -
[33] - Quote
Tbh i think that this game is missing armored transport ship.
ORE could come with some plans for a armored version of a hauler that can bite.
100k of fleet hangar ( better to balance cargo space this way) 10k of cargo space 6 highslots 4 medslots 4 lowslots
Capable of mounting large guns , still no bonuses to any offensive weapon , but local rep bonus, and maybe even ability to mount links - without providing bonus from hull.
So ship that can do a lot of different things , but it is not good at any of them.
Capital Remote AID Rebalance
Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
|
Arthur Aihaken
Chig
4622
|
Posted - 2015.09.04 15:17:08 -
[34] - Quote
I think a few ships that offered cargo capacity in the 50k-100k range would probably have a large appeal.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
775
|
Posted - 2015.09.04 15:22:50 -
[35] - Quote
This thread is a bad example of humankinds potential to imagine dumb things.
EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2611
|
Posted - 2015.09.04 23:00:55 -
[36] - Quote
The light freighter could be designed much like a bigger industrial, with lots of slots and powergrid, and just 75,000-125,000m3 base carry amount but a lot of room to expand. In order to increase its utility and somewhat diminish the difference made by cargo expanders, it could include some of its carry amount as fleet hangar space, or in other specialized bays.
Here is an example:
Gallente Light Freighter 30,000m3 cargohold 60,000m3 fleet hangar 6 low slots, 3 mid slots
When fit for maximum tank: 90,000m3 total capacity If you add one cargo expander: 98,250m3 total capacity (+9.17%)
When fit for maximum cargo (T1 rigs, T2 expanders): 256,008m3 total capacity If you subtract one cargo expander: 213,732m3 total capacity (-16.5%)
Furthermore it could have more high slots than industrials, with the ability to fit some weapons although not enough to compete with combat ships. These should also have decent drone bays/bandwidth for defense. They could certainly be used as a combat ship but it wouldn't be ideal by any stretch.
4 high slots, 3 turret hardpoints 1500m3 drone bay, 50mbit/sec bandwidth 3 mid slots, 6 low slots
3750MW powergrid, 400 Tf CPU
3000 shield hit points, 1500s shield recharge time 7500 armor hit points 12,500 hull hit points
Signature radius: 1250m Max velocity: 85m/s Warp velocity: 1.8 AU/s
Mass: 235,000,000 kg Agility modifier: 0.168 Base Align Time: 54.3s Max Skill Align Time: 27.5s Align time w/ max skills and 3x T2 inertial stabilizers: 16.1s
Gallente Freighter skill bonus: 5% bonus to ship velocity per level 5% bonus to ship cargo and fleet hangar capacity per level
After calculating for max skill: When fit for maximum tank: 112,500m3 total capacity If you add one cargo expander: 122,812.5m3 total capacity (+9.17%)
When fit for maximum cargo (T1 rigs, T2 expanders): 320,011m3 total capacity If you subtract one cargo expander: 267,165m3 total capacity (-16.5%)
This ship would be able to fit some battleship turrets if it selected some with cheap fittings, alternatively it could easily fit medium turrets. It could use both a large armor repairer and a 1600mm armor plate. It can carry a lot of backup drones or even use the drone bay as a small amount of extra hauling space, and it can launch a full complement of unbonused medium drones.
Pirate ship Nightmare, can you fathom
Larger but with smaller spikes than Phantasm
The Succubus looks meaner
But the Revenant cleaner
Seems as they get bigger, the smaller spikes they has'm
|
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
481
|
Posted - 2015.09.05 00:30:52 -
[37] - Quote
Jacob Holland wrote:Maldiro Selkurk wrote:5. The MWD trick isnt a legitimate ship statistic it is a player contrived use of game mechanics It may have been player contrived (I don't know) but it used to be listed on the tips page on the old eve-o... back in 2005... If it was an unintended mechanic then it falls into the same category as jet-can mining; fully embraced by CCP.
I didnt mean to imply it was an exploit, i meant it cannot be used as a ship balancing statistic because if we start balancing ships around things people do with it that were never intended, it would become impossible to balance ships.
Jacob Holland wrote:Maldiro Selkurk wrote:I realized i should not have used the max fit capacity in my discussion. The 400,000 would be the modded and rigged max capacity of the Caldari variant. Regardless, it's too large. As has already been stated the current freighters aren't significantly bigger (Fenrir <10% larger) so the capacity you're discussing is seems to obsolete them. 250,000m3 fully expanded is about the limit I could consider...
You are comparing a fully expanded, and rigged ship to any unmodded and barely trained into freighter. This isnt really a fair comparison. To be fair you would need a fully trained pilot in each with all possible rigs and mods in place. When you do that you find, using the Charon and the new Baby Charon as examples....
Charon: maxed is 1.2 million+ m3 of capacity.
Baby Charon: maxed 400,000 m3 capacity (i mentioned before this is a fully skilled pilot, rigged and modded for capacity and the Caldari variant of the baby freighters so this is the absolute maximum that any of the baby freighters could carry)
The baby freighter is carrying only 1/3 the capacity of the Charon, this is hardly, 'stepping on its toes'.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
481
|
Posted - 2015.09.05 00:53:10 -
[38] - Quote
Tappits wrote:Maldiro Selkurk wrote: No, actually the align time difference and the warp speed difference would be substantial between this and my suggestion, since i basically created a hauler roughly half the size if the freighter class.
Well that's not how eve works, just because it can haul half the amount/half the size does not mean its 2x the speed. A blank Occator can move 66,400 m3 and has a stock align time of 17.8s with max skills. A blank Fenrir can move 543,750 m3 and has a stock align time of 36s with max skils
I was actually wrong, the baby freighters will only be 1/3 the size of their bigger brothers. The stats of the baby freighters would not be pushing close to the freighters because freighters are capital class ships and their stats in every way reflect that including things like: mass, align times, and EHPs.
The baby freighter would be a sub-cap and wouldnt suffer the penalties associated with being a capital class ship nor gain the benefits.
The proper stats for the baby freighter would have to be derived not from the Occator (since it isnt a dedicated hauler, even CCPs description of the ship makes this clear it serves two masters hauling AND being tough). The ships to compare to the new baby hauler would be like the sigil and bestower since they are dedicated haulers that serve only one master that being capacity, you can make them tough if you wish but at the expense of hauling which is a dedicated haulers one true calling.
As to balancing in general the devs can work out the numbers but when they do it should turn out that this baby freighter would best a freighter for loads in the 150k to 400k range but lose in the 400k+ range since none of them could even carry that much stuff.
On the otherhand the baby freighters should lose by a considerable margin when they start carrying loads that should be hauled; for instance, in a Bestower.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
481
|
Posted - 2015.09.05 00:57:29 -
[39] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:The light freighter could be designed much like a bigger industrial, with lots of slots and powergrid, and just 75,000-125,000m3 base carry amount but a lot of room to expand. In order to increase its utility and somewhat diminish the difference made by cargo expanders, it could include some of its carry amount as fleet hangar space, or in other specialized bays.
Here is an example:
Gallente Light Freighter 30,000m3 cargohold 60,000m3 fleet hangar 6 low slots, 3 mid slots
When fit for maximum tank: 90,000m3 total capacity If you add one cargo expander: 98,250m3 total capacity (+9.17%)
When fit for maximum cargo (T1 rigs, T2 expanders): 256,008m3 total capacity If you subtract one cargo expander: 213,732m3 total capacity (-16.5%)
Furthermore it could have more high slots than industrials, with the ability to fit some weapons although not enough to compete with combat ships. These should also have decent drone bays/bandwidth for defense. They could certainly be used as a combat ship but it wouldn't be ideal by any stretch.
4 high slots, 3 turret hardpoints 1500m3 drone bay, 50mbit/sec bandwidth 3 mid slots, 6 low slots
3750MW powergrid, 400 Tf CPU
3000 shield hit points, 1500s shield recharge time 7500 armor hit points 12,500 hull hit points
Signature radius: 1250m Max velocity: 85m/s Warp velocity: 1.8 AU/s
Mass: 235,000,000 kg Agility modifier: 0.168 Base Align Time: 54.3s Max Skill Align Time: 27.5s Align time w/ max skills and 3x T2 inertial stabilizers: 16.1s
Gallente Freighter skill bonus: 5% bonus to ship velocity per level 5% bonus to ship cargo and fleet hangar capacity per level
After calculating for max skill: When fit for maximum tank: 112,500m3 total capacity If you add one cargo expander: 122,812.5m3 total capacity (+9.17%)
When fit for maximum cargo (T1 rigs, T2 expanders): 320,011m3 total capacity If you subtract one cargo expander: 267,165m3 total capacity (-16.5%)
This ship would be able to fit some battleship turrets if it selected some with cheap fittings, alternatively it could easily fit medium turrets. It could use both a large armor repairer and a 1600mm armor plate. It can carry a lot of backup drones or even use the drone bay as a small amount of extra hauling space, and it can launch a full complement of unbonused medium drones.
This thread isnt about anything except a new mid-sized, as someone called them baby freighters, that are dedicated to just one thing, carrying capacity. It could be used for other things since it will have rigs and mod slots but that isnt what its being designed to do.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
481
|
Posted - 2015.09.05 00:59:15 -
[40] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:I think a few ships that offered cargo capacity in the 50k-100k range would probably have a large appeal.
Those numbers are okay, but they seem exceedingly close to the smaller haulers so im not supporting a class of this size.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
|
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
483
|
Posted - 2015.09.05 01:01:35 -
[41] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:Tbh i think that this game is missing armored transport ship. ORE could come with some plans for a armored version of a hauler that can bite. 100k of fleet hangar ( better to balance cargo space this way) EDIT : 35k of ship maintenance bay , just to keep this interesting 10k of cargo space 6 highslots 4 medslots 4 lowslots 20mb bandwidth /100 m3 drone space Capable of mounting large guns , still no bonuses to any offensive weapon , but local rep bonus, and maybe even ability to mount links - without providing bonus from hull. So ship that can do a lot of different things , but it is not good at any of them.
While that may be true, this thread is about dedicated haulers like the sigil, bestower and charon that are designed with a single goal in mind, hauling capacity. You can rig / mod them and tweak their stats but ultimately the are still dedicated haulers at their core as would the new 'baby freighter'.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
483
|
Posted - 2015.09.05 04:27:43 -
[42] - Quote
Arya Regnar wrote:This thread is a bad example of humankinds potential to imagine dumb things.
LOL, tell you what since it seems your self esteem is somehow tied to people you dont know giving you a plus one for pointless sarcastic forum posting, i'll give you what might be the EVE forum's first:
pity +1
You know what, let's take this to the next level and see if we can make you famous !
EVERYONE THAT READS THIS PLEASE GO BACK FIND ARYA REGNAR's ORIGINAL POST AND GIVE HER A PITY PLUS ONE !
Thanks in advance for everyones participation !
Oh, her post is on page two.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
Nortion Adoulin
Not Listed
7
|
Posted - 2015.09.05 10:34:06 -
[43] - Quote
Hears a copy of a request I did over a year ago I think its quite a reasonable option. While not as tanky as requested buy this thread I thinks it would be a good starting point.
MID RANGE FREIGHTER
Mass 300-500,000 kg Cargo capacity 200-400,000 m3 Warp Speed 2.5 to 3.00 AU/s
Although these are rather lose requirements there are some possible existing presidents to work with.
Remodelling of Chimera class carrier. This ship was evolved from an existing bulk carrier so it may be fitting that it might form the bases of a new class of ship. 1 Removal of excessive Armour by 80% should take the ship down to about the required Mass 2 Removal of Jump drive will also relive the ship of considerable mass and provide much needed volume although it should be taken into consideration that a later J-drive version may be required. 3 Replacement of Power plant with a unit 20-25% of the existing should provide ample power though its final size must be dictated by the speed performance required. 4 Shield capacities should be reduced by 80% inline with the power plant reduction. This would also bring it into line with the shield strength of the Charon. Removal of the extensive emitter arrays and there subsystems will make a dramatic effect of CPU load and final cost 5 Fitting points should be reduced to 2-3 High 2-4 mid and retain the existing 4 low if possible. 6 Cargo space to be carved out of whatever volume is available with the possibility of retaining a drone bay of no more than 100m3 along with the bandwidth to operate 5 drones. 7 The Chimera has extensive link abilities and fighter control facilities, which are no longer, needed and should be removed. Some ECM ability will be helpful and if it can be retained without too much cost it would be useful. Triage module ability is not required but if any practical use for it can be proven in the freighter roll them some accommodation may be made. 8 Mastery Requirements should be reduced to no more or less than the requirements for a Charon 9 Acceleration to warp is an important factor and should take advantage of all necessary power to reach warping speed within a short a time as practically possible. 10 Cost Ideally the ship cost should fall in the 250-600,000,000-isk brackets.
CCP Ship Design Team Hello I know this is probity just another load of work for you but taking control of the game is what you want the players to do so this is what I want. Many players cannot even half full a freighter and most chugs slowly around less than half full while the small industrials donGÇÖt hold enough. Working of the existing ship should help simplify the 3D modelling although I know nothing of the technical aspects I suspect that you have earlier 3D models that were never used somewhere on file. I want to this ship to look like a simplified ship less sticky-out bits, Simple boxy keel additions. This is a strip out, bolt on rebuild which I expect to evolve over several years into a more refined craft. Please take this request seriously and reply even if it is just a refusal.
Players NOTE: The existing Charion is a large bulk freighter costs 1.2 billion ISK The Chimera is a fleet super carrier with extensive EW fit and technical bays cost 0.9 billion ISK
(note these were the prices when I first wrote this ticket over a year ago)
|
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
485
|
Posted - 2015.09.05 15:20:43 -
[44] - Quote
Nortion Adoulin wrote:Hears a copy of a request I did over a year ago I think its quite a reasonable option. While not as tanky as requested buy this thread I thinks it would be a good starting point.
MID RANGE FREIGHTER
Mass 300-500,000 kg Cargo capacity 200-400,000 m3 Warp Speed 2.5 to 3.00 AU/s
Although these are rather lose requirements there are some possible existing presidents to work with.
Remodelling of Chimera class carrier. This ship was evolved from an existing bulk carrier so it may be fitting that it might form the bases of a new class of ship. 1 Removal of excessive Armour by 80% should take the ship down to about the required Mass 2 Removal of Jump drive will also relive the ship of considerable mass and provide much needed volume although it should be taken into consideration that a later J-drive version may be required. 3 Replacement of Power plant with a unit 20-25% of the existing should provide ample power though its final size must be dictated by the speed performance required. 4 Shield capacities should be reduced by 80% inline with the power plant reduction. This would also bring it into line with the shield strength of the Charon. Removal of the extensive emitter arrays and there subsystems will make a dramatic effect of CPU load and final cost 5 Fitting points should be reduced to 2-3 High 2-4 mid and retain the existing 4 low if possible. 6 Cargo space to be carved out of whatever volume is available with the possibility of retaining a drone bay of no more than 100m3 along with the bandwidth to operate 5 drones. 7 The Chimera has extensive link abilities and fighter control facilities, which are no longer, needed and should be removed. Some ECM ability will be helpful and if it can be retained without too much cost it would be useful. Triage module ability is not required but if any practical use for it can be proven in the freighter roll them some accommodation may be made. 8 Mastery Requirements should be reduced to no more or less than the requirements for a Charon 9 Acceleration to warp is an important factor and should take advantage of all necessary power to reach warping speed within a short a time as practically possible. 10 Cost Ideally the ship cost should fall in the 250-600,000,000-isk brackets.
CCP Ship Design Team Hello I know this is probity just another load of work for you but taking control of the game is what you want the players to do so this is what I want. Many players cannot even half full a freighter and most chugs slowly around less than half full while the small industrials donGÇÖt hold enough. Working of the existing ship should help simplify the 3D modelling although I know nothing of the technical aspects I suspect that you have earlier 3D models that were never used somewhere on file. I want to this ship to look like a simplified ship less sticky-out bits, Simple boxy keel additions. This is a strip out, bolt on rebuild which I expect to evolve over several years into a more refined craft. Please take this request seriously and reply even if it is just a refusal.
Players NOTE: The existing Charion is a large bulk freighter costs 1.2 billion ISK The Chimera is a fleet super carrier with extensive EW fit and technical bays cost 0.9 billion ISK
(note these were the prices when I first wrote this ticket over a year ago)
This isn't anywhere near what im suggesting.
1. Reworking a capital class ship hull is not appropriate nor desirable, new hulls would need to be made.
2. The only stat ive written in stone is the 400.000 m3 capacity when fully rigged and modded, with a fully skilled pilot at the helm. In its max capacity fitting it would be paper thin on EHPs as all dedicated haulers are in max capacity fittings.
3. In a full tank set up this ship's carrying capacity would be small compared to its maximum potential capacity, again because all sub-cap dedicated haulers are and they should be treated this way.
4. leaving stats vague was to allow CCP to crunch numbers and decide what stats the ship should have given that it is actually more in line with being built 'up' from the smaller class dedicated haulers rather than being bulit 'down' from a capital class ship.
The freighter referencing is just to explain that the biggest ship of the new class would be Caldari and the smallest, highset velocity variant, would be minmatar. The tankiest version would be the gallente. I cannot remember what stat profile the providence has so i cannot comment on what the amarr variant would be like.
I hope this has cleared up some confusion.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
Ben Ishikela
54
|
Posted - 2015.09.05 17:09:38 -
[45] - Quote
Baby Freighter? NO! There is already enough options in the game about what ships to pick. In fact, there is too much choice that chokes teamplay. DO NOT ADD Ships that can do everything! ==> Remove JumpFreighters/CloakHauler/CloakTrick and make a new T2Freighter(ca700km3+mjd+T2resists-JumpDrive). Because we need more opportunities for piracy, escorts and decentralised economy!
Remove JumpFreighters/CloakHauler/CloakTrick and make a new T2Freighter(mjd+fleethangar+dock+T2resists-JumpDrive). Because we need more opportunities for piracy, escorts and decentralised economy!
|
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
484
|
Posted - 2015.09.05 21:56:39 -
[46] - Quote
Ben Ishikela wrote:escorts So I take it you are offering free or extremely cheap escort services then?
|
Anthar Thebess
1290
|
Posted - 2015.09.05 22:07:36 -
[47] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote:Ben Ishikela wrote:escorts So I take it you are offering free or extremely cheap escort services then? Pay enough and you will get someone to escort you. Not enough isk from hauling - ask for more.
I support every new ship , as long as it is balanced.
Capital Remote AID Rebalance
Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2611
|
Posted - 2015.09.06 00:33:59 -
[48] - Quote
Ben Ishikela wrote:Baby Freighter? NO! There is already enough options in the game about what ships to pick. In fact, there is too much choice that chokes teamplay. DO NOT ADD Ships that can do everything! ==> Remove JumpFreighters/CloakHauler/CloakTrick and make a new T2Freighter(ca700km3+mjd+T2resists-JumpDrive). Because we need more opportunities for piracy, escorts and decentralised economy! I think a better solution to bring back these things is to improve the tools people have for collecting information. I agree there are too many unknowns when it comes to fighting your enemy that it is uncommon one gets a chance to prepare for something other than the general trend given the time. But having a few imbalanced choices available that streamline everyone's options is not a good way to make prey predictable. For one thing, the prey needs to have the same tools available to them to be able to smell you coming.
Pirate ship Nightmare, can you fathom
Larger but with smaller spikes than Phantasm
The Succubus looks meaner
But the Revenant cleaner
Seems as they get bigger, the smaller spikes they has'm
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
848
|
Posted - 2015.09.06 07:29:08 -
[49] - Quote
There is no such thing as too many options, especially in a case like this where the logical progression goes from T1 industrial to freighter.
T2 ships are supposed to be specialized, and the Blockade Runners and Deep Space Transports are indeed specialized, but also kind of sit in a niche where there should be a bigger hauling option at a lower price point.
A better range of hauling options is definitely a niche that begs to be filled in the game.
Following the ORE line of Yeild, Capacity, Defense an Interbus line of haulers could go with traits like Raw Speed (Courier), Capacity (Bulk Transport), and Defense (Armored Transport).
I would suggest the line be Armor Tanked and capacity around 10x that of industrial ships (30k-40k m3 BASE total). T2 variants emphasizing their roles with couriers getting either extreme speed, nullification, or jump capability + microjump drive activation time bonus. Bulk Transport would fill the baby freighter role with more capacity (150-250 m3 Base Total), and armored transports getting a resist and raw up bonus (space megabrick)
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2611
|
Posted - 2015.09.06 08:55:32 -
[50] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Following the ORE line of Yeild, Capacity, Defense an Interbus line of haulers could go with traits like Raw Speed (Courier), Capacity (Bulk Transport), and Defense (Armored Transport). That gives me an idea:
Howabout 3 variants of light freighter: 1.) a high capacity variant that holds around as much as a jump freighter, and saves on hull cost while being a bit faster than a large freighter - fitting similar to large freighter 2.) a moderate capacity armored freighter with a lot of slots and powergrid, expensive and slow like a large freighter but with superior defenses appropriate for defending valuable cargo 3.) a speed freighter, low capacity (not so much higher than large industrial) but with much of the hull devoted to a high warp speed. It would still align slow but would warp as fast as a small industrial or faster
#1 would be ideal for general highsec hauling when a full size freighter simply isn't needed for a smaller amount of cargo
#2 could be used either to thwart suicide ganks when hauling extremely expensive cargo, or could be taken with escort outside of highsec, could haul enough to make a small escort fleet worth the time and effort, and could serve as an alternative to jump freighters in some cases
#3 would be the T1 cousin to the jump freighter, much smaller and doesn't actually jump, but with high warp speed it could be escorted by someone with a webifier and made to cross a long distance very quickly relative to how much it carries. This could be useful for small groups trying to manage supply runs.
Pirate ship Nightmare, can you fathom
Larger but with smaller spikes than Phantasm
The Succubus looks meaner
But the Revenant cleaner
Seems as they get bigger, the smaller spikes they has'm
|
|
jam pan
Aliastra Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2015.09.06 10:16:14 -
[51] - Quote
If the numbers seem inefficient, take a courier with you. Fenrir triple i stabbed is what you want. sub 25 second warp, 400k cargo. Or is that not what you want? |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
849
|
Posted - 2015.09.06 11:14:53 -
[52] - Quote
Well, for one it requires the escort to do. For another it's a pretty big price tag for loads that small and smaller.
Why should there not be a range of transport options?
Consider that the baby freighter will be easier to pop than a full size one, and be easier to gank for those smaller loads. Options are always good. |
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
486
|
Posted - 2015.09.06 14:58:17 -
[53] - Quote
jam pan wrote:If the numbers seem inefficient, take a courier with you. Fenrir triple i stabbed is what you want. sub 25 second warp, 400k cargo. Or is that not what you want?
No, the baby freighter would be 1/3 the size of the Fenrir, able to be rigged and modded, not be a capital ship. cost a lot less, align and warp faster, have far fewer EHPs.
It is actually a large T1 hauler not really a small freighter.
About, "take someone with you", game balancing. This is like telling combat pilots the cannot have cargo holds for ammo and need someone running around with them jet-canning them ammo when their projectiles run out, could it work, sure should a projectile turret pilot have to have a constant side-kick to do his basic job, no.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
admiral root
Red Galaxy
3270
|
Posted - 2015.09.06 15:11:36 -
[54] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:About, "take someone with you", game balancing. This is like telling combat pilots the cannot have cargo holds for ammo and need someone running around with them jet-canning them ammo when their projectiles run out, could it work, sure should a projectile turret pilot have to have a constant side-kick to do his basic job, no.
The point of telling people to take someone with them is that gankers frequently work in teams and you shouldn't expect to be able to defeat them solo.
No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
851
|
Posted - 2015.09.06 16:22:00 -
[55] - Quote
If baby freighters were a thing teams of gankers could still gank them. In fact, they would be gankable with less than what a freighter takes, making the smaller loads still worth attacking.
The point is that not every load is worth the risk of a freighter. Not every load is worth the hassle of safely moving a freighter.
It's not really about avoiding gankers as much as it is not using a sledgehammer when all you need is a 12 ounce claw hammer.
Combat ships come in 9 T1 sizes from frigate to titan. Surely we can spread that love around at least a little. |
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
482
|
Posted - 2015.09.06 17:05:26 -
[56] - Quote
-1
It seems you want to move your goods significantly faster when it's not possible to provide these bonuses without breaking the rest of the hauling range.
T1s: ~10s align 3 AU/s DSTs: ~18s align 3.3 AU/s Orca: 38s align 2 AU/s Freighters: ~40s align 1.4 AU/s
Since your proposal is so close to an Orca in terms of hauling capacity you're looking at trying to split hairs between the base align speed of an Orca versus a Freighter and possibly warping at an incredibly rapid 1.7AU/s.
Do you really feel it's necessary for a brand new ship class to be developed for those marginal gains?
but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
|
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
486
|
Posted - 2015.09.06 23:43:30 -
[57] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:-1
It seems you want to move your goods significantly faster when it's not possible to provide these bonuses without breaking the rest of the hauling range.
T1s: ~10s align 3 AU/s DSTs: ~18s align 3.3 AU/s Orca: 38s align 2 AU/s Freighters: ~40s align 1.4 AU/s
Since your proposal is so close to an Orca in terms of hauling capacity you're looking at trying to split hairs between the base align speed of an Orca versus a Freighter and possibly warping at an incredibly rapid 1.7AU/s.
Do you really feel it's necessary for a brand new ship class to be developed for those marginal gains?
sigh.....i have to explain this again.....
The dedicated hauler line for the Amarr is, sigil. bestower then a huge, massive. titanic, enornous, gigantic, colossal, mind-numbingly large epic leap in carrying capacity to reach the providence.
I hope the wording there will help more people see where the hole in the dedicated hauler line up is that this new hauler is intended to fill.
You cannot in any reasonable conversation about dedicated haulers toss that abomination called an Orca in the discussion, it is the swiss army knife of ships, it must take huge penalty as a hauler because it has so many uses and the more generic and diverse a ship's range of abilities the more it must be punished for that range of abilities.
The Orca's justly deserved penalties include (but are not restricted to): being expensive, having a wasted capacity for general hauling because you cannot do general hauling in its huge maintenance bay, large mass, near capital class align times, divided general hauling holds which because it us divided wastes hauling efficiency and makes some loads impossible to haul in it just because its hold is divided into two compartments and not because its total capcity is too small. It has a hidden penalty with regards to hauling because even though it is bonused for general hauling if it was a dedicated hauler its capacity to haul would be larger initially and so the hauling bonus would be bigger on a dedicated hauler, and to avoid a wall of text i will stop here giving the plethora of reasons the Orca is not a dedicated hauler and does not fill the role this discussion is about, nor should it.
A finer but still important reason precludes the DSTs from being true dedicated haulers, a dedicated hauler is designed around only ONE purpose hauling and nothing else. The DSTs in their description explain they serve TWO masters BOTH hauling and being tough. The DSTs are one if several branches of haulers that stray away from the dedicated hauler line up because while intended as haulers the are special environment haulers that have one or more side stats that do not increase hauling capacity but usually survivability. Another branch that follows the hauler+survivor branch of haulers are the blockade runners.
sigh....and i repeat this next part again....
While i have adopted someone else's term,'baby freighter', the new class is not being designed 'down' from the frighter class but rather 'up' from the smaller dedicated haulers like the sigil and bestower, the justification being that the freighters are capital class ships and are both granted bonuses like high EHPs and penalties like slow align times and slow warp speeds, which it would be unfair to build down from since the new ship line would be only 1/3 the size of a capital class ship and therefore not even close to capital class in size. Further, the capital class haulers come with, and justifiable so, capital class price tags, while this new sub-cap ship would not.
sigh...and ill just repeat some more.....
The caps align in 40 secs and have warp speeds of 1.4 AU. again this is for a capital ship and is punished for align time and warp speed accordingly.
The T1s sit at: 10 sec align and 3AU warps.
Since the new ship line is not a capital its abilities are bulit closer to its sub-cap brothers and (not claiming this is balanced just tossing out an example) and so might have these stats: align 25 secs and warp speed base value of 2.4 AU. Rigged it could push both numbers but surrender capacity to do so like the sigil and bestower can.
sigh...and i hope i dont have to repeat this all again......
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
485
|
Posted - 2015.09.07 02:30:18 -
[58] - Quote
Sigh so you've not used a DST as a hauling ship?
They can have almost 100 k m3 capacity if fitted for cargo - align quicker and can manage freighter level eHp in certain cases.
They're a damn hauling ship, what else are you gonna use it for?
Sigh.
but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
|
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
486
|
Posted - 2015.09.07 05:06:26 -
[59] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Sigh so you've not used a DST as a hauling ship?
They can have almost 100 k m3 capacity if fitted for cargo - align quicker and can manage freighter level eHp in certain cases whilst warping as fast as a cruiser.
They're a damn hauling ship, what else are you gonna use them for?
Sigh.
sigh...hopefully people start reading some of the previous posts or for that matter at least the OP.
Tell me what fitting gets 400,000 m3 of cargo in your DST and you got a deal, else it does me and eve, zero good for solving the problem at hand.
My current round trip is 18 jumps, so if use your suggestion i get to....
1. be restricted to 100.000 m3 capacity. 2. It would take me a total of 72 jumps, IF IM LUCKY but if the inefficiencies of breaking my load apart force me to take another round trip or two, then my total jumps required would be bump up to respectively: 90 or an awe inspiring 108 total jumps.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
851
|
Posted - 2015.09.07 05:28:48 -
[60] - Quote
DST is a T2 version of the racial industrial. It still leaves a massive gap in the industrial lineup that jumps from industrial to freighter.
That lineup goes from 3.5k m3 base capacity to almost 450k base hauling capacity in one jump. There is an ocean of room between those 2 levels. Training time is likewise odd, going from an hour to a month in one mighty leap to reach the next hull.
There is no reason that flying a giant box in space should cost a ton of ISK, and no reason that boxes in decent increments do not exist.
If the reason these ships exist is to provide pirates with targets that's fine, but at the least a hauler should not need a capital ship to move loads over 100k but below 400k.
Taking the T1 line up a couple of steps say 10x capacity and 50x base gives you around 35k base and about 175k base. Adjust that around a bit so that each class is beginning slightly more than the max of the smaller size.
Making it a faction line makes it easier to balance as you only need one set of hulls. Let the Industrials and their T2 variants stay as 'military transports' and let interbus sell their designs as they are neutral and focused just on moving cargo. It's what they did to mining with the ORE brand. |
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2611
|
Posted - 2015.09.07 11:50:09 -
[61] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:-1
It seems you want to move your goods significantly faster when it's not possible to provide these bonuses without breaking the rest of the hauling range.
T1s: ~10s align 3 AU/s DSTs: ~18s align 3.3 AU/s Orca: 38s align 2 AU/s Freighters: ~40s align 1.4 AU/s
Since your proposal is so close to an Orca in terms of hauling capacity you're looking at trying to split hairs between the base align speed of an Orca versus a Freighter and possibly warping at an incredibly rapid 1.7AU/s.
Do you really feel it's necessary for a brand new ship class to be developed for those marginal gains? Why not a ship with DST align, and with less tank/warp in exchange for more cargo?
If you had bothered to read the OP, you might have realized that is what is being suggested, and there is a very large gap making plenty of room for it in the current lineup.
You can't look at only agility because there is a lot more to hauling ships than just agility.
I'd say you can't just look at cargo, but there is actually a huge gap there anyway which pretty much necessitates a new hull design. The gap is actually large enough to fit three new ship classes in it just to cover all of the missing sizes. One more is an absolute minimum.
Pirate ship Nightmare, can you fathom
Larger but with smaller spikes than Phantasm
The Succubus looks meaner
But the Revenant cleaner
Seems as they get bigger, the smaller spikes they has'm
|
Tabyll Altol
Breaking.Bad Circle-Of-Two
116
|
Posted - 2015.09.07 12:01:47 -
[62] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:there is a huge gap in the hauler line up, a hauler with 400,000 m3 cargo capacity a would fill that gap. it would be nice if you could fit for hauling capacity vs tank with 400,000 m3 being the hauling fit and maybe 250,000 m3 being the tank fit.
Distrubution of mass, velocity and hauling capacity for racial variants would mirror the freighter class.
I see no real gap.
-1 |
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
486
|
Posted - 2015.09.07 12:59:50 -
[63] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Sigh so you've not used a DST as a hauling ship?
They can have almost 100 k m3 capacity if fitted for cargo - align quicker and can manage freighter level eHp in certain cases whilst warping as fast as a cruiser.
They're a damn hauling ship, what else are you gonna use them for?
Sigh. sigh...hopefully people start reading some of the previous posts or for that matter at least the OP. Tell me what fitting gets 400,000 m3 of cargo in your DST and you got a deal, else it does me and eve, zero good for solving the problem at hand. My current round trip is 18 jumps, so if use your suggestion i get to.... 1. be restricted to 100.000 m3 capacity. 2. It would take me a total of 72 jumps, IF IM LUCKY but if the inefficiencies of breaking my load apart force me to take another round trip or two, then my total jumps required would be bump up to respectively: 90 or an awe inspiring 108 total jumps. Well at least you're accepting that DST's are actually haulers now - so I've rebuffed one of your fallacies already - now we're discussing how to deal with a quite specific problem of your own devising...
...for which there's already an obvious solution: agility fit freighters.
Now let's look at those for a minute, either we can shove on a full rack of inertia stabilizers for approximately the 25s align time that your new mini-freighter/massive-DST can achieve - OR - we can do a full rack of hyperspatial accelerators to get into the same ballpark as the 2.4AU/s warp speed you've proposed for this mini-freighter/massive-DST...
BUT what you can't do with a freighter is buff both those stats using just the three lowslots provided.
And if you follow this train of logic - buffing both would result in imbalance for the current hulls right? I mean who'd fly an agility fit freighter if you could have this new hull that nails both those categories and costs 20% of the price as you propose?
It's almost like CCP put these things called lowslots and modules into the game to allow customisation of the ship hulls for different circumstances and uses.
but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
854
|
Posted - 2015.09.07 16:53:13 -
[64] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:
40k -> 100k -> 150k -> 320k+ seems more than a fair progression to me already.
It would be, if we were discussing a line up of T1 ships, instead of a bunch of relatively very expensive T2 Ships and capital ships. |
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
489
|
Posted - 2015.09.07 16:58:19 -
[65] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote: Well at least you're accepting that DST's are actually haulers now - so I've rebuffed one of your fallacies already - now we're discussing how to deal with a quite specific problem of your own devising...
Speaking of fallicies, making claims a person never said then attackimg that statement instead of any actual claim the person did make is a classic fallacy. So please find the quote where i claim specifically that a DST is not a hauler. I said they are not dedicated haulers because they are a combination of both being tough and being haulers, which makes them not 'dedicated' haulers, as the dedicated haulers like the sigil, bestower and the like only serve one master and that is hauling, not being tough AND hauling.
The irony of claiming I commited a fallacy and didnt while in the same sentence you commit a fallacious attack would be funny perhaps if it werent so telling about your grasp of what a fallacy actually is but it is obvious you are clueless on the subject so perhaps you might want to look up the definition of the term fallacy before you slaughter its use anymore.
eli Apol wrote: ...for which there's already an obvious solution: agility fit freighters Now let's look at those for a minute, either we can shove on a full rack of inertia stabilizers for approximately the 25s align time that your new mini-freighter/massive-DST can achieve - OR - we can do a full rack of hyperspatial accelerators to get into the same ballpark as the 2.4AU/s warp speed you've proposed for this mini-freighter/massive-DST...
BUT what you can't do with a freighter is buff both those stats using just the three lowslots provided.
And if you follow this train of logic - buffing both would result in imbalance for the current hulls right? I mean who'd fly an agility fit freighter if you could have this new hull that nails both those categories and costs 20% of the price as you propose?
It's almost like CCP put these things called lowslots and modules into the game to allow customisation of the ship hulls for different circumstances and uses.
Well, i now understand why you keep making references to fallacies, its because you love committing them so much!
Please find were i proposed specifically that the new hauler would cost 20 percent the cost of a freighter. It would cost substantially less, this I have said, its actual price i have never said specifically what it would be.
So, you again make the same fallacy you just got done making which is attributing a comment to me I never said and fallaciously attacking that statement. So again i commited no fallacy but again you did, you really need to have someone explain to you what a fallacy actually is before you return to stringing anymore of them together like this in such close succession.
Apples to apples or oranges to oranges there is NO ship no matter how you rig or mod it that would out perform the new class in any scenario it is designed to fit. What you can, and have done, is compare apples (speed fit freighter for instance) to oranges (non-speed fit new class hauler) and come to bogus conclusions. If you fit both the new ship class and a freighter for speed get a load this new class is designed to carry efficiently, the freighter will....wait for it...wait for it....beat the freighter EVERY TIME!!
Again compare apples (capacity fit DST) to apples (capacity fit new hauler) and again the new hauler always wins at hauling loads it is supposed to be focused on like 400,000 m3 hauls for the very simple(?) reason that the capacity fit DST cannot haul 400,000 m3 at all !
And because im sure youre going to rehash the speed argument ill just rehash the counter argument, preemptively. If you again compare apples (Speed fit DST) to apples (speed fit new hauler), the new hauler can still carry probably like 270,000 m3 of cargo meaning that for the range of capacity this ship is intended to fill you will make 3 trips to do what the new hauler does in one. As i stated my round trip run is 18 jumps and no fit you can put onto a DST would make it efficient enough to do 54 jumps in the time the new hauler completed 18 jumps.
Eli apol wrote:
In terms of gaps - a max fit cargo Orca comes in about 150k m3 of general storage (with huge specific storage capacities beyond that).
So the gap we're looking at is 150k (max skill cargo fit Orca) - 320k m3 (minimum skill bulkheaded freighter)...do you still feel we need something to fill that relatively small gap?
40k -> 100k -> 150k -> 320k+ seems more than a fair progression to me already.
Again, apples to apples and oranges to oranges, not the freighter class, the Orca. the DST or ANY OTHER SHIP THAT HAS EVER EXISTED IN EVE, can beat the new hauler at what it is designed to do.
Reread my previous posts for the arguments as to why this is true because im tired of rehashing the same statements.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
487
|
Posted - 2015.09.07 16:59:13 -
[66] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Eli Apol wrote:
40k -> 100k -> 150k -> 320k+ seems more than a fair progression to me already.
It would be, if we were discussing a line up of T1 ships, instead of a bunch of relatively very expensive T2 Ships and capital ships.
So now we want cheap and disposable balance wrecking ships as well?
Yep this thread is going places.
e: adding quoting
but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
|
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
487
|
Posted - 2015.09.07 17:00:39 -
[67] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:Again, apples to apples and oranges to oranges, not the freighter class, the Orca. the DST or ANY OTHER SHIP THAT HAS EVER EXISTED IN EVE, can beat the new hauler at what it is designed to do.
Reread my previous posts for the arguments as to why this is true because im tired of rehashing the same statements.
I specifically said your new ship would BREAK the balance by being completely OP and better than the current lineups...which is exactly what your saying it will do as well....thanks logic.
e: removing too much quoting
e2: Anyways, have fun with your thread, I-1'd and can't be bothered to read the same boring reasons for you suggesting it over and over either. HF.
but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
|
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
489
|
Posted - 2015.09.07 17:01:50 -
[68] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:So now we want cheap and disposable balance wrecking ships as well?
Yep this thread is going places.
You sure do love fallacious arguments.
Sadly, it seems your love for fallacious arguments doesnt seem to be going anywhere.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
487
|
Posted - 2015.09.07 17:06:52 -
[69] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:Eli Apol wrote:So now we want cheap and disposable balance wrecking ships as well?
Yep this thread is going places. You sure do love fallacious arguments. Sadly, it seems your love for fallacious arguments doesnt seem to be going anywhere.
Well since I was adding some quotes to show who I was responding to I'm still here for one last post. You should really try an agility fit freighter - or better yet, use warp mods and then have a webbing alt so you insta-align.
It does exactly what you're requesting a new (redundant) ship for.
but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
855
|
Posted - 2015.09.07 17:19:32 -
[70] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:Eli Apol wrote:
40k -> 100k -> 150k -> 320k+ seems more than a fair progression to me already.
It would be, if we were discussing a line up of T1 ships, instead of a bunch of relatively very expensive T2 Ships and capital ships. So now we want cheap and disposable balance wrecking ships as well? Yep this thread is going places. e: adding quoting
How does a flying box wreck the balance of anything? Because it might be slightly more challenging to get your Yar! on?"
The new ships would have balanced tank levels to go with their smaller size. They would have similar levels of profitability to gank, just on a smaller scale.
The game may be based on PvP, but not every single pixel need be a combat ship. As I said, we go from frigate to titan in 9 T1 steps, with multiple tiers of T2 mixed in there. We can afford some attention for things that don't polish your personal Epeen once in a while. |
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2611
|
Posted - 2015.09.07 22:23:43 -
[71] - Quote
Tabyll Altol wrote:I see no real gap.
-1 Bestower: ~40,000m3 maximum ^ | | GAP | | V Fenrir: ~500,000m3 minimum
There's the gap. What do you propose already exists that fills in the gap?
Don't say DST, it's a huge price and skill jump for a smaller gain in cargohold space because it's super tanky.
Don't say Orca, it's a multi-role ship with a price and agility barely better than a freighter, with an even higher skill cost.
There's nothing left. Nothing fits. Nothing fills the gap.
Pirate ship Nightmare, can you fathom
Larger but with smaller spikes than Phantasm
The Succubus looks meaner
But the Revenant cleaner
Seems as they get bigger, the smaller spikes they has'm
|
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
489
|
Posted - 2015.09.08 00:46:11 -
[72] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Maldiro Selkurk wrote:Eli Apol wrote:So now we want cheap and disposable balance wrecking ships as well?
Yep this thread is going places. You sure do love fallacious arguments. Sadly, it seems your love for fallacious arguments doesnt seem to be going anywhere. Well since I was adding some quotes to show who I was responding to I'm still here for one last post. You should really try an agility fit freighter - or better yet, use warp mods and then have a webbing alt so you insta-align. It does exactly what you're requesting a new (redundant) ship for.
since isnt returning this response is for other possible readers........
Would you want to have to have an alt or a second player with you while you did everything you do in a ship. Ammo supply ship hovering around your combat ship, want to use a jump gate, nope you gotta have a warp gate alt to shove you through the gate in his warp gate ship, want to use a MJD, sorry your MJD enable ship pilot buddy wont be on for three more hours, want to fire your guns. sorry you have a zero cap ship and need a cap transfer for every shot you take even when your running L1s in a frigate, in short, EVE becomes world of side-kicks since you cannot do the most basic of things without a co-pilot.
Absurd and so is get an insta-warp buddy whenever you want to freighter 400,000 m3 load because nobody made a 400,000 m3 dedicated hauler.
Btw, there hasnt been a single, 'alternative', option to a 400,000 m3 dedicated hauler that has been suggested that i didnt already know about and try, they all scream, 'EVE needs a dedicated 400.000 m3 hauler to do this because X option isnt good enough', no matter what ship you use or how you set up that ship.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
489
|
Posted - 2015.09.08 00:49:31 -
[73] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Tabyll Altol wrote:I see no real gap.
-1 Bestower: ~40,000m3 maximum ^ | | GAP | | V Fenrir: ~500,000m3 minimum There's the gap. What do you propose already exists that fills in the gap? Don't say DST, it's a huge price and skill jump for a smaller gain in cargohold space because it's super tanky. Don't say Orca, it's a multi-role ship with a price and agility barely better than a freighter, with an even higher skill cost. There's nothing left. Nothing fits. Nothing fills the gap.
God i wish i was as succinct as you are, well done !
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
487
|
Posted - 2015.09.08 03:54:59 -
[74] - Quote
Right... I've thought about this and I disagree hugely with how you guys are arguing this - but I've perhaps changed my tune which is why I'm returning.
Firstly I don't see why anyone in this thread considers the DST purely as 'the tanky one' - I use mine almost always fit for maximum cargo with pretty much zero tank (20k ehp) because it can use the MWD/cloak trick - which on T1 haulers requires fitting PG modules to use thus lowering their overall cargo even further - whilst managing more than double of what a T1 hauler can carry. DSTs are fantastic haulers just on this alone. The integral warp stability, ability to MJD and potential to brick tank them just makes them more valuable.
Secondly *pedant-alert* a fenrir @ minnie freighter 1 with 3x bulkheads only has 321,995 m3...not the 500k suggested as it's 'minimum' - basing your proposal around this initially might have made me more welcoming of the proposal as asking for something to fill 100-300 seems more reasonable to me than the thread title.
And thirdly, the main reason I've changed my tune. I started spreadsheeting some numbers based upon those points above that were mulling in my head - and maybe it's not such an unreasonable idea. My basis being an ORE battleship-sized freighter/hauler:
- 2 H / 3 M / 2 L, 3 rigs as it's T1 still.
- Base cargo 100,000 m3 +5% per ORE freighter level (336,481 m3 with max skills and using all rigs and lows)
- 25s align +5% agility per ORE freighter level (20s max skills, 12s with T2 rigs and lows)
- 2 AU/s (standard BS warp speed, upto 4.5 if you use all the rigs and shiny lows)
- Something like 150k EHP if fitted for max tank, like Orcas and Bowheads a large part of it would be structure HP and a DC2
- Maybe 30k EHP just from a couple of invulns (MJD/MWD + cargo/agility fit)
- Enough PG/CPU to fit an MWD, MJD (or LSE) in the mids with 2x invulns, DC2 + bulkheads for max tank along with probe launcher and cloak in high slots
- ~200m manufacturing cost after the market settles, roughly the same as T1 BS
So a 125k m3 hauler with either a 12s align OR a battleship's buffer tank OR a frigate's warp speed... ...or a 330k m3 hauler with 20s align AND a cruiser's tank AND a battleship's warp speed... ...or something in between the lot.
Looking at that I'm not sure if I would be tempted or not which is kind of why I've persuaded myself that maybe this isn't too bad an idea
but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
858
|
Posted - 2015.09.08 04:27:11 -
[75] - Quote
I am not sure on the numbers and I do my posting at work on my phone...which is why I rarely answer specifics.
In general, the haulers go from 3.5k-ish to 100 times that in one jump.
I don't count Blockade Runners or DST for the same reason I don't stick Assault frigates in the same direct line to destroyers. T2 ships are specialized branches, not mainline ships, and they cost a significant premium for their specialization.
So the gap is easiest expressed as multiples of the base industrial capacity. Jumping to 10x base capacity gives you in general a new hull that starts around where the base hulls max. Somewhere around 45x does this again for the gap on the new hulls and freighters.
For my part, this is almost entirely about cost. I tend to drift from one area to the next, and keep a lot of stuff in a Iteron 5 for fitting and ammo. It's often overfull. Drones and missiles can take up plenty of space, and it supplies all sizes of combat ship. Often I just sell off and buy new ships wherever I go.
I don't need a freighter, and it would get ganked if I used it since I would shrinkwrap mauraders to bounce around in there if I had one, yet the Iteron is too small. For my purposes the premium for a DST is also not worth it.
There is a gap, and it's huge. Filling it would not be a bad thing. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2612
|
Posted - 2015.09.08 04:41:21 -
[76] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Secondly *pedant-alert* a fenrir @ minnie freighter 1 with 3x bulkheads only has 321,995 m3...not the 500k suggested as it's 'minimum' You're right, I missed that bulkheads reduce cargo. It should also be noted that overdrive injectors reduce cargo, though it's only a bit relevant as people probably don't fit overdrive injectors to freighters very often, but they do fit and I'm sure someone somewhere uses them. (probably for autopiloting)
Eli Apol wrote:So a 125k m3 hauler with either a 12s align OR a battleship's buffer tank OR a frigate's warp speed... I'd change the text to "a small industrial's warp speed...", because 4.5 AU/s is indeed how fast the Sigil, Badger, Nereus, and Wreathe warp. It's slightly more accurate and slightly more relevant.
I really like your given stats. I'm cool with a light freighter having almost no fitting capacity, but I think there really is room to give it more than large freighters and it shouldn't increase the hull cost much just for a light fitting, a slot layout sort of like the Orca and maybe even as much powergrid. I like to think people could active tank these--not that it's particularly a good idea--but I think giving people more bad/marginal options is always a good way to increase the variety in fittings.
Pirate ship Nightmare, can you fathom
Larger but with smaller spikes than Phantasm
The Succubus looks meaner
But the Revenant cleaner
Seems as they get bigger, the smaller spikes they has'm
|
Media freak
His Majesty's Privateers Warden.
2
|
Posted - 2015.09.08 05:50:47 -
[77] - Quote
This sounds like it should be a T2 battlecruiser or battleship. The T2 being it specializing into hauling instead of combat. With the price reflecting appox what the other T2 of that class are going for.
Or its another T2 line of freighter where instead of the jump ability it has less tank, and cargo than a normal freighter but more agility |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2612
|
Posted - 2015.09.08 05:57:13 -
[78] - Quote
Media freak wrote:The T2 being it specializing into hauling instead of combat. That doesn't make a lick of sense. There are T1 haulers in the game.
Pirate ship Nightmare, can you fathom
Larger but with smaller spikes than Phantasm
The Succubus looks meaner
But the Revenant cleaner
Seems as they get bigger, the smaller spikes they has'm
|
Mike Whiite
Geuzen Inc
394
|
Posted - 2015.09.08 07:04:28 -
[79] - Quote
cargo hold size is only interesting when it's dependable. should be measured in isk a M3 .
as for the need of new haulers, I think there is a place for the EVE version of an (Oostindie vaarder or Spiegelschip)
these where more or less warships that sacrificed a cannon deck for cargo hold, though instead of making a new ship, this could also be established by making a large high slot module that takes the place of a turret or Launcher hard point.
and by making the stacking penalty for these modules reverse, so that by offering 1 hard point you gain a little extra cargo space less than a extended cargo bay or instance, though by 3 of these modules it will be more interesting than a extended cargo bays, for instance.
and with that give a slight boost to the fleet hanger of the DTS.
|
Anthar Thebess
1291
|
Posted - 2015.09.08 07:15:21 -
[80] - Quote
ShahFluffers wrote:Sooooooooo...
You want "baby"Freighter that...
- hauls more than an Orca, but less than a Freighter
- aligns faster than a Freighter loaded with Inertial Stabilizers (for reference, an I-Stab Freighter takes about 20 to 25 seconds to align... a triple-plated battleship takes about 12 to 15 seconds) NOTE: without using the MWD-pulse trick, Orcas have the same align times as "naked" Freighters (about 35 seconds with max skills).
As long as you are not proposing that this mini-freighter also be able to field a tank equal to a tanked Orca (200k+) while having the proposed max cargo capacity... the quicker align time is really my only gripe.
Hell... even Deep Space Transports have long align times... about 12 to 15 seconds.
edit: looking at the numbers... - if an I-Stab Freighter (with a cargo capacity of ~500-600k) takes about 20 to 25 seconds to align... - a MWD Orca (with a capacity of about 90 to 140k) takes about 35 seconds to align (10 seconds with the MWD trick)... - and a DST (with a capacity of ~62k) takes about 12 to 15 seconds to align (10 seconds with the MWD trick)...
- where does this new mini-freighter fit in? There are only small differences in align times relative to the massive differences in hauling capacities. And in warp the Orca is just as slow as a Freighter (2 AU/sec compared to 1.4) while the DST moves at cruiser speed (3.3 AU/sec).
I guess I am not seeing why you need a new ship. Freighters kinda already do what you are asking.
And to counter your point of "if you are not carrying max capacity, you are being inefficient"... this would only be true if you are using actual fuel (and thus you need to carry max capacity to make the most money). In EVE "time" is the only thing of actual value... and an I-stab freighter wastes only a relatively small amount more time than the "smaller options" that currently exist while having VASTLY more cargo space.
As long as this will have less than 60k EHP im fine. Balance can come in many ways
Capital Remote AID Rebalance
Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
|
|
Celthric Kanerian
Ascendance Of New Eden Workers Trade Federation
438
|
Posted - 2015.09.08 09:25:14 -
[81] - Quote
Bowhead full of haulers?
Joking.
I'd say either you go large (Freighters) or you go home. |
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
492
|
Posted - 2015.09.08 16:29:19 -
[82] - Quote
Mike Whiite wrote:cargo hold size is only interesting when it's dependable. should be measured in isk a M3 .
as for the need of new haulers, I think there is a place for the EVE version of an (Oostindie vaarder or Spiegelschip)
these where more or less warships that sacrificed a cannon deck for cargo hold, though instead of making a new ship, this could also be established by making a large high slot module that takes the place of a turret or Launcher hard point.
and by making the stacking penalty for these modules reverse, so that by offering 1 hard point you gain a little extra cargo space less than a extended cargo bay or instance, though by 3 of these modules it will be more interesting than a extended cargo bays, for instance.
and with that give a slight boost to the fleet hanger of the DTS.
No, that is just another complicated way to end up with a sub-par result.
I have no way of knowing this for sure but based on my own programming experience im guessing that creating and balancing a basic hauling ship, as per the request, would be one of the easiest new ship coding and balancing tasks that you can do in EVE.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
492
|
Posted - 2015.09.08 16:34:09 -
[83] - Quote
Celthric Kanerian wrote:Bowhead full of haulers?
Joking.
I'd say either you go large (Freighters) or you go home.
read previous posts ive made covering this argument.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
1358
|
Posted - 2015.09.08 17:06:53 -
[84] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:Celthric Kanerian wrote:Bowhead full of haulers?
Joking.
I'd say either you go large (Freighters) or you go home. read previous posts ive made covering this argument.
read previous posts a lot of folks have made covering 'NO'.
(touche' mon pussycat) |
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
492
|
Posted - 2015.09.08 18:54:51 -
[85] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:Maldiro Selkurk wrote:Celthric Kanerian wrote:Bowhead full of haulers?
Joking.
I'd say either you go large (Freighters) or you go home. read previous posts ive made covering this argument. read previous posts a lot of folks have made covering 'NO'. (touche' mon pussycat)
OMG you totally got me......GOOD ONE !
You are a clever one no doubt. I wont be messing around with you again, no way, I know 190+ IQs when i see them.
You should log off and go tell your family, friends and twitter followers how clever you were, feel free to link your post at my expense and with my full blessing !
I want to make sure you receive full 'credit' for this genius level commentary, i wouldn't have it any other way !
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
Media freak
His Majesty's Privateers Warden.
2
|
Posted - 2015.09.08 20:35:23 -
[86] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Media freak wrote:The T2 being it specializing into hauling instead of combat. That doesn't make a lick of sense. There are T1 haulers in the game.
and these would be battle cruisers or battleships that are specialized in hauling thus why T2. It makes as much sense as discounting the DST and the orca as haulers cause of the cost and training time. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
861
|
Posted - 2015.09.08 21:40:52 -
[87] - Quote
Hauling stuff isn't some hyper specialized ship function. It's one of the most basic things a ship does. It's worth its own T1 line-up.
Why should moving loads bigger than a bread box always require billion+ ISK ships? Seriously, where's the balance problem in an unarmed flying box? There are more playstyles in EVE than pirates and they could use a little dev time too. If anything this puts more targets in space. Is 'no' just a Pavlovian response now-post an idea, get a flurry of 'no' on reflex?
A full line of cargo moving options is almost a QOL issue. It's not some huge balance nightmare if freight can suddenly be moved in sub freighter amounts in ships that don't cost a billion ISK. |
Media freak
His Majesty's Privateers Warden.
2
|
Posted - 2015.09.08 22:04:41 -
[88] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Hauling stuff isn't some hyper specialized ship function. It's one of the most basic things a ship does. It's worth its own T1 line-up.
Why should moving loads bigger than a bread box always require billion+ ISK ships? Seriously, where's the balance problem in an unarmed flying box? There are more playstyles in EVE than pirates and they could use a little dev time too. If anything this puts more targets in space. Is 'no' just a Pavlovian response now-post an idea, get a flurry of 'no' on reflex?
A full line of cargo moving options is almost a QOL issue. It's not some huge balance nightmare if freight can suddenly be moved in sub freighter amounts in ships that don't cost a billion ISK.
CCP has always and still claims that cost should not be included when talking about balancing things.
400 000 m^3 is freighter territory. and thus if ccp did have a ship that could move that amount you can be sure that it would no better than a freighter for that load size. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2612
|
Posted - 2015.09.08 22:21:30 -
[89] - Quote
Media freak wrote:400 000 m^3 is freighter territory. and thus if ccp did have a ship that could move that amount you can be sure that it would no better than a freighter for that load size. What's wrong with that? A smaller freighter can still be a freighter.
Nobody is suggesting giving this ship all of the benefits of one ship and none of the drawbacks. The post was very specific as have been our responses since then: the proposed ship is smack dab BETWEEN large industrials and freighters. The specific attributes are up for discussion, but the basic idea isn't unbalanced for it can't be, for the very description of it is an exact match with what balance is.
None of you have offered a single shred of reasoning for why this is a bad idea, and every argument against it has been a strawman misrepresentation of the idea. What you oppose is your view of what the suggestion is, not what the suggestion really is.
Pirate ship Nightmare, can you fathom
Larger but with smaller spikes than Phantasm
The Succubus looks meaner
But the Revenant cleaner
Seems as they get bigger, the smaller spikes they has'm
|
ISD Decoy
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
1164
|
Posted - 2015.09.09 03:32:20 -
[90] - Quote
Quote:4. Personal attacks are prohibited.
Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not conductive to the community spirit that CCP promotes. As such, this kind of behavior will not be tolerated.
5. Trolling is prohibited.
Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive, and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote. I have removed a trolling personal attack. There is no need for this nonsense on our boards. If you can't stick to the topic at hand, and can't be civil, please don't post.
ISD Decoy
Captain
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
|
Mike Whiite
Geuzen Inc
394
|
Posted - 2015.09.09 06:30:05 -
[91] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:Mike Whiite wrote:cargo hold size is only interesting when it's dependable. should be measured in isk a M3 .
as for the need of new haulers, I think there is a place for the EVE version of an (Oostindie vaarder or Spiegelschip)
these where more or less warships that sacrificed a cannon deck for cargo hold, though instead of making a new ship, this could also be established by making a large high slot module that takes the place of a turret or Launcher hard point.
and by making the stacking penalty for these modules reverse, so that by offering 1 hard point you gain a little extra cargo space less than a extended cargo bay or instance, though by 3 of these modules it will be more interesting than a extended cargo bays, for instance.
and with that give a slight boost to the fleet hanger of the DTS.
No, that is just another complicated way to end up with a sub-par result. I have no way of knowing this for sure but based on my own programming experience im guessing that creating and balancing a basic hauling ship, as per the request, would be one of the easiest new ship coding and balancing tasks that you can do in EVE.
as a programmer you might be right, no experience in that area/ though ganes should nt be build arround the programmers convenience.
This game already has more ships than is needs, almost every new ship cannibalizes on existing ships or simply makes them obsolete.
The requested ship is niece that needs to have a larger bay and a better Defense than a DTS it also needs to be faster than a Freighter, if that is the case why would I use a DTS? a small difference in Warp Speed?
if the Defense is less it becomes a gank magnet and people wont use it.
A Reconverted Battleship/Battle-cruiser with a some means to defend it self/or participate in an attack has more uses Defending a Mining Fleet while being able to take a load Hold Extra Fuel/Ammo/loot while not making the pilot buggering his nose the entire op.
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2613
|
Posted - 2015.09.09 10:40:28 -
[92] - Quote
Mike Whiite wrote:This game already has more ships than is needs, almost every new ship cannibalizes on existing ships or simply makes them obsolete.
A Reconverted Battleship/Battle-cruiser with a some means to defend it self/or participate in an attack has more uses Defending a Mining Fleet while being able to take a load Hold Extra Fuel/Ammo/loot while not making the pilot buggering his nose the entire op. I disagree with your assertion that new ships make old ships obsolete. Not only do I not believe it always happens, I actually feel that it has never happened yet. Please give me an example of a ship that was marginalized by the addition of another specific ship.
I like the idea of a defense-oriented hauler but it's just yet more room for more hauler options, demonstrating that the field is very much not overdone and still has a lot of room for innovative designs. But defensive haulers don't need to be limited to mini-freighters, and mini-freighters don't need to be limited to defensive hauling.
I can come up with at least twenty distinct types of haulers beyond what this game has each with its own special and very significant niche, with none stepping on any toes at all. This game currently only has 12 types of hauler that I can think of, and 4 of them are primarily made for other purposes. (fast industrial, large industrial, specialized industrial, blockade runner, deep space transport, noctis, orca, rorqual, freighter, bowhead, carrier/supercarrier, jump freighter
Pirate ship Nightmare, can you fathom
Larger but with smaller spikes than Phantasm
The Succubus looks meaner
But the Revenant cleaner
Seems as they get bigger, the smaller spikes they has'm
|
Mike Whiite
Geuzen Inc
394
|
Posted - 2015.09.09 12:41:59 -
[93] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote: I disagree with your assertion that new ships make old ships obsolete. Not only do I not believe it always happens, I actually feel that it has never happened yet. Please give me an example of a ship that was marginalized by the addition of another specific ship.
I like the idea of a defense-oriented hauler but it's just yet more room for more hauler options, demonstrating that the field is very much not overdone and still has a lot of room for innovative designs. But defensive haulers don't need to be limited to mini-freighters, and mini-freighters don't need to be limited to defensive hauling.
I can come up with at least twenty distinct types of haulers beyond what this game has each with its own special and very significant niche, with none stepping on any toes at all. This game currently only has 12 types of hauler that I can think of, and 4 of them are primarily made for other purposes. (fast industrial, large industrial, specialized industrial, blockade runner, deep space transport, noctis, orca, rorqual, freighter, bowhead, carrier/supercarrier, jump freighter
It's your good right to disagree.
though most assault Frigates have been grounded after the T3 Destroyers to name one example.
as for industrial ships, once you can use Transport ships there is almost no reason to use a Fast/Large/Specialized industrial.
the Rorquel is in such a sad shape it hardly fits in that list.
The Noctis used to be nice, but aside from the fact that salvaging isn't very profitable, you could just invest that isk in one of the higher tier MTU's.
and on top of that the current Blockade Runners/DTS/and Freighters lack any form of interesting diversities between them.
not getting thrilled of 4 extra ships of which 2 are all but useless at the introduction, because of the slot layout with a cargo bay that can hold 400 m3 which can not be worth more than 4 Tornado's
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2613
|
Posted - 2015.09.09 15:34:26 -
[94] - Quote
A lot of people say a given ship is useless because it has a sub-par slot layout, but I think they're selling themselves short. I've always celebrated slot layout diversity and I think that the slot rebalance on the Coercer and Cormorant was actually a bad thing. There are uses for a ship with only one mid slot, or only one low slot.
Pirate ship Nightmare, can you fathom
Larger but with smaller spikes than Phantasm
The Succubus looks meaner
But the Revenant cleaner
Seems as they get bigger, the smaller spikes they has'm
|
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
496
|
Posted - 2015.09.09 17:36:38 -
[95] - Quote
Media freak wrote:Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Media freak wrote:The T2 being it specializing into hauling instead of combat. That doesn't make a lick of sense. There are T1 haulers in the game. and these would be battle cruisers or battleships that are specialized in hauling thus why T2. It makes as much sense as discounting the DST and the orca as haulers cause of the cost and training time.
Wrong on every account: not a cruiser, not a battleship, DST and Orca discussions have already been covered.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
496
|
Posted - 2015.09.09 17:44:27 -
[96] - Quote
Media freak wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:Hauling stuff isn't some hyper specialized ship function. It's one of the most basic things a ship does. It's worth its own T1 line-up.
Why should moving loads bigger than a bread box always require billion+ ISK ships? Seriously, where's the balance problem in an unarmed flying box? There are more playstyles in EVE than pirates and they could use a little dev time too. If anything this puts more targets in space. Is 'no' just a Pavlovian response now-post an idea, get a flurry of 'no' on reflex?
A full line of cargo moving options is almost a QOL issue. It's not some huge balance nightmare if freight can suddenly be moved in sub freighter amounts in ships that don't cost a billion ISK. CCP has always and still claims that cost should not be included when talking about balancing things. 400 000 m^3 is freighter territory. and thus if ccp did have a ship that could move that amount you can be sure that it would no better than a freighter for that load size.
No, 400,000 is not freighter territory, please see numerous posts as to why.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
496
|
Posted - 2015.09.09 17:46:46 -
[97] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Media freak wrote:400 000 m^3 is freighter territory. and thus if ccp did have a ship that could move that amount you can be sure that it would no better than a freighter for that load size. What's wrong with that? A smaller freighter can still be a freighter. Nobody is suggesting giving this ship all of the benefits of one ship and none of the drawbacks. The post was very specific as have been our responses since then: the proposed ship is smack dab BETWEEN large industrials and freighters. The specific attributes are up for discussion, but the basic idea isn't unbalanced for it can't be, for the very description of it is an exact match with what balance is. None of you have offered a single shred of reasoning for why this is a bad idea, and every argument against it has been a strawman misrepresentation of the idea. What you oppose is your view of what the suggestion is, not what the suggestion really is.
Appreciate your support but this is not a freighter nor anything like one, freighters are capitals and there is a huge jump up in ability from sub-cap to capital.
This is a larger version of the smaller T1 haulers.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2614
|
Posted - 2015.09.10 05:29:00 -
[98] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:Appreciate your support but this is not a freighter nor anything like one, freighters are capitals and there is a huge jump up in ability from sub-cap to capital.
This is a larger version of the smaller T1 haulers. Based on the cargo size you're going for, it would be about the size of an Orca, or maybe a bit smaller. Larger than a battleship. Orca is sort of officially a capital ship, and it lies in a range I like to call mini-capital. It's the only mini-capital we have so far but your suggestion could be the next.
Pirate ship Nightmare, can you fathom
Larger but with smaller spikes than Phantasm
The Succubus looks meaner
But the Revenant cleaner
Seems as they get bigger, the smaller spikes they has'm
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |