EVE Search - T3 Industrial Cruiser

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

T3 Industrial Cruiser

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Liliana Rahl Remote Soviet Industries Test Alliance Please Ignore 98	Posted - 2012.06.21 00:18:00 - [91] - Quote With that said, I initially skipped to your tl;dr, was intrigued, read your post, and was amused. Very entertaining post.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc 156	Posted - 2012.06.21 00:38:00 - [92] - Quote I think that regardless of any lack of skill or planning in many of the pilots you may come across, it should always be assumed that the pilots you meet are skillful and have planned their moves carefully. Everyone should be given a fair chance if they plan carefully. And that means that every careful plan should have a weakness, to allow another careful planner a route of entry. Mining in the deep parts of space should be viable, however I have a feeling that when the megacyte, zydrine, and morphite supplies start to run low players will find a way to get that stuff. The important thing is that it isn't available to people who don't have to work to get it. Once that is accomplished, the ships that were made for collecting it need to be made viable without being overpowered. I don't know how much interdiction nullification is the best amount, but I do know that it isn't a decision to be taken lightly. -á"The Mittani: Hated By Badposters i'm strangely comfortable with it" -Mittens
Labia Nabali D0W 3O 3	Posted - 2012.06.21 18:21:00 - [93] - Quote Liliana Rahl wrote: In all the times I've killed hulks in wh space, none have ever had warp core stabs. I disagree entirely that being able to bubble them would be the only way to kill them. You're assuming two things here: 1. that people fit WCS and 2. that people will use the interdiction subsystem when mining. The interdiction subsystem is an essential component for the ship for those that wish to have a chance at bypassing entry level camps to 0.0, much like many T3 pilots use. Regardless if someone uses WCS or not, the majority of propulsion subsystems for this ships are pointless. When you mine, you are not orbiting the target with an afterburner or microwarp drive on. When you are orbiting the asteroid, a few m/s really isn't going to make a difference. You need to stay within range of the asteroid to mine it. As I stated in my previous post, compared to PVE or PVP ships, mining ships, are more or less stationary. There would be no reason to use any other propulsion subsystem besides Interdiction Nullifier. From your original post: Propulsion Subsystems: Interdiction Nullifier GÇô Immunity to non-targeted interdiction; 0/0/0 Intercalated Nanofibers GÇô 5% increased agility per level; 0/0/1 Hull Construction Reconfiguration GÇô 5% reduction in mass per level; 0/0/0 Chassis Optimization GÇô 10% bonus to max velocity per level; 0/0/1 Intercalated Nanofibers and Chassis Optimization are pointless. Hull Construction Reconfiguration MIGHT and I say MIGHT be the only other subsystem worth anything because of WH space. However, since this is a strategic cruiser hull, it will have no problem going in and out of C1 WHs. Thus, making the only viable subsystem, Interdiction Nullifier. However, to encourage people to use other propulsion subsystems, you would have to alter the cargo bay or ore bay for these ships, as Reaver Glitterstim was describing. I am not saying his subsystems would be more useful or not, but without a dramatic restriction on cargo hold space for the interdiction nullifier subsystem, there would be no use for any of the other propulsion subsystems. I am only trying to help make this a sound idea so the Devs will consider it. I think you guys are on the right track, and I am only trying to help.
Liliana Rahl Remote Soviet Industries Test Alliance Please Ignore 100	Posted - 2012.06.22 11:39:00 - [94] - Quote Hmm....Looking back I'd actually agree that the velocity and agility subsystems really have no purpose other than adding a low slot. I'll look into these two. As for the other two: Interdiction Nullifier: pretty evident why this is useful Hull Construction Reconfiguration: I still see quite significant use for this one, namely, ninjamining in wh space. Couple it with the large ore bay of the Ore Yield subsystem, throw on a prototype cloak and scout with a frigate or something (or don't bother) and you could effectively ninja mine systems in wh space. The subsystem will allow you to do this longer by minimizing the mass going through the wormhole. Edit: I'm not going to get into stats, but basically, you should assume that while this is a strategic cruiser, its massive will be quite hefty, due to its industrial nature. Note that the other two subsystems do provide a low slot, where as the aforementioned do not. Feel free to throw out some ideas for bonuses but note this: I will not be putting a generic cargohold bonus on them. If I do so, said bonus will likely turn this ship into a better blockade runner, and that is something I do not want, as it would be stepping on the toes of a specialized T2 ship.
Liliana Rahl Remote Soviet Industries Test Alliance Please Ignore 100	Posted - 2012.06.22 11:44:00 - [95] - Quote I'm tempted to remove the mercoxit bay, ore bay and gas chamber bonuses from the industrial subsystems, and create a generic ore bay propulsion subsystem and a gas chamber subsystem. Thoughts?
True Sight Deep Freeze Industries 20	Posted - 2012.06.22 15:33:00 - [96] - Quote Rek Seven wrote: The figures and precise details are irrelevant but the idea is sound. totally agree, no idea on the specifics, but with the announced upcoming changes and mining frigate introduction, it would be a great time to give people some top-end option to spend their hard earned iskies on.
Jack Carrigan Order of the Shadow The Revenant Order 702	Posted - 2012.06.22 16:30:00 - [97] - Quote STILL supported! This would be an awesome addition to the ORE inventory. "War is not measured in terms of who wins or loses, who is right or wrong.-á It is measured in terms of who survives."
Liliana Rahl Remote Soviet Industries Test Alliance Please Ignore 100	Posted - 2012.06.23 12:19:00 - [98] - Quote Bump for the weekend.
Max Therion Jita Ikami Bank 0	Posted - 2012.06.24 06:33:00 - [99] - Quote Dev's I endorse this, please green-light T3 Industrial/Haulers per OP!
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc 159	Posted - 2012.06.25 00:51:00 - [100] - Quote Liliana Rahl wrote: I'm tempted to remove the mercoxit bay, ore bay and gas chamber bonuses from the industrial subsystems, and create a generic ore bay propulsion subsystem and a gas chamber subsystem. Thoughts? I'm in favor of generic ore bays entirely. There is no need to box it in; just because it has a bonus to mercoxit mining doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed to mine other stuff instead. Someone might think the slot layout or other bonuses make it useful for mining arkonor, or something. I don't know if gas should be put in the generic ore bay, but I don't think it should have a gas bay. Perhaps the gas mining subsystem would lend a smaller ore bay, or maybe if you allow this t3 to have a fairly large cargohold, the gas can just go straight to cargo. Here's something a bit off topic, but it's been annoying me and I had to vent: just as the tech 3 shouldn't have overly specialized roles, tech 1 isn't supposed to be highly specialized either. The tier 3 tech 1 battlecruisers have a bonus that only allows them to fit battleship turrets matching their skill bonuses, ie. an oracle cannot fit large autocannons if it wanted to. I disagree very strongly and I think they should all have a powergrid requirement reduction for ALL large turrets. End rant. -á"The Mittani: Hated By Badposters i'm strangely comfortable with it" -Mittens

Emperor Salazar Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 537	Posted - 2012.06.27 12:32:00 - [101] - Quote Alright, time for some changes: -removed ore hold from the Ore Yield subsystem -removed mercoxit storage bay from the Deep Core Extraction subsystem -removed cargo capacity bonus from the Covert Ops Reconfiguration subsystem -removed gas chamber from the Harvester Efficiency Optimizer subsystem -added Industrial Expansion Bay subsystem: +5000m3 storage hold for ore and gas; 0/0/1 -increased the bonus for the Hull Construction Reconfiguration from 5% to 10% to make it more appealing -clarified that only one gang assist module may be active when the Industrial Processor subsystem is being used (to prevent stepping on the toes of afk POS boosting orcas/rorquals Thanks for the feedback. I still need ideas for a 4th propulsion subsystem. I think the way the ore hold is now setup will make it so pilots will need to decide between a huge ore bay, bubble immunity or mass reduction. Note that the Industrial Expansion Bay also adds a low slot to the ship, whereas the other two propulsion subsystems do not.
Emperor Salazar Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 537	Posted - 2012.06.27 15:33:00 - [102] - Quote One more change: The name is now "T3 Harvester Cruiser." This is primarily to clarify the ships role a bit so people do not get confused by the title. It is not an "industrial" in the sense of current eve industrials (haulers). Its purpose is to extract ores and gas with quite a bit of versatility.
Emperor Salazar Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 539	Posted - 2012.06.28 16:18:00 - [103] - Quote Daily bump.
Jayrendo Karr Suns Of Korhal Terran Commonwealth 180	Posted - 2012.06.28 19:57:00 - [104] - Quote Lets make the ships that exist balenced a bit more first.
Emperor Salazar Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 539	Posted - 2012.06.28 20:20:00 - [105] - Quote Jayrendo Karr wrote: Lets make the ships that exist balanced while we're at it too. ftfy
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc 162	Posted - 2012.06.28 20:36:00 - [106] - Quote I mostly approve of the changes you have made - though you forgot to update the hull construction reconfiguration in the OP. Still, I think you should consider adding other industry options to this vessel. By giving it a specific role (mining), it is not a strategic cruiser anymore, it is a mining cruiser. It puts it somewhere between tech 1 and tech 3 in the amount of versatility it has. But if I can't convince you, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Industrial Expansion Bay - you don't have any "propulsion" bonuses on this mod. Perhaps instead of a low slot, it should have +2 warp strength. And I suspect the wording is supposed to be "+5000m3 storage hold for ore and gas per level;" Perhaps a 4th propulsion subsystem could reduce sig radius and/or increase warp velocity? Just brainstorming. -á"The Mittani: Hated By Badposters i'm strangely comfortable with it" -Mittens
Emperor Salazar Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 540	Posted - 2012.06.28 20:46:00 - [107] - Quote The propulsion subsystem might get renamed. Its more geared to "hull modification" now, rather than just propulsion, hence why I threw the ore bay subsystem down there. Theres also already a subsystem that reduces sig radius (one of the defensive ones). Thanks for the points about the edits I missed; should be fixed now. As for something other than "mining" oriented, yeah we're going to have to agree to disagree there. The versatility of this ship is that it can choose what type of specialized extraction it wants to do, whether that be regular ore, mercoxit, or gas while also having versatile options for defense, electronics and other things. I like the warp velocity idea but I want to hear some more before I add anything. Perhaps something that could be unique to a ship like this that is related to the hull/propulsion/whatever. Thanks for the feedback.
Emperor Salazar Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 541	Posted - 2012.06.28 20:56:00 - [108] - Quote Actually, I thought of something to make the ore hold subsystem more "propulsion" oriented. -10% agility per level Thus, the bigger the bay, the slower you'll align/navigate.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc 162	Posted - 2012.06.28 22:06:00 - [109] - Quote Emperor Salazar wrote: Actually, I thought of something to make the ore hold subsystem more "propulsion" oriented. -10% agility per level Thus, the bigger the bay, the slower you'll align/navigate. It's a nice idea, but you can't just lower your skill to get a smaller bay and more agility. Howabout a small ore hold without the penalty and another subsystem with a large hold and a big flat penalty? Like -50% agility role penalty -á"The Mittani: Hated By Badposters i'm strangely comfortable with it" -Mittens
Emperor Salazar Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 541	Posted - 2012.06.28 22:07:00 - [110] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: It's a nice idea, but you can't just lower your skill to get a smaller bay and more agility. I don't see why not.

Emperor Salazar Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 541	Posted - 2012.06.28 22:08:00 - [111] - Quote But I like the second part of your post. I'm going to flesh it out a bit.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc 162	Posted - 2012.06.28 22:12:00 - [112] - Quote Emperor Salazar wrote: Reaver Glitterstim wrote: It's a nice idea, but you can't just lower your skill to get a smaller bay and more agility. I don't see why not. I mean, if increasing the level of the skill causes your ore bay to get bigger and your agility to go down, say one day you have a specific plan and you want to have a smallish ore bay with better agility. You can't just click a button to make your T3 Harvester Cruiser Propulsion Subsystem skill go down a few levels, and then come back up later at another button click. -á"The Mittani: Hated By Badposters i'm strangely comfortable with it" -Mittens
Emperor Salazar Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 541	Posted - 2012.06.28 22:18:00 - [113] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Emperor Salazar wrote: Reaver Glitterstim wrote: It's a nice idea, but you can't just lower your skill to get a smaller bay and more agility. I don't see why not. I mean, if increasing the level of the skill causes your ore bay to get bigger and your agility to go down, say one day you have a specific plan and you want to have a smallish ore bay with better agility. You can't just click a button to make your T3 Harvester Cruiser Propulsion Subsystem skill go down a few levels, and then come back up later at another button click. If people are willing to burn skill training to do that, then so be it. With that said, I was initially going to do a flat penalty but I thought it was more logical to have the penalty scale with the increased size. I like the idea of a small/large bay. How about a smaller bay with say 5k m3 and a minor 10% agility penalty and 10% mass increase and then a second subsystem with 25k m3 and a -50% agility and 50% mass increase? The only problem here is: what does the skill do? Perhaps it can reduce the penalties by 10% per level?
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc 162	Posted - 2012.06.28 22:34:00 - [114] - Quote Howabout the skill increases the bay size slightly but doesn't affect the agility? 2500m3 base ore hold with a small agility BONUS, and the skill increases the ore hold size by 250m3 per level -or- 7500m3 base ore hold with a large agility penalty, and the skill increases the ore old size by 750m3 per level -á"The Mittani: Hated By Badposters i'm strangely comfortable with it" -Mittens
Emperor Salazar Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 541	Posted - 2012.06.28 22:43:00 - [115] - Quote Interesting. I'm going to play with the ideas/numbers a bit. Thanks a lot for the feedback.
True Sight Deep Freeze Industries 23	Posted - 2012.07.04 19:02:00 - [116] - Quote Bumping for justice. I'd like to suggest you work less on the refined stats and modules and more on the general concept in general, what important roles it feels, why it should be added to the game, why they should introduce this to the game over having players use what is already available etc... Ultimately if they decide to build a T3 Industrial ship, they won't copy and paste your subsystems stats, they'll start from scratch and make it the way they want :)
Emperor Salazar Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 548	Posted - 2012.07.05 01:10:00 - [117] - Quote True Sight wrote: Ultimately if they decide to build a T3 Industrial ship, they won't copy and paste your subsystems stats, they'll start from scratch and make it the way they want :) Thats probably true. In which case, the general concept is already fleshed out more than enough heh
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc 193	Posted - 2012.08.04 19:01:00 - [118] - Quote Shameless necro. -á"The Mittani: Hated By Badposters i'm strangely comfortable with it" -Mittens
Infinite Force Hammer Of Light Covenant of the Phoenix Alliance 158	Posted - 2012.10.15 23:55:00 - [119] - Quote Don't let it die!! HROLT CEO Live Free; Die Proud Hammer Mineral Compression - The only way to go!
Allandri Liandri Industrial Liandri Covenant 9	Posted - 2012.10.16 02:05:00 - [120] - Quote What would the signature radius be?



Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.