These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Odyssey 1.1] Tech 1 Industrials

First post First post
Author
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Tactical-Retreat
#501 - 2013-06-21 15:38:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Altrue
Caldari ships always have the less cargo capacity of their role, yet I heard that it was an industrial race Roll.

If I compare the Badger and the Wreathe for instance, the Wreathe has :

The wreathe has :
- Better Cargo
- Better Align

- Better Speed
- Same tank (a tad less on paper, but a lot less sig radius and more speed, + who cares about the tank in an industrial).
- Moar DPS for the badger ! (two weapons, wuut !)

So in my example, why would I choose a badger over a Wreathe for another reason than the skills I already have ?


Same thing for the larger size, although this one seems a tad more balanced :

Badger mark II / Iteron V :

The Iteron has :
- Better Cargo
- Better Align

(definitely the two more important stats on this class)
- Less speed (5m/s woot)
- Better sig radius
- Probably less tank.

---

That's why, in my opinion, the two important stats (cargo and align) should be at the expense of eachother. With more importance to the cargo, as anyway they will all have a 10s microwarpdrive align time.

So, if an indus has a lot of cargo, it has a bad align time, and vice versa.

As the align time is less important, the one with a good align time would also have a better tank (Including the sig radius !) which fits perfectly with the "better escape" thing.

Basically, having the same two groups (escape/transport) inside one of each groups(badger/bardger mark II for instance). Like some shades. But useful ones.

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart

Ripard Teg
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#502 - 2013-06-21 15:42:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Ripard Teg
I've Liked so many posts in this thread I've lost count.

I can understand Rise's position here. He's saying, among other things,
* "The haulers have never done anything particularly special before, why do they need to do special things now?"; and,
* "If you wanted a max cargo hauler, you had to use an Itty V and nothing else; I'm giving you three other options."; and,
* "For every other ship class, each race has exactly the same number of ships, why should it be different for haulers?"; and,
* "This isn't the last word. We'll be revisiting the outcast haulers when we know what we want to do with the industry career long term."

I get all four of these points. But right now, I have to say that I'm with the players that are a little frustrated with the lost potential here. We see only two types of haulers because that's all it looks like we've been given: a fast tanky hauler for each race, and a max cargo hauler for each race. Whereas even within the same slot of the same ship type for other ship classes, there's lots of racial variation. If I sit in a disruption frigate, I can jam with one race, damp with another, track with a third, paint with a fourth. Attack frigates have some that specialize in rockets, some that specialize in blasters, some that have to go in close, and some that specialize in kiting.

But for all four races, I have a fast tanky hauler and a max cargo hauler and that's all. There are color differences and the shape differences, but they all do pretty much the same thing the same way. That's why these players are frustrated, and why I'm among them. We were wowed by all the new potential and all the new options when the other ship classes were rebalanced and were looking forward to some new options when this class was. Zaxix put it nicely:

Zaxix wrote:
I certainly respect your opinion, Rise, but there is a group of true haulers in EVE, and what may be boring to you PvP types has been the focus of many an EVE career.

Rise has done great work so far as he's gone... but I feel like not a lot of imagination has been put into this compared to other ship classes because it's "boring." It's hard to put our faith in an uncertain future for these ships because there's no telling when or if that uncertain future will ever come to pass, particularly with past evidence as a guide.

Thanks to everyone giving feedback on this!

aka Jester, who apparently was once Deemed Worthy To Wield The Banhammer to good effect.

Lady Ayeipsia
BlueWaffe
#503 - 2013-06-21 15:58:42 UTC
One thought.... Give us a mid range hauler that is balanced between tank and cargo. As for hull, all we need is an amarr hull.

For gal, use the ity 3. Minmatar, use the mammoth (or shuffle, but you have the spare hull).

For caldari... Use the badger Mrk 2. For the max haul badger, use the mrk 3. The MRK 3 does exist, look at the bustard (t2 blockade runner) it uses the badger Mrk 3 hull, always have. Just reskin it with the standard t1 caldari color scheme.

Them all you need is an amarr middle ground hauler.
Jinde Usoko
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#504 - 2013-06-21 15:59:48 UTC
Maximus Andendare wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
I think the real problem here is that because we're putting any time into these ships, you guys want them to pop with something new. In the past, their flavor mostly was based on their art along with some quirks like having 5 Gallente indies or battle Badgers. On the whole haulers are just not very exciting compared to a lot of other classes in EVE. I can understand you want something new to make them pop more, but please keep in mind that it was never there to begin with. These ships mostly just carry stuff around for cheap, that's what they do. The purpose of this balance is just to make sure that there is some depth of choice and that each race has access to a cheap ship to carry things around that isn't painfully worse than the Itty 5.

On flavor generally... I think the word is used in so many different ways that I'm not even sure how to answer. I think Fozzie and I are really focused on mechanics that lead to interesting gameplay. I can't speak for him, but I think that "flavor" often emerges as a result of good design, or is intentionally added to lead to interesting play. We both care about it, especially in EVE. On top of that, we don't do anything alone, and there's plenty of people in the department who are extremely concerned about story, history, and aesthetic to make sure that I don't do anything too disruptive. These people played a hugely important part in decisions around the industrials.

I've typed a lot of text walls today =P
Well, if I can counter the bolded statement, it almost sounds as if you're suggesting that because you're putting *some* effort into it, we should just be satisfied with the bone we've been thrown. I couldn't disagree more. You've admitted that the industrial lines have never "popped," and that their purpose is to haul stuff cheaply. Nobody is suggesting otherwise. We (meaning the many posters who've passionately made the various suggestions) are merely advocating that there is room for innovation here, and if you're going to go through the trouble of rebalancing this line--not as some sort of afterthought or half-hearted effort--then you ought to give it the same attention you'd give any other line.

You could have argued that Mining Barges were boring and only served to suck up asteroids at the fastest rate. You could have buffed Barges' respective rock-sucking amounts and left it at that. But you didn't. You innovated on a line that could have used some help, and the results have been fantastic.

It's the same treatment we're asking for here, because, look, we all get that Industrials won't be even on the list after these changes are made. So give them a proper balance now, and have them pop. Give them the Mining Barge treatment where one can actually tank something (~50k ehp) to stop mindless ganks, make one really fast for afk, low-value hauls and make one enormously capable of carrying goods for the high sec bold or for those that live safely deep in the back reaches of space.

The "flavor" of the lines--at least as I understand it, since there isn't "traditional" flavor by optimal range or tracking, etc.--is how slick it can do its job. Is it engaging to have a ship that has a huge cargo bay? Is it satisfying to fly that boat when I need to pick up my daily haul? Does it feel good knowing that when I undock my Hoarder it'll actually survive the random ganking dessie? It can.

If you don't take the opportunity to innovate now, then it'll still be just a matter of who holds the most and train that--look how this has worked out historically: The Itty V carried the most, and it was trained into the most for haulers. The Covetor/Hulk sucked rocks the most, thus it was skilled into the most for this. In fact, in every instance where a ship did "the most," it was trained into and flown extensively until tiericide came along (Hurricane?). With the proposed changes, admittedly you're looking for viable choices, so as not to have them all marginalized, but it almost sounds like you don't want competitive choices. As players we like competitive choices and decision making. Adding flavor to the industrial line gives that--true choice with pros and cons to each.

CCP Rise wrote:
Maybe it could/should be, but again, I don't think this rebalance is the place to start, which is why we decided to hold off on anything drastic until we get a better sense for where industry in general is heading.
I'm sorry, but I'm not content with holding off on the future promises when the issues facing Industrial rebalance can be addressed today. Besides, it's not worth being complacent today, since this is THE chance we'll get to innovate. Obviously, we haven't seen behind the candelabra and know what future industrial changes are coming. All we can speak to is what we know the Industrial line can--and should become now and not some future balancing period.

Lastly, just to address the point that T1 Industrials are effectively replacing DSTs' role as a "large" high sec hauler, I'd like to say that DSTs are horrendously broken at the current time. They perform poorly as tanky haulers, considering that their cargo bay is smaller than a blockade runner when properly--read: as intended--tanked, and they're far too slow to align when fully fitted for cargo for high sec duty. The Orca--the world's premier mining support ship--does their job better in spades, having an enormous hold AND a ridiculous tank. Certainly, the changes to T1 Industrials' cargo room is warranted (with other changes, to be sure) and their impact on a broken T2 line should never be considered. If that were the case, T1 cruisers would never have ended up so well if Fozzie and his team were worried they'd marginalize proper T2 ships (Deimos says hello).


This-this is it right here.
Caleb Ayrania
TarNec
Invisible Exchequer
#505 - 2013-06-21 16:21:55 UTC
Why on earth are you not considering using all the bay mechanics in some really cool way?

Why not add a skill bonus to specific bay types on the industrials, and then add ORE, SHIP, MINERAL-BAY etc to the industrials?

The baytypes and their mechanics is really what could make T1 and later T2 industrials really interesting again..

(The types can be seen on the dev-ship the cockroach)

A few other hot topics or ideas..

Make compressed ORE able to compete in compression with current workarounds like the 450mm guns.
Make Compressed or only go into ORE-BAY. This would make industrials an alternative to freighters.

Make drop destruction chance linked to containers. So container always "saves" all content, but is much harder to scan. So using no containers denies gankers the loot at a higher degree, but sacrifice the benefits from containers getting a proper capacity boost. Something like 25-50% bonus.

Make cans/containers drop by themeselves, so the secure ones could be linked to hacking skill.

Thus a true specialized freight would become a vital part of the game, in a more inspirering way then atm.

The difference between DRY and WET freight, and all the emergent gameplay to come from it, while still allowing "easy mode" usage.

Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#506 - 2013-06-21 16:22:34 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
First, there is a significant difference between asymmetrical role assignment, and an actual difference in ship count. While the Scorp doesn't have disruption counterparts at the moment, at least it has SOME counterpart in the form of the additional ship in either combat or attack roles that each race other than Caldari gets. This is a big deal. If there was a Scorpion as the only disruption BS, but it was a 4th BS, and Caldari just had it as an extra compared to only 3 for the other races, I think people would be a lot less happy with it.


OK, then, how about the Tristan? Gallente have always had one extra frigate.

I don't really see the problem with that. Even if you did give the Caldari a fourth battleship--say, a second hybrid platform--I'm not sure how it would break the game.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!

Zaxix
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#507 - 2013-06-21 16:26:47 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Ya I wouldn't mean to sound dismissive of hauling as a profession at all, I'm just saying that from a ship balance and fitting perspective, hauling isn't as complex as combat.

Maybe it could/should be, but again, I don't think this rebalance is the place to start, which is why we decided to hold off on anything drastic until we get a better sense for where industry in general is heading.

CCP Rise wrote:
Not wanting to use the leftover 4 haulers is quite a bit different from not knowing what to do with the primary ones.

We know that we were very unhappy with their balance, especially in light of the skill requirement changes, so there isn't anything premature about the balance we're giving the 8 base ships. Also there's no reason that dealing with the main group restricts our ability to come back to the others.

As Molic pointed out and others have chimed in, the industrialists of EVE and, in particular, the Haulers of EVE, have been left out in the cold for a very long time. For example, the warp speed on freighters was broken for at least the last 5 years (and probably all 10 years) until Odyssey. Something that didn't need rebalance, just a decimal place fix, wasn't done for 5 years. We're always very low on the priority list. I'm not confident that these changes will be properly iterated because, as you said, "industrials? meh." Maximus Andendare has a really great response, and I hope you guys will read over it a few times and give it some real thought.

For years, I participated in threads focused on Orca vs. Freighter, always pointing out that the training time for an orca made it a poor choice as a hauler when you could get into a freighter so much faster and haul so much more. Things have changed radically. Look at the rebalanced Orca for a minute. It takes 18d 19h 6m (without remaps/implants) to train up. It takes 23D 16H to train racial industrial 5 (without remaps/implants). But the Orca holds much more, can tank more, and can do much more. And it takes less time to train than maxing out your industrial! Freighter training time? 36D 4H. Think of all the things you can do with an Orca (and there are MANY) and what you can do with an industrial or a freighter. Isn't it obvious that there is an imbalance there?

I think I'm now firmly in the "its better to wait" camp. While getting a Mammoth with much more cargo space would be nice in the short run, the industrial fixes need to come first. Some fundamental decisions need to be made about industry and how ships fit into that schema. If it makes more sense for a mid-level hauler to use a mining boost ship rather than a ship class actually made for his profession, something is clearly wrong.

I've asked several times and still no answer. I'm going to give it another shot here, because I don't understand why there would be any reluctance to answer. What is the underlying reasoning for making Amarr the new kings of cargo space? Yes, its not much more, but the real question isn't the amount or will I have to train up Amarr 5, it's why would you change that relationship at all? I'm sure you wouldn't dream of making Amarr missile specialists, so why the change in focus here? And will that logic be applied to freighters? Charon owners would like to know...

Bokononist

 

Frostys Virpio
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#508 - 2013-06-21 16:31:58 UTC
Caleb Ayrania wrote:
Why on earth are you not considering using all the bay mechanics in some really cool way?

Why not add a skill bonus to specific bay types on the industrials, and then add ORE, SHIP, MINERAL-BAY etc to the industrials?

The baytypes and their mechanics is really what could make T1 and later T2 industrials really interesting again..

(The types can be seen on the dev-ship the cockroach)

A few other hot topics or ideas..

Make compressed ORE able to compete in compression with current workarounds like the 450mm guns.
Make Compressed or only go into ORE-BAY. This would make industrials an alternative to freighters.

Make drop destruction chance linked to containers. So container always "saves" all content, but is much harder to scan. So using no containers denies gankers the loot at a higher degree, but sacrifice the benefits from containers getting a proper capacity boost. Something like 25-50% bonus.

Make cans/containers drop by themeselves, so the secure ones could be linked to hacking skill.

Thus a true specialized freight would become a vital part of the game, in a more inspirering way then atm.

The difference between DRY and WET freight, and all the emergent gameplay to come from it, while still allowing "easy mode" usage.



Why would a hauler bother with all those different ships when he can buy a Orca/freighter and haul more in a single ship? Thats why there is no specialised bay. A 75K ore bay soulds cool till you understand it offer nothing over an Orca available under a month of training.

COmbat ship of different class have a reason to still be flown because they counter each other. Hauler have one job and it's the same from all calss of hauling ship. Take X from A to B. No matter what X is made of, if you want to carry more, you get a bigger ship.

There are things a battleship will never do like a frig do. An orca can do anything a T1 hauler can do and then some.
Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#509 - 2013-06-21 16:33:37 UTC
Cuervo Harr wrote:
Woah this thread has gone ways, now the mammoth seems to be on the high seat again. I guess no more planning for a set of new cargo rigs to build.

I was thinking we've discussed all axis of rebalancing, tank vs cargo vs looks vs utility vs flexibility vs ...

But we've forgotten an important one. VERTICALITY.

Naglmoth


You're hired.

Where I am.

Utremi Fasolasi
La Dolce Vita
#510 - 2013-06-21 16:45:57 UTC
Altrue wrote:
Caldari ships always have the less cargo capacity of their role, yet I heard that it was an industrial race Roll.



You heard wrong. It's a militant corporatocracy race. That's why their haulers are the most tankable historically and "battle badgers" are a thing.

If anything Gallente is the most "industrial".. the lore glorifies Gallente miners and their role in the Federation to support freedom and independence, and freedom means lots of free trade meaning more variety of haulers.
Ersahi Kir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#511 - 2013-06-21 16:48:27 UTC
Nothing is changing.

We have tech I tanky aligny haulers, we have big cargo paper tank haulers, and assorted marginalized extra haulers. Unfortunately, they all suck and are at best stepping stones to the ships that don't suck.

Freighters, orcas, jump freighters, and cloaky haulers are what people are going for. The only reason people train industrial ships at all is because they are a stepping stone to one of these. Nothing in these proposed changes will change this, outside of maybe a few small niches such as distribution missions.
Caleb Ayrania
TarNec
Invisible Exchequer
#512 - 2013-06-21 17:06:01 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:

Why would a hauler bother with all those different ships when he can buy a Orca/freighter and haul more in a single ship? Thats why there is no specialised bay. A 75K ore bay soulds cool till you understand it offer nothing over an Orca available under a month of training.

COmbat ship of different class have a reason to still be flown because they counter each other. Hauler have one job and it's the same from all calss of hauling ship. Take X from A to B. No matter what X is made of, if you want to carry more, you get a bigger ship.

There are things a battleship will never do like a frig do. An orca can do anything a T1 hauler can do and then some.


Well the Rorqual and Orca are a problem all to themselves.. They need to really be integrated properly into the industrial role and balancing, and atm they are a terrible misbalanced part of the industry class.

Primarily the Orca should be exceptional Booster and Mineral(Ore) low range shipping class, and the Rorq should be a "mini-station" with compression, and even refining, and long range RAW hauling.

The reason you would want a huge range of variety on Industrials, as well as all other ships and game mechanics in EVE is to get away from the WoW optimizing and flavor of the month problem..

Sadly the last 4-5 years CCP have let the pvp community bend things a lot into the flavor of the month philosophy, hopefully the new direction will go back to the old complexity and lateral integration concepts.

Kel hound
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#513 - 2013-06-21 17:13:04 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Not wanting to use the leftover 4 haulers is quite a bit different from not knowing what to do with the primary ones.

We know that we were very unhappy with their balance, especially in light of the skill requirement changes, so there isn't anything premature about the balance we're giving the 8 base ships. Also there's no reason that dealing with the main group restricts our ability to come back to the others.



Honestly if the choice is leaving a handful of hulls behind or asking art to make more haulers then I think you guys have made the right choice.

I could nit-pick for days over which hull should do which job but when it comes down to it T1 haulers really are just a cheep way to move crap from one place to another. As long as I have the ability to slap a basic tank on and can move a decent amount of junk then at the end of the day I'm a happy camper.
Frostys Virpio
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#514 - 2013-06-21 17:27:19 UTC
Caleb Ayrania wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:

Why would a hauler bother with all those different ships when he can buy a Orca/freighter and haul more in a single ship? Thats why there is no specialised bay. A 75K ore bay soulds cool till you understand it offer nothing over an Orca available under a month of training.

COmbat ship of different class have a reason to still be flown because they counter each other. Hauler have one job and it's the same from all calss of hauling ship. Take X from A to B. No matter what X is made of, if you want to carry more, you get a bigger ship.

There are things a battleship will never do like a frig do. An orca can do anything a T1 hauler can do and then some.


Well the Rorqual and Orca are a problem all to themselves.. They need to really be integrated properly into the industrial role and balancing, and atm they are a terrible misbalanced part of the industry class.

Primarily the Orca should be exceptional Booster and Mineral(Ore) low range shipping class, and the Rorq should be a "mini-station" with compression, and even refining, and long range RAW hauling.

The reason you would want a huge range of variety on Industrials, as well as all other ships and game mechanics in EVE is to get away from the WoW optimizing and flavor of the month problem..

Sadly the last 4-5 years CCP have let the pvp community bend things a lot into the flavor of the month philosophy, hopefully the new direction will go back to the old complexity and lateral integration concepts.



What diversity? The ships are made to carry X amount of Y from A to B. The optimal way is either overtank to be sure you don't get ganked or overcarry to make less trips. If you remove the Orca possibilities for hauling, people won't make tens of runs in T1 haulers, they will buy a freighter and keep the T1 hauler as stepping stones toward the "real" haulers. You either make themabout equal so people can choose wich one they fly or you give them each a speciality and people buy freighter who can do all. Any amount of good, specialised or not you want to carry in a T1 will fit in a charon.

The only way to keep them revelant would eb to make them better at something than the current king of hauling. If you could carry more ore in a specialised ship than in a generic one, it would work but it has to be done at the upper level because of the current existance of generic 900K= M3 ships already in game. A dedicated ore hauler could have lets say a 1,5 million m3 ore bay. It would be better at it's job than a charon thus warranting it's own existance but this won't happen at the T1 level.
Klingon Admiral
Black Hole Cluster
#515 - 2013-06-21 17:29:48 UTC
Some quick throwing around of some ideas:

1. Number of industrials per race

Three would be a good number in my oppinion, both Minmatar and Gallente have 3+ haulers and a Caldari one could relatively easy be created (Bustard w/ T1 Shaders). Only Amarr would lack a third industrial design. The haulers should be one each of the following categories:

1. Agile/Tanky Haulers
2. "Generalist" Haulers
3. "Specialist" Haulers

2. Industrial specialization

2.1 Agile/Tanky Haulers

They should have the smallest cargo of the bunch and should specialize to either be tanky OR agile. Maybe even forego a cargo bonus altogether and just give them slightly larger base-cargos. The specializations would of course be:

Caldari: Shield Tanky (Shield HP and/or Shield Resists)
Amarr: Armor Tanky (Armor HP and/or Armor Resists)
Minmatar: Fast agile (agility bonus)
Gallente: Efficient agile (largest cargohold, agility bonus, less agile than Minmatar)

Cargo capacity should go: Gallente > Amarr > Caldari > Minmatar

2.2 "Generalist" Haulers

The industrials we know and love/hate, only in an improved form. They should keep the traditional agility/cargo-boni and offer some sort of balance between agility/tank and cargo, which should lie between 25k and 30k.

Cargo capacity should go: Amarr > Gallente > Caldari > Minmatar

However, Gallente and Minmatar should posses enough agility that they beat Amarr respectively Caldari in the efficency department.

2.3 "Specialist" Haulers

The biggest of the bunch ... as long as you use their additional cargoholds. Should posess a cargo of about 40-50k, with their standard cargobay being really tiny.. My suggestions would be:

Amarr: Ore specilization, tiny cargo + large orebay
Minmatar: Fuel specialization, tiny cargo + large fuelbay, albeit no JD
Caldari: PI specialization, tiny cargo + command center bay (maybe) + PI goods bay, basically a Primae in good

Gallente: no specialization-specialization, no special bay, but the largest cargobay in the T1 subcapital department, total cargo should be significantly smaller than the other specialist haulers to prevent fotm status
Aprudena Gist
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#516 - 2013-06-21 17:35:35 UTC
Just remove the 4 crap and pointless haulers from the game rather then waste more time on haulers in the future.
Salpad
Carebears with Attitude
#517 - 2013-06-21 17:42:27 UTC
Utremi Fasolasi wrote:
Altrue wrote:
Caldari ships always have the less cargo capacity of their role, yet I heard that it was an industrial race Roll.



You heard wrong. It's a militant corporatocracy race. That's why their haulers are the most tankable historically and "battle badgers" are a thing.

If anything Gallente is the most "industrial".. the lore glorifies Gallente miners and their role in the Federation to support freedom and independence, and freedom means lots of free trade meaning more variety of haulers.


Well, that's good then, because then obviously Gallente should get the "specialized" haulers for industry, e.g. one with an ore bay and one with a mineral bay. And there are plenty of spare Gallente hull designs that can be assigned to those roles.
Oraac Ensor
#518 - 2013-06-21 17:48:14 UTC
Lady Ayeipsia wrote:
One thought.... Give us a mid range hauler that is balanced between tank and cargo. As for hull, all we need is an amarr hull.

For gal, use the ity 3. Minmatar, use the mammoth (or shuffle, but you have the spare hull).

For caldari... Use the badger Mrk 2. For the max haul badger, use the mrk 3. The MRK 3 does exist, look at the bustard (t2 blockade runner) it uses the badger Mrk 3 hull, always have. Just reskin it with the standard t1 caldari color scheme.

Them all you need is an amarr middle ground hauler.
And I'd be willing to bet there's at least one lurking in the art department's files.


Dersen Lowery wrote:
OK, then, how about the Tristan? Gallente have always had one extra frigate.
Shocked Eh?
Dave Stark
#519 - 2013-06-21 17:51:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
Ripard Teg wrote:
"If you wanted a max cargo hauler, you had to use an Itty V and nothing else; I'm giving you three other options.";


perhaps but the bestower is bigger at amarr industrial IV than the badger and the mammoth are at caldari/minmatar industrial V respectively.

so he hasn't really given you a choice. if you want a "max cargo hauler" you basically have the iteron V if you bothered training gallente industrial V back when it was truly the only option, or train for a bestower. the other two ships aren't options as they're beaten at the role for less SP.

that simply isn't balanced when one ship is better in it's role than it's counterparts and does so with less SP.

edit: just did the maths, the bestower is 11.47% larger than the badger mk2. you'd need a "caldari industrial VII" (7, seven) to bring the badger within 5% of the bestower (and even then, it's still smaller than the itty V and the bestower). i just can't understand how that is "balanced". perhaps i'm only taking in to consideration the cargo capacity at the expense of everything else, but when you're in said ship the cargo space is all you care about. that's the ship's role.
Frozentank Madullier
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#520 - 2013-06-21 17:55:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Frozentank Madullier
Do you know how cool it would be if instead of having the Iteron II through IV you could simply purchase the level 1 and then several "addons" and then could adjust the ship on departure. Increasing the volume and mass with each level. Like a semi truck. And you could have additional addons available that when repackaged could fit inside the level 1. So let's say I needed to haul a bunch of ships in one direction, I could take off with an Iteron I with 4 addon modules inside. Fly to Jita, expand the ship into an Iteron V and then load it up.

The fact that only Gallente has it really isn't a problem. It's a tech 1 ship that only requires level 1 skill to fly. We're talking about less than 1 day of training. (Then again, I'm always up for more ships in the game)