| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc
Test Alliance Please Ignore
2926
   |
Posted - 2016.02.20 18:55:56 -
[1] - Quote
There is a blatant unbalance between standard and specialty industrials in which, while their max storage sizes are pretty well balanced, the specialty industrials reach that max without any cargo expanders but the standard haulers only reach it with a full set of expanders.
Here are the cargohold sizes of a Nereus, Epithal, and Iteron Mk V with max skills, T2 cargo expanders, and T1 cargo rigs:
Nereus: 17,294 m3
Epithal: 69,710 m3
Iteron Mk V: 37,152 m3
I actually think even at this point it's unbalanced in favor of the specialty hauler, but it's no huge disparity.
But what if we measure their storage without cargo expanders? Just max skills:
Nereus: 3375 m3
Epithal: 68,050 m3
Iteron Mk V: 7250 m3
It's absurdly high for a hauler that has fitted no cargo expanders at all!! How has this not been fixed yet?
I see three possible solutions:
1.) shrink specialty holds and make them gain from cargo expanders--even just partly
2.) give cargo expanders a stacking penalty and increase industrial base cargohold to compensate
3.) reduce the specialty hold size and give them regular cargohold to compensate
Any of these options would at least help close the gap between specialty haulers and other tech 1 haulers.
FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."
Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
4730
|
Posted - 2016.02.20 19:05:07 -
[2] - Quote
The speciality haulers are "pre-nerfed" by being able to only haul the specialty item. It limits their usefulness and functionality to just that category of goods it was designed for.
Also, noting the stealth buff to people who do PI (such as myself by the way).
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2031
|
Posted - 2016.02.20 19:38:59 -
[3] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
It's absurdly high for a hauler that has fitted no cargo expanders at all!! How has this not been fixed yet?
Because it isn't broken. In fact, it's the purpose they were made for in the first place.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Cristl
339
|
Posted - 2016.02.20 19:39:44 -
[4] - Quote
Unusually, both the first and second posters in a thread are correct here I'd say.
Keep the specialist haulers as they are.
Apply Reaver's 2nd point: buff generic haulers' base capacity, but also apply stacking penalties to cargo expanders. This will give them more choices in fitting, shouldn't break freighters (with only 3 low slots), and remove the somewhat overblown exponentiation of a base ability.
|
Rivr Luzade
Kenshin.
DARKNESS.
2333
|
Posted - 2016.02.20 19:54:13 -
[5] - Quote
Cristl wrote:Unusually, both the first and second posters in a thread are correct here I'd say.
Keep the specialist haulers as they are.
Apply Reaver's 2nd point: buff generic haulers' base capacity, but also apply stacking penalties to cargo expanders. This will give them more choices in fitting, shouldn't break freighters (with only 3 low slots), and remove the somewhat overblown exponentiation of a base ability.
Not break freighters? Thanks, but I like my 1.1M Providence cargohold. And what would you want to have stacking? Only the cargo expansion or also the penalties? 
UI Improvement Collective
My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2994
|
Posted - 2016.02.20 20:03:17 -
[6] - Quote
A stacking penalty on cargo extenders is generally good for haulers since it actually provides them with much more meaningful choices. Currently you are either max cargo low value bulk, or min cargo high value. There is no middle ground. A stacking penalty and a buff to the base cargo level allows for middle ground fits.
And more fitting options for industrialists are always a good thing for gameplay. They should have vastly larger fitting options as it stands, but cargo extenders getting the stacking penalty is at least a step away from binary fits. |
Rivr Luzade
Kenshin.
DARKNESS.
2333
|
Posted - 2016.02.20 20:10:10 -
[7] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:A stacking penalty on cargo extenders is generally good for haulers since it actually provides them with much more meaningful choices. Currently you are either max cargo low value bulk, or min cargo high value. There is no middle ground. A stacking penalty and a buff to the base cargo level allows for middle ground fits.
And more fitting options for industrialists are always a good thing for gameplay. They should have vastly larger fitting options as it stands, but cargo extenders getting the stacking penalty is at least a step away from binary fits.
In case of freighters, I wholeheartedly disagree with you. Exactly because EC do not have stacking penalties there is a meaningful point in switching between ECs and Istabs. Beyond ECs and Istabs, there are no meaningful fitting choices for freighters, stacking penalties or not.
UI Improvement Collective
My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc
Test Alliance Please Ignore
2926
|
Posted - 2016.02.20 20:44:48 -
[8] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Apply Reaver's 2nd point: buff generic haulers' base capacity, but also apply stacking penalties to cargo expanders. This will give them more choices in fitting, shouldn't break freighters (with only 3 low slots), and remove the somewhat overblown exponentiation of a base ability.
Not break freighters? Thanks, but I like my 1.1M Providence cargohold.[/quote]
If you read carefully, you'd see that your 1.1M Providence will be sticking around. The max cargohold won't be changed, only the base value to reflect that there are stacking penalties on cargo expansion.
I'll show you an example change, and I'll go a step further and increase the percentage bonus from cargo expanders to retain some of the gap between a high cargo fit and a low cargo fit:
T2 expander: +40% cargo
3x T2 expanders (with stacking penalty): ~131.75% increase
Old Providence base cargohold (before skill): 456,750
Old Providence base cargohold (skill 5): 543,750
Old Providence max cargohold (T2 expanders): 1,127,015
New Providence base cargohold (before skill): 389,800
New Providence base cargohold (skill 5): 487,250
New Providence max cargohold (T2 expanders): ~1,129,200
FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."
Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2996
|
Posted - 2016.02.20 20:48:17 -
[9] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:
In case of freighters, I wholeheartedly disagree with you. Exactly because EC do not have stacking penalties there is a meaningful point in switching between ECs and Istabs. Beyond ECs and Istabs, there are no meaningful fitting choices for freighters, stacking penalties or not.
That is a problem of freighters having no PG, CPU or slots to make meaningful fitting choices. Hamstringing the entire system in order to maintain a bad choice is silly. |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2033
|
Posted - 2016.02.20 22:31:22 -
[10] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
I'll show you an example change, and I'll go a step further and increase the percentage bonus from cargo expanders to retain some of the gap between a high cargo fit and a low cargo fit:
In that case, it's yet another unnecessary buff to EHP-fit freighters.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
|
|
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
4249
|
Posted - 2016.02.20 22:51:00 -
[11] - Quote
Reaver.
Are you familiar with the concept of a tradeoff? These haulers can haul exactly one type of item. If you nerfed them down to the same size as every other t1 hauler, we'd all just go back to using nothing but iteron Vs again. Do you really think that's better? |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc
Test Alliance Please Ignore
2926
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 01:11:57 -
[12] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote:In that case, it's yet another unnecessary buff to EHP-fit freighters.
No, it's a nerf. Freighter max cargo stays the same but freighter base cargo goes down, at least in the attributes I gave. Of course specifics will need to be decided and I don't claim to be the one to do that. Freighters are a mess anyway, and should have normalish capital ship fitting like the Rorqual.
Danika Princip wrote:If you nerfed them down to the same size as every other t1 hauler
I'm trying to be as clear as possible that I'm not pushing for any change to max cargohold size, only change to base cargohold size along with stacking penalty on expanders. This will in no way nerf specialized haulers but will be a huge buff to standard haulers.
FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."
Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
|
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
4249
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 01:18:32 -
[13] - Quote
If you buff standard haulers up to the size of the specialised, people will also no longer fly the specialised ones. The end result will be exactly the same, people will fly the biggest ship. If that means an iteron V can haul as much trit as a kryos or whichever one it is, people will fly the iteron exclusively simply for the versatility it offers. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc
Test Alliance Please Ignore
2926
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 01:47:45 -
[14] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:If you buff standard haulers up to the size of the specialised, people will also no longer fly the specialised ones. The end result will be exactly the same, people will fly the biggest ship. If that means an iteron V can haul as much trit as a kryos or whichever one it is, people will fly the iteron exclusively simply for the versatility it offers.
You're completely misunderstanding what I'm suggesting. Let me show you with numbers.
Current cargoholds:
Iteron Mk V before skills: 5800
Iteron Mk V with no expanders: 7250
Iteron Mk V with 3 expanders: 15,026
Iteron Mk V with 5 expanders and 3 rigs: 37,152
Epithal specialty hold: 67,500
================================
With stacking penalty on expansion, and expanders buffed to 40%, with base cargoholds adjusted:
Iteron Mk V before skills: 11,000
Iteron Mk V with no expanders: 13,750
Iteron Mk V with 3 expanders: ~31,865
Iteron Mk V with 5 expanders and 3 rigs: ~37,400
Epithal specialty hold: 67,500
================================
With specialty hold size nerfed, and cargo expanders now affecting specialty hold:
Epithal specialty hold before skills: 11,200
Epithal specialty hold with no expanders: 16,800
Epithal specialty hold with 3 expanders: 34,820
Epithal specialty hold with 4 expanders and 3 rigs: 67,521
================================
With specialty hold decreased, and cargo increased to compensate:
Epithal before skills: 3000 + 38,400 = 41,400
Epithal with no expanders: 3000 + 57,600 = 60,600
Epithal with 3 expanders: 6218 + 57,600 = 63,818
Epithal with 4 expanders and 3 rigs: 12,057 + 57,600 = 69,657
Epithal with 4 expanders/3 rigs but without any changes: 2210 + 67,500 = 69,710
Variation on the above, but decreasing margin on total space to go with increasing base cargohold:
Epithal before skills: 3000 + 28,400 = 31,400
Epithal with no expanders: 3000 + 42,600 = 45,600
Epithal with 3 expanders: 6218 + 42,600 = 48,818
Epithal with 4 expanders and 3 rigs: 12,057 + 42,600 = 54,657
The maximum cargohold sizes stay roughly the same, and the specialty haulers maintain a very strong advantage in total hauling capacity.
FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."
Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
|
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
4249
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 01:52:19 -
[15] - Quote
I'm sorry? I thought you said you didn't want anything to be nerfed. That is an enormous hit to the functionality of the specialised haulers.
Requiring a max cargohold fit to maintain current functionality is a nerf. You are removing fitting options from these ships, and reducing EHP and speed. That is a nerf. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc
Test Alliance Please Ignore
2926
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 02:05:22 -
[16] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:I'm sorry? I thought you said you didn't want anything to be nerfed.
I didn't say that. This thread is about either nerfing specialized haulers (they could use a nerf) or buffing standard haulers (they NEED a buff). The main point is to correct the giant gaping chasm that is the disparity between specialized haulers and standard haulers.
FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."
Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3108
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 03:29:47 -
[17] - Quote
Im in two minds.
The specialised haulers shouldn't exist in my opinion. The concept is gimmicky and the redundant haulers should have just been removed for tieracide.
That said, its fun running round in a miasmos stealing peoples cans and being impervious in all kinds of ways normal haulers can only dream of.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
4735
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 05:02:39 -
[18] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Danika Princip wrote:If you buff standard haulers up to the size of the specialised, people will also no longer fly the specialised ones. The end result will be exactly the same, people will fly the biggest ship. If that means an iteron V can haul as much trit as a kryos or whichever one it is, people will fly the iteron exclusively simply for the versatility it offers. You're completely misunderstanding what I'm suggesting. Let me show you with numbers. Current cargoholds: Iteron Mk V before skills: 5800 Iteron Mk V with no expanders: 7250 Iteron Mk V with 3 expanders: 15,026 Iteron Mk V with 5 expanders and 3 rigs: 37,152 Epithal specialty hold: 67,500 ================================ With stacking penalty on expansion, and expanders buffed to 40%, with base cargoholds adjusted: Iteron Mk V before skills: 11,000 Iteron Mk V with no expanders: 13,750 Iteron Mk V with 3 expanders: ~31,865 Iteron Mk V with 5 expanders and 3 rigs: ~ 37,400Epithal specialty hold: 67,500 ================================ With specialty hold size nerfed, and cargo expanders now affecting specialty hold: Epithal specialty hold before skills: 11,200 Epithal specialty hold with no expanders: 16,800 Epithal specialty hold with 3 expanders: 34,820 Epithal specialty hold with 4 expanders and 3 rigs: 67,521================================ With specialty hold decreased, and cargo increased to compensate: Epithal before skills: 3000 + 38,400 = 41,400 Epithal with no expanders: 3000 + 57,600 = 60,600 Epithal with 3 expanders: 6218 + 57,600 = 63,818 Epithal with 4 expanders and 3 rigs: 12,057 + 57,600 = 69,657Epithal with 4 expanders/3 rigs but without any changes: 2210 + 67,500 = 69,710 Variation on the above, but decreasing margin on total space to go with increasing base cargohold: Epithal before skills: 3000 + 28,400 = 31,400 Epithal with no expanders: 3000 + 42,600 = 45,600 Epithal with 3 expanders: 6218 + 42,600 = 48,818 Epithal with 4 expanders and 3 rigs: 12,057 + 42,600 = 54,657The maximum cargohold sizes stay roughly the same, and the specialty haulers maintain a very strong advantage in total hauling capacity.
I'm sorry, that is a load of crap.
You are presenting this as if, for example, the epithal can carry anything. It can't. It can only carry PI materials. As such its use is highly specialized and limited.
If you want to haul PI materials, use an epithal.
If you want to haul StuffGäó use an iteron mark V.
You are mixing monkey balls and apples and trying to pretend they are the same thing. They aren't.
-1.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc
Test Alliance Please Ignore
2926
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 05:19:08 -
[19] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:You are mixing monkey balls and apples and trying to pretend they are the same thing.
Not once did I try to pretend they are the same. I have adamantly defended that the specialized hold should be larger than the generalized hold, despite the Epithal having a smaller sig radius, higher HP, more powergrid, and a faster align.
FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."
Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
4736
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 05:25:01 -
[20] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:You are mixing monkey balls and apples and trying to pretend they are the same thing. Not once did I try to pretend they are the same. I have adamantly defended that the specialized hold should be larger than the generalized hold, despite the Epithal having a smaller sig radius, higher HP, more powergrid, and a faster align.--emphasis added
You are comparing a specialized cargo hold to a generic cargo hold so...your claim on not mixing like and unlike is complete Bravo Sierra.
Try again.
Still -1.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
|
|
Rivr Luzade
Kenshin.
DARKNESS.
2334
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 06:52:18 -
[21] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:
In case of freighters, I wholeheartedly disagree with you. Exactly because EC do not have stacking penalties there is a meaningful point in switching between ECs and Istabs. Beyond ECs and Istabs, there are no meaningful fitting choices for freighters, stacking penalties or not.
That is a problem of freighters having no PG, CPU or slots to make meaningful fitting choices. Hamstringing the entire system in order to maintain a bad choice is silly.
It has nothing to do with lack of fitting resources, it is simply pointless to fit tank to a freighter. You either need cargo or you need agility, nothing else matters.
UI Improvement Collective
My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2996
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 07:52:03 -
[22] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:
It has nothing to do with lack of fitting resources, it is simply pointless to fit tank to a freighter. You either need cargo or you need agility, nothing else matters.
Unless you could fit Freighters with a full range of capital low, medium & high modules.
Industrials are treated as second class targets by CCP and as long as that continues to be true they will be unrewarding ships to fly and targets of ganks will always feel victimized because they have been forced by CCP into a defenceless ship which can't afford escorts because industrial ships in space earn low isk/hour (Yes T2 manufacturing and the odd trade between hubs or very high value good can be high value, but on the whole it's poor isk/hour for actually flying the ship.)
At the point you have a full range of fittings AND cargo extenders have a stacking penalty, you now actually have fitting options that have meaningful trade off's and are not in a binary fit option but can consider 20 different priorities. |
Rivr Luzade
Kenshin.
DARKNESS.
2334
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 08:03:27 -
[23] - Quote
Which in turn would remove the differentiation between combat ships and hauling ships, which means it is not going to happen. Haulers are not supposed to have defensive capabilities beyond a "tank". Guns and offensive modules in large numbers are meant for combat ships.
UI Improvement Collective
My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc
Test Alliance Please Ignore
2926
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 08:11:17 -
[24] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Which in turn would remove the differentiation between combat ships and hauling ships, which means it is not going to happen. Haulers are not supposed to have defensive capabilities beyond a "tank". Guns and offensive modules in large numbers are meant for combat ships.
Who said anything about weapons? We're talking about giving industrial ships proper fitting room for their size class, primarily mids and lows, with ample powergrid. Nobody is suggesting turning industrials into combat ships.
FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."
Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
|
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
4252
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 08:15:12 -
[25] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Danika Princip wrote:I'm sorry? I thought you said you didn't want anything to be nerfed. I didn't say that. This thread is about either nerfing specialized haulers (they could use a nerf) or buffing standard haulers (they NEED a buff). The main point is to correct the giant gaping chasm that is the disparity between specialized haulers and standard haulers.
So...
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
I'm trying to be as clear as possible that I'm not pushing for any change to max cargohold size, only change to base cargohold size along with stacking penalty on expanders. This will in no way nerf specialized haulers but will be a huge buff to standard haulers.
You're not wanting a nerf to specialised haulers, but you are wanting a nerf to specialised haulers?
Why do you think the difference in sizes is actually a problem anyway? I can ONLY haul PI gear in my epithal, while my iteron V can haul anything I want. How is there an issue when both ships fit in seperate niches and do different things?
Why do you want a return to the times when everyone flew iteron Vs and nothing else was ever undocked? |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc
Test Alliance Please Ignore
2926
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 08:21:49 -
[26] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:You're not wanting a nerf to specialised haulers, but you are wanting a nerf to specialised haulers?
Why do you think the difference in sizes is actually a problem anyway? I can ONLY haul PI gear in my epithal, while my iteron V can haul anything I want. How is there an issue when both ships fit in seperate niches and do different things?
Why do you want a return to the times when everyone flew iteron Vs and nothing else was ever undocked?
I meant it will in no way nerf how much capacity they have.
I don't think the difference in size is a problem. I think the difference in which one has fitting options is the problem. Why should the Epithal get full fitting freedom while the Nereus and Iteron Mk V have to fit cargo expanders in all low and rig slots just to gain slightly competitive space?
FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."
Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
|
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
4252
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 08:45:45 -
[27] - Quote
Because a nerus or an iteron V can haul whatever they want, not an extremely limited range of items.
It is called a tradeoff. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc
Test Alliance Please Ignore
2926
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 09:10:46 -
[28] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:Because a nerus or an iteron V can haul whatever they want, not an extremely limited range of items.
It is called a tradeoff.
The tradeoff is too strong. The Epithal carries nearly twice as much as the Iteron Mk V with full cargo fit; with no expanders it hauls nearly ten times as much.
FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."
Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
|
Rivr Luzade
Kenshin.
DARKNESS.
2334
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 09:19:21 -
[29] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:Which in turn would remove the differentiation between combat ships and hauling ships, which means it is not going to happen. Haulers are not supposed to have defensive capabilities beyond a "tank". Guns and offensive modules in large numbers are meant for combat ships. Who said anything about weapons? We're talking about giving industrial ships proper fitting room for their size class, primarily mids and lows, with ample powergrid. Nobody is suggesting turning industrials into combat ships.
If you give haulers no weapons, tank is useless against a gank attempt. Without being able to kill off the pesky mosquitoes, the haulers still dies regardless of how much tank it has.
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Danika Princip wrote:Because a nerus or an iteron V can haul whatever they want, not an extremely limited range of items.
It is called a tradeoff. The tradeoff is too strong. The Epithal carries nearly twice as much as the Iteron Mk V with full cargo fit; with no expanders it hauls nearly ten times as much.
The Epithal just as the Iteron V cannot carry anything worth anything on trade routes that matter. Any T1 hauler with more than 100M in their cargo is a 98% guaranteed suicide.
UI Improvement Collective
My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Legion
17440
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 09:23:15 -
[30] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Danika Princip wrote:Because a nerus or an iteron V can haul whatever they want, not an extremely limited range of items.
It is called a tradeoff. The tradeoff is too strong. The Epithal carries nearly twice as much as the Iteron Mk V with full cargo fit; with no expanders it hauls nearly ten times as much.
The Epithal is also useless if you want to haul minerals as it can carry a grand total of 550m3. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |