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. |
|
Iain Cariaba
2692
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 09:54:28 -
[31] - 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 can carry twice as much PI materials as the Iteron Mk V. On the otherhand, the Iteron Mk V, on my alt that has Gallente Industrial V, can carry 10x as much of every ******* thing else than the Epithal, with no fitting. Add a full cargo fit and they number goes up so that the Iteron Mk V can carry 58 times the amount of everything other than PI that the Epithal can.
I don't see where this is a problem. The problem I see, as was previously mentioned, is that you're comparing monkey balls and apples.
EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid.
I couldn't have said it better.
Hello, Mr Carebear. Would you like some cheese with that whine?
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2926
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 10:03:15 -
[32] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote: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. My tank and survival rate begs to differ. There are many ways tank helps you live until you escape, You just have to be ready to escape at all. Also, buffer tank is king for protection against suicide ganks in highsec.
Rivr Luzade wrote: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. My Epithal carries 300 mil worth through highsec trade routes near Amarr during highsec wars and I have yet to get ganked.
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."
|
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
752
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 14:47:49 -
[33] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote: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. Working as intended if you ask me, now people are flying something other than the Iteron V of old. Working as intended because now there are not only fitting choices to be made but ship choices as well and to me that is a good thing.
Nevyn Auscent wrote:A stacking penalty on cargo extenders is generally good for haulers since it actually provides them with much more meaningful choices. At lvl 5 skills the capacity of a maximum cargo fit would not change, yet the base capacity is lowered to account for the greater bonuses from these new +40% expanders that are subject to stacking penalties. I cannot even begin to see how this is giving the pilot MORE fitting choices.
In the end the only players I see benefiting from this are the gankers for that reason alone this gets -1. Not true you may say and I obviously disagree. Expanders would be needed to even reach the current base cargo volume leaving fewer slots to fit tank, stabs, or agility mods making the gankers life easier. Go full tank, stabs or agility fit and you nerf your capacity forcing you to make more trips to haul the same stuff which again increases your risk of being ganked.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
1595
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 16:09:03 -
[34] - Quote
But the spa were balanced around not needing the lows for expanders particularly the dsts
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4739
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 17:48:49 -
[35] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: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.
Or anything else....you see a guy in an epithal you KNOW what he is hauling.
"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
|
Gadget Helmsdottir
Gadget's Workshop
142
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 19:32:16 -
[36] - Quote
Haven't I posted in this thread before?
Oh, wait. That was this one: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=372369
Reaver, I know it's been a few years, but things haven't changed enough to warrant messing about with specialized indies.
Well, except that we might need a few more types.
--Gadget
Work smarter, not harder. --Scrooge McDuck, an eminent old-Earth economist
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
1599
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 20:17:45 -
[37] - Quote
Gadget Helmsdottir wrote:Haven't I posted in this thread before? Oh, wait. That was this one: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=372369Reaver, I know it's been a few years, but things haven't changed enough to warrant messing about with specialized indies. Well, except that we might need a few more types. --Gadget
I day fuel for caldari (including isotopes) and non pi components for amarr
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2926
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 21:40:26 -
[38] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote:At lvl 5 skills the capacity of a maximum cargo fit would not change, yet the base capacity is lowered Lowered!? No, it would be raised dramatically. I don't think you understand how stacking penalties work.
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
4741
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 21:55:56 -
[39] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote: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?
But they really are not competing. If you are going to haul PI stuff you are doing it wrong if you are using an Iteron Mk V. Conversely if I need to haul StuffGäó I use an Iteron Mk. V. Depending on what I haul may change the fittings on the Iteron V or even switch over to a transport ship.
"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
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4741
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 22:03:28 -
[40] - 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.
Twice as much what?
Yes an Epithal can care 2x the PI material an Iteron V can. The Iteron V can carry almost 17x more non-PI cargo than an Epithal.
Nerf the Iteron V!!! [/sarcasm]
"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
|
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2044
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 22:12:22 -
[41] - 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.
Quantifying m3 with a very limited use-case as if it's just as good as general m3 is ridiculous, bordering on intellectually dishonest.
How about a weighted value? Epithal m3 * (% of typeIds epithal can carry) Vs. I5 m3 * (% of typeIds an I5 can carry).
Pretty sure the epithal needs a HUGE buff if we use that entirely arbitrary comparison instead of your entirely arbitrary comparison.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2926
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 22:21:45 -
[42] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:But they really are not competing. If you are going to haul PI stuff you are doing it wrong if you are using an Iteron Mk V. Conversely if I need to haul StuffGäó I use an Iteron Mk. V. Depending on what I haul may change the fittings on the Iteron V or even switch over to a transport ship. Please stop using this argument! You're only making yourself look stupid!
There is no point in comparing the tiny generic cargohold on the specialized industrials with the cargohold on large industrials. The pilot of the Epithal has the power to choose to carry PI materials in the ship. If that pilot wishes to carry something else, they can simply buy a different ship. The argument is moot, and the comparison between its PI hold and the Iteron's cargohold is the only comparison that matters. Its ability to haul only one material type is not nearly so strong a disadvantage as you make it out to be.
SurrenderMonkey wrote:Quantifying m3 with a very limited use-case as if it's just as good as general m3 is ridiculous, bordering on intellectually dishonest. Bordering on it? It IS intellectually dishonest. Fortunately, I have done no such thing. I have been very clear that I believe the specialized haulers should keep a larger total size than generalized haulers.
Please desist in misrepresenting my arguments.
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
4742
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 22:24:00 -
[43] - Quote
I also find the argument, "But everyone fits ship X the same way" rather dubious as well.
Yes there is lots of possible variation, but in the end, for most (if not all) ships there are probably a small number of fits. Some ships that have dual purposes (e.g. PvP or PvE) might have the highest number of fits, but haulers are not like that. Many people who have been playing the game for a period of time will eventually settle on the same or rather similar fits.
Why is this bad? People try to optimize their fits (as people often do with most things in and out of game)...this is bad because....?
Changing things so that people go back to the drawing board and re-optimize is good....because...?
"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 22:28:22 -
[44] - Quote
How do you people survive with this little intelligence?
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
4742
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 22:32:22 -
[45] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:The pilot of the Epithal has the power to choose to carry PI materials in the ship. If that pilot wishes to carry something else, they can simply buy a different ship.
Yes, that was my point. Which you call me stupid for pointing out. The two ships are for different purposes, hence comparing the specialized cargo bay to the generic cargo bay is intellectually dishonest.
"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
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4742
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 22:38:07 -
[46] - Quote
Are you not comparing the generic cargo hold of the Iteron V with the specialized cargo hold of the Epithal?
From your first post:
Quote: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
You are quite clearly comparing a specialized cargo hold with a generic cargo hold. That is what everyone else in the thread has been pointing out is where the balancing is taking place.
Yes, you are correct the specialized cargo hold on the Epithal is much larger than the generic cargo hold on the Iteron V. However, the Epithal can only carry one thing, PI stuff, whereas the Iteron V can carry anything.
Depending on what you are doing you'll want an Epithal or an Iteron V or maybe even both...the point I made earlier for which you called me stupid.
"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 22:47:23 -
[47] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Yes, that was my point. Which you call me stupid for pointing out. The two ships are for different purposes, hence comparing the specialized cargo bay to the generic cargo bay is intellectually dishonest. So absolutely any comparison at all between them is intellectually dishonest? What if the Epithal's PI hold carried 5,000,000m3 of PI materials, and the Iteron Mk V had a base cargohold of 1000m3, and a max cargohold of ~5000m3. Would it then be intellectually dishonest to offer any comparison between the two?
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
4742
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 22:52:26 -
[48] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Yes, that was my point. Which you call me stupid for pointing out. The two ships are for different purposes, hence comparing the specialized cargo bay to the generic cargo bay is intellectually dishonest. So absolutely any comparison at all between them is intellectually dishonest? What if the Epithal's PI hold carried 5,000,000m3 of PI materials, and the Iteron Mk V had a base cargohold of 1000m3, and a max cargohold of ~5000m3. Would it then be intellectually dishonest to offer any comparison between the two?
And you complain about others misrepresenting your position. Pot meet kettle.
Here is a thought Reaver, maybe the specialized cargo holds do not benefit or need expanders because of a good reason?
"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 23:12:01 -
[49] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Here is a thought Reaver, maybe the specialized cargo holds do not benefit or need expanders because of a good reason? Please do tell me the reason.
Because I'm pretty sure it's just entirely easier to haul any goods that fit in specialty haulers than it is to haul anything else, and I don't see any good reason for the disparity to be as large as it is.
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."
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2045
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 23:21:42 -
[50] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Yes, that was my point. Which you call me stupid for pointing out. The two ships are for different purposes, hence comparing the specialized cargo bay to the generic cargo bay is intellectually dishonest. So absolutely any comparison at all between them is intellectually dishonest? What if the Epithal's PI hold carried 5,000,000m3 of PI materials, and the Iteron Mk V had a base cargohold of 1000m3, and a max cargohold of ~5000m3. Would it then be intellectually dishonest to offer any comparison between the two?
Actually, yes, because they still have a qualitative difference that you're opting to ignore.
Both a 5MM m3 PI hauler and a 5K m3 max standard hauler would be bad, but neither would be bad as a consequence of the size disparity between them.
You may as well be comparing gas cloud harvester yield to strip miner yield. The two aren't really in competition with each other.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2926
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 23:33:33 -
[51] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote:You may as well be comparing gas cloud harvester yield to strip miner yield. The two aren't really in competition with each other. It would be more like comparing gas cloud harvester yield to mining laser yield, and the two are in comparison because the ships that use either one can use the other, and the stuff from it goes into the same hold. It would be wrong to say that the yield should necessarily be the same, but it would also be wrong to say that you cannot compare the two.
Likewise, the size of PI materials was initially balanced for being carried in non-specialized haulers, as was the size of minerals and ore, and they still are stored in non-specialized containers. So stop telling me they can't be compared because they can and should be compared!
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."
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2047
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 23:50:05 -
[52] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:SurrenderMonkey wrote:You may as well be comparing gas cloud harvester yield to strip miner yield. The two aren't really in competition with each other. It would be more like comparing gas cloud harvester yield to mining laser yield, and the two are in comparison because the ships that use either one can use the other, and the stuff from it goes into the same hold. It would be wrong to say that the yield should necessarily be the same, but it would also be wrong to say that you cannot compare the two.
You absolutely can't in any meaningful way. "They go in the same hold" is an arbitrary, meaningless basis for comparison.
Both yields are balanced around the desirable level of supply for their respective commodities - NOT around each other.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4744
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 23:54:46 -
[53] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Here is a thought Reaver, maybe the specialized cargo holds do not benefit or need expanders because of a good reason? Please do tell me the reason. Because I'm pretty sure it's just entirely easier to haul any goods that fit in specialty haulers than it is to haul anything else, and I don't see any good reason for the disparity to be as large as it is.
I'm sorry, I'm too stupid.
"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
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4744
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 23:59:43 -
[54] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote:Reaver Glitterstim wrote:SurrenderMonkey wrote:You may as well be comparing gas cloud harvester yield to strip miner yield. The two aren't really in competition with each other. It would be more like comparing gas cloud harvester yield to mining laser yield, and the two are in comparison because the ships that use either one can use the other, and the stuff from it goes into the same hold. It would be wrong to say that the yield should necessarily be the same, but it would also be wrong to say that you cannot compare the two. You absolutely can't in any meaningful way. "They go in the same hold" is an arbitrary, meaningless basis for comparison. Both yields are balanced around the desirable level of supply for their respective commodities - NOT around each other.
BTW, there is a hint in here to the answer to my question. And since you are so much smarter than the rest of us, I'm sure you'll see the answer right away.
"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 - 2016.02.22 00:19:53 -
[55] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote:You absolutely can't in any meaningful way. "They go in the same hold" is an arbitrary, meaningless basis for comparison.
Both yields are balanced around the desirable level of supply for their respective commodities - NOT around each other. No, the yield sizes are balanced around hauling and storage. The level of supply is independent as the unit sizes can be adjusted.
Teckos Pech wrote:BTW, there is a hint in here to the answer to my question. And since you are so much smarter than the rest of us, I'm sure you'll see the answer right away. Quoting for posterity.
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
4744
|
Posted - 2016.02.22 01:28:37 -
[56] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:SurrenderMonkey wrote:You absolutely can't in any meaningful way. "They go in the same hold" is an arbitrary, meaningless basis for comparison.
Both yields are balanced around the desirable level of supply for their respective commodities - NOT around each other. No, the yield sizes are balanced around hauling and storage. The level of supply is independent as the unit sizes can be adjusted. Teckos Pech wrote:BTW, there is a hint in here to the answer to my question. And since you are so much smarter than the rest of us, I'm sure you'll see the answer right away. Quoting for posterity.
To be clear, in this thread you are coming off as a complete arrogant **** who thinks he is smarter than everyone else, when in fact the reality is quite the opposite.
Here is what I meant, since it is quite clear you are NOT nearly as smart as you think you are....
Perhaps, specialty ships have their specialty cargo holds unaffected by expanders because balance is not just between ships, but also what they do. Did it even enter your brain that perhaps when CCP was thinking about this that maybe...they looked at this issue and felt yeah...PI needed a production buff...which in turn would lower prices? Same with mined products? SurrenderMonkey also hinted at this. Balance isn't not just what different ships can do, but also how they impact the larger game world.
You want to keep harping on the intra-ship differences as if that were the only dimension on which balance should be considered.
In short you are a completely blinkered tool who is running around calling everyone else in this thread stupid. Maybe you are indeed a lone genius...or, as is more likely, you are the lone boob who is quite simply wrong. So please do continue with our monomanical focus and ignore the rest of the issue, but let me tell you that you cannot optimize a multi-variable process by looking at the optima for each variable while ignoring the others.
Oh...and it is cargo hold, not cargohold.
"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
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2048
|
Posted - 2016.02.22 01:39:35 -
[57] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote: No, the yield sizes are balanced around hauling and storage. The level of supply is independent as the unit sizes can be adjusted.
Yield has nothing to do with how much tritanium builder bob can fit in his freighter to bring over to his assembly array. That's volume.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2927
|
Posted - 2016.02.22 01:50:24 -
[58] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Perhaps, specialty ships have their specialty cargo holds unaffected by expanders because balance is not just between ships, but also what they do. Did it even enter your brain that perhaps when CCP was thinking about this that maybe...they looked at this issue and felt yeah...PI needed a production buff...which in turn would lower prices? It did enter my brain...way back during the few minutes I spent reading the devblog about the release of these monstrosities, and I came to the conclusion that didn't make a lick of sense and it was far more likely that CCP just threw stats at these things in a lazy attempt to give them a purpose.
If they wanted to decrease the price of PI goods by making them easier to ship, they could and should simply decrease the volume of the PI goods, because then they'll fit into freighters more easily as well. If they didn't want to increase the capacity of storage units and launch pads, they could simply shrink their volume to match the shrunk volume of the goods going into them.
I don't understand what is so difficult about this.
SurrenderMonkey wrote:Yield has nothing to do with how much tritanium builder bob can fit in his freighter to bring over to his assembly array. That's volume. That's what I'm saying!!
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."
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2048
|
Posted - 2016.02.22 01:52:29 -
[59] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote: That's what I'm saying!!
Yield isn't volume, so, no, it isn't what you're saying unless, in your brilliance, you've entirely conflated the two sides of the analogy.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2927
|
Posted - 2016.02.22 01:56:04 -
[60] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote:Reaver Glitterstim wrote: That's what I'm saying!!
Yield isn't volume, so, no, it isn't what you're saying unless, in your brilliance, you've entirely conflated the two sides of the analogy. I was trying to explain to you how you're conflating yield with volume, and you, in your apparent brilliance, responded by stating my point against you as if it was your point against me.
YOU said that volume cannot be compared because yield is separate.
I corrected you by pointing out that the volume of the unit and the volume of the yield can be adjusted independent of each other.
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."
|
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2050
|
Posted - 2016.02.22 01:59:37 -
[61] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:SurrenderMonkey wrote:Reaver Glitterstim wrote: That's what I'm saying!!
Yield isn't volume, so, no, it isn't what you're saying unless, in your brilliance, you've entirely conflated the two sides of the analogy. I was trying to explain to you how you're conflating yield with volume, and you, in your apparent brilliance, responded by stating my point against you as if it was your point against me. YOU said that volume cannot be compared because yield is separate.
Let me explain to you how an analogy works.
The two things on the left side of the analogy are not actually LIKE the two things on the right side of an analogy.
Rather, Left1 and Left2 have a relationship to each other that is comparable to the relationship between R1 and R2.
In the same way that the amount an epithal can haul has FUCKALL to do with the amount a normal indy can haul, the yield of a gas cloud harvester has nothing to do with the yield of a mining laser. They are not balanced against each other. They are qualitatively different, even if they share superficial similarities.
Additionally, this little chestnut:
Quote:If they wanted to decrease the price of PI goods by making them easier to ship, they could and should simply decrease the volume of the PI goods, because then they'll fit into freighters more easily as well. If they didn't want to increase the capacity of storage units and launch pads, they could simply shrink their volume to match the shrunk volume of the goods going into them.
Who said they wanted to make them easier to move across the board?
They're already plenty easy to move with a freighter. That was never a problem for the type of logistics to which freighters are suited, and it still isn't.
Epithals are largely for intrasystem work. Mine flies between my POS and POCOs. It occasionally goes out through a static, goes no further than the first station, where its contents promptly become Some Courier Contractor's Problem.
Sure, you can haul your PI crap around the universe in an epithal if you want, but they're not actually large enough for that to be efficient. Mine wouldn't even leave my hole if I had a freighter-sized static.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2927
|
Posted - 2016.02.22 02:06:25 -
[62] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote:In the same way that the amount an epithal can haul has FUCKALL to do with the amount a normal indy can haul, the yield of a gas cloud harvester has nothing to do with the yield of a mining laser. They are not balanced against each other. They are qualitatively different, even if they share superficial similarities. Okay sure let's just ignore freighters as a factor here.
SurrenderMonkey wrote:Who said they wanted to make them easier to move across the board?
They're already plenty easy to move with a freighter. That was never a problem for the type of logistics to which freighters are suited, and it still isn't. I rest my case. You are failing to consider multiple factors in a more complex equation, and Teckos Pech is accusing me of doing that.
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
4744
|
Posted - 2016.02.22 02:10:01 -
[63] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Perhaps, specialty ships have their specialty cargo holds unaffected by expanders because balance is not just between ships, but also what they do. Did it even enter your brain that perhaps when CCP was thinking about this that maybe...they looked at this issue and felt yeah...PI needed a production buff...which in turn would lower prices? It did enter my brain...way back during the few minutes I spent reading the devblog about the release of these monstrosities, and I came to the conclusion that didn't make a lick of sense and it was far more likely that CCP just threw stats at these things in a lazy attempt to give them a purpose. If they wanted to decrease the price of PI goods by making them easier to ship, they could and should simply decrease the volume of the PI goods, because then they'll fit into freighters more easily as well. If they didn't want to increase the capacity of storage units and launch pads, they could simply shrink their volume to match the shrunk volume of the goods going into them. I don't understand what is so difficult about this. SurrenderMonkey wrote:Yield has nothing to do with how much tritanium builder bob can fit in his freighter to bring over to his assembly array. That's volume. That's what I'm saying!!
I disagree with the volume argument. The thing is with, using the Epithal as an example, is that by having the ship with a dedicated cargo hangar that does not depend on cargo expanders they allow such ships to fit for travel--i.e. warp core stabilizers, and maybe an i-stab or nano along with rigs as well to help them get past ships that would otherwise blow them...and their cargo up.
In other words, while decreasing the volume of PI might do the trick, it may not do as much as freeing up the low slots on the specialty ships.
"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
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2050
|
Posted - 2016.02.22 02:12:38 -
[64] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:SurrenderMonkey wrote:Who said they wanted to make them easier to move across the board?
They're already plenty easy to move with a freighter. That was never a problem for the type of logistics to which freighters are suited, and it still isn't. I rest my case. You are failing to consider multiple factors in a more complex equation, and accusing me of doing the same.
Is this some sort of ironic performance art?
Lowering the volume, as you suggested, would have made them easier to haul around, period. Adding the epithal made it easier to deal with loading/unloading POCOs, without altering freighter-volume logistics.
Or, in other words, I just explained how the epithal addresses single factor in a more complex equation, relative to your solution of, "JUST CHANGE ALL THE VOLUMES".
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2927
|
Posted - 2016.02.22 02:14:38 -
[65] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:I disagree with the volume argument. The thing is with, using the Epithal as an example, is that by having the ship with a dedicated cargo hangar that does not depend on cargo expanders they allow such ships to fit for travel--i.e. warp core stabilizers, and maybe an i-stab or nano along with rigs as well to help them get past ships that would otherwise blow them...and their cargo up.
In other words, while decreasing the volume of PI might do the trick, it may not do as much as freeing up the low slots on the specialty ships. Also what I've been saying this whole time.
Whether we buff regular haulers or nerf specialized haulers, or both, something needs to be done to put them on an even remotely similar level with each other.
SurrenderMonkey wrote:Lowering the volume, as you suggested, would have made them easier to haul around, period. Adding the epithal made it easier to deal with loading/unloading POCOs, without altering freighter-volume logistics.
Or, in other words, I just explained how the epithal addresses single factor in a more complex equation, relative to your solution of, "JUST CHANGE ALL THE VOLUMES". You never explained why you think only that aspect should be adjusted, while keeping the others the same (as before).
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
4744
|
Posted - 2016.02.22 02:15:23 -
[66] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote:Quote:If they wanted to decrease the price of PI goods by making them easier to ship, they could and should simply decrease the volume of the PI goods, because then they'll fit into freighters more easily as well. If they didn't want to increase the capacity of storage units and launch pads, they could simply shrink their volume to match the shrunk volume of the goods going into them. Who said they wanted to make them easier to move across the board? They're already plenty easy to move with a freighter. That was never a problem for the type of logistics to which freighters are suited, and it still isn't. Epithals are largely for intrasystem work. Mine flies between my POS and POCOs. It occasionally goes out through a static, goes no further than the first station, where its contents promptly become Some Courier Contractor's Problem. Sure, you can haul your PI crap around the universe in an epithal if you want, but they're not actually large enough for that to be efficient. Mine wouldn't even leave my hole if I had a freighter-sized static.
Mine do go between systems, but they are travel fit--i.e. they are designed to let me get through a gate and past 1 maybe 2 ships (assuming no bubble/dictor).
Prior to the Epithal I did use Iteron Vs max fit for capacity and once in awhile they died whereas the Epithal would/does not.
So, as a result of the introduction of the Epithal more of my PI product make it to market. I'm pretty sure I'm not alone (based on the whine threads about Epithals in LS and their warp core stabs).
Of course, when it comes to moving things to market I do not use an Epithal as it is too inefficient and easily ganked.
"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
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4746
|
Posted - 2016.02.22 02:18:02 -
[67] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote:Reaver Glitterstim wrote:SurrenderMonkey wrote:Who said they wanted to make them easier to move across the board?
They're already plenty easy to move with a freighter. That was never a problem for the type of logistics to which freighters are suited, and it still isn't. I rest my case. You are failing to consider multiple factors in a more complex equation, and accusing me of doing the same. Is this some sort of ironic performance art? Lowering the volume, as you suggested, would have made them easier to haul around, period. Adding the epithal made it easier to deal with loading/unloading POCOs, without altering freighter-volume logistics. Or, in other words, I just explained how the epithal addresses single factor in a more complex equation, relative to your solution of, "JUST CHANGE ALL THE VOLUMES".
Wow...Reaver accusing somebody else of looking at just one dimension.
"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
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2051
|
Posted - 2016.02.22 02:18:53 -
[68] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mine do go between systems, but they are travel fit--i.e. they are designed to let me get through a gate and past 1 maybe 2 ships (assuming no bubble/dictor).
That's more of an option for null-PIers, but I doubt you're going far, anyway, right?
I guess you could technically do multi-system WH PI but just thinking about it makes me want to shoot myself.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4748
|
Posted - 2016.02.22 03:53:58 -
[69] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:
Mine do go between systems, but they are travel fit--i.e. they are designed to let me get through a gate and past 1 maybe 2 ships (assuming no bubble/dictor).
That's more of an option for null-PIers, but I doubt you're going far, anyway, right? I guess you could technically do multi-system WH PI but just thinking about it makes me want to shoot myself.
Correct, 1-3 jumps at most. It is a short range ship. If there are more jumps a JB is definitely involved. And yeah, it is a NS thing.
And yeah, multi-system WH PI...pass me the gun when you are done...oh, wait.
"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
|
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
752
|
Posted - 2016.02.22 14:36:01 -
[70] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Lowered!? No, it would be raised a lot. I don't think you understand how stacking penalties work. I understand the penalties, evidently in this specific case as my son would likely say dad you cannot math. You are correct on the base cargo hold size.
I would go back and correct my statements but the conversation has moved on and it would be disruptive to change it now, so I will simply admit my error here and move on. |
|
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
407
|
Posted - 2016.02.23 13:00:59 -
[71] - 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.
I would go so far as to agree unequivically with the above.... yes it IS a slight buff to EHP fit freighters... but we could always slightly reduce their base HP slightly and then play til the numbers were right.....
EDIT: for all other haulers, I think this would only be a good thing
For posting an idea into F&I:
come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it.....
If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.
|
Cristl
348
|
Posted - 2016.02.24 18:14:15 -
[72] - Quote
I feel we could be getting off-topic here.
For me, i never consider the T1 haulers: it's specialist haulers like the Epithal, transports like the Prowler or Mastodon or freighters like the Nomad.
I'm pretty sure this could be improved - give stacking penalties to expanders and rigs, while buffing the base cargo of T1s, and then they can actually fit some sensible modules. In this sort of field the cheapo-options need to be close otherwise they haven't a damd chance. |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2080
|
Posted - 2016.02.24 18:23:11 -
[73] - Quote
Cristl wrote:
For me, i never consider the T1 haulers
You haven't lived until you've battle-Nereused.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
408
|
Posted - 2016.02.24 21:18:52 -
[74] - Quote
Cristl wrote:[stuff] The freighter issue is practically solved by bumping the T2 expanders from a 27.5% bonus to 32.5%, for instance. could you explain this to me please? or are you talking about stacking penalised expanders?
Cristl wrote:[stuff] freighters like the Nomad. [stuff] nomad is a JF, just saying
For posting an idea into F&I:
come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it.....
If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |