These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Kronos] Deep Space Transport Rebalance

First post First post
Author
Anonymous Forumposter
State War Academy
Caldari State
#321 - 2014-05-21 03:15:47 UTC
Catherine Laartii wrote:
3. This will change wh landscape, especially C1.

I admit that this is a pretty severe issue that needs some serious consideration. Here's a pretty simple solution: increase the mass of the larger cargo haulers, both the DSTS and their t1 counterparts, to quite a bit larger than they are, and possibly the model a bit too. If they can haul battleships around in their cargohold, they should be roughly around the same size of them, and about as heavy.
This would balance some of the mass-limit issues that are being raised, and can easily integrated statistically and lore-wise since much of their statistics outline them as being quite a bit larger than their fast-transport counterparts, and lore-wise it already makes sense considering the spaciousness of their holds and how the 'stronger' t2 materials can compensate for more base interior room for these proportionately cavernous fleet hangers.


Let me start off this post stating that I have never lived in a wormhole, nor have I ever jumped anything larger than a frigate through one. Take into consideration my openly admitted ignorance of the gameplay into consideration while reading this post.

It has always seemed a little odd that you can't have thing inside of a ship that's inside another ship. I'm speaking completely in terms of logic and not game mechanics and balance. I understand why they do it, and I agree with the reasons. However, I do think (In my admitted ignorance) that being able to haul things inside ships inside your ship makes sense, and if a balance can be reached doing so, shaking the meta up would be a good thing.

Additionally, I think that ships in Ship Maintenance Bays should add their mass to the parent ship. I personally would appreciate the entire contents of the cargo to play a role in a ships mass, but I also appreciate the complexity of the undertaking that would be to balance every single item's mass around this mechanic and don't ever expect this to be a thing.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#322 - 2014-05-21 03:22:36 UTC
Bren Genzan wrote:
My Bustard is named "Terrible Ship", so I look forward to any changes that increases its use, but without a much bigger capacity, I can't see choosing it over the Orca or the Freighter.


The DSTs have a faster align and a higher warp speed than the Orca, so for cargoes in the range of 10k–60k they'll be very good tanky haulers with means of escaping aggressors. Thus we have the Hoarder, Kryos, Miasmos and Epithal as special-purpose large haulers, which you can fly while training the skills required to board a DST.
Komi Toran
Perkone
Caldari State
#323 - 2014-05-21 03:52:12 UTC
Catherine Laartii wrote:
Despite this, I would very much like to see the mastodon and occater get their speed bonus replaced with agility, and the bustard and impel get missile bonuses with a slot or two swapped for two highs each, and given a total of 4 launchers with bonuses (5% firing rate for impel, 10% kin damage for bustard) to give them the option to fight back a little or be used in defensive exotic pvp situations. An unbonused drone bay on the occator for 20/40 bandwidth and space would be very nice.

I don't understand this. Why do we want to give ships bonuses to things that they still wouldn't be good at? Bonuses should play to strengths.

And what did the Impel or Bustard ever do to you to make you hate them so? At least with the Mastodon and Occater, they'd get a big boost to m3/hour. Meanwhile you give the Amarr and Gallente an aggression timer so they're stuck on the wrong side of a gate with hostiles running a compromised tank due to worthless highslots.
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#324 - 2014-05-21 03:58:51 UTC
All this talk of cargo inside ships inside ships just takes me a little ot.. We really need a true dedicated ship hauler..

I mean the contract wrap trick to get BS's inside a Freighter is meh.. Orca's can only carry a relatively small amount of ships.. Carriers are in Null..

It would be nice to see a T2 Freighter or Orca that was all, or mostly all Ship Hangar..

Personally I'd lean to T2 Orca, hold just a little larger than a single BS ( BS+Cruiser? BC+2x Cruiser?) and a small fleet hangar and cargo..


Anyway.. I agree on the point of shrinking the DST's to fit back in an Orca for now.. they can always be adjusted up in the future.. OR just let us store stuff in the holds with Cargo.. I never understood why not.. you can't access them in space, and if I can hold the whole SHIP, why can't I hold it's cargo ? If I want to put a hauler inside my Orca for hauling around extra ore, or something, so be it.. just makes for a better Killmail :)
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#325 - 2014-05-21 04:22:21 UTC
I'm all for a ship line with dedicated SMB but that's really for a separate thread to suggest. DST fit a role of their own and hijacking them to be ship haulers leaves that role unfilled.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

Odithia
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#326 - 2014-05-21 06:07:30 UTC
I'm happy with those changes, I think it will turn the DST into viable hi-sec haulers, or mini freighters.
Should be able to break 150k EHP and be sort of immune to bump with 55k m3 I believe we will see quite a lot of them around.

They could be renamed something else than "Deep Space" though, this kinda refer to null, after all we already changed the Mothership name to Supercarrier so that wouldn't be a first.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#327 - 2014-05-21 06:18:50 UTC
Odithia wrote:
They could be renamed something else than "Deep Space" though, this kinda refer to null, after all we already changed the Mothership name to Supercarrier so that wouldn't be a first.


Armoured Transports? Big smile
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#328 - 2014-05-21 07:03:49 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
Odithia wrote:
They could be renamed something else than "Deep Space" though, this kinda refer to null, after all we already changed the Mothership name to Supercarrier so that wouldn't be a first.


Armoured Transports? Big smile


The whole "deep space" thing is based on some romantic/mistaken idea from way back when, since then replaced with (jump)freighters. Armoured Transports as a name makes really good sense as that is what they are.
Dave Stark
#329 - 2014-05-21 07:32:30 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
So Fozzie, can you please put the size back to the point where you can put a DST in the SMB of the Orca?

last night when i was testing; you could still fit a DST in an orca. seems SISI isn't up to date with all of the changes.
Carniflex
StarHunt
Mordus Angels
#330 - 2014-05-21 07:39:43 UTC
Sniper Smith wrote:

It would be nice to see a T2 Freighter or Orca that was all, or mostly all Ship Hangar..

Personally I'd lean to T2 Orca, hold just a little larger than a single BS ( BS+Cruiser? BC+2x Cruiser?) and a small fleet hangar and cargo..


I would put my bet on T2 Orca (if it ever is introduced) a WH oriented "mobile base" kind of thing. Perhaps a cov cloak and extra slot for probe launcher even ... who knows. I kinda doubt that they would go with the same route as JF (by adding jump drive to T2 variant) as it would be overshadowed by both JF and Roqual in most aspects leaving it a rather tiny niche to live in if done that way.

Hauling a assembled battleship in a ship that is even less mobile than BS is also rather .. small niche .. to live in in my option. I can kinda understand the desire to move larger number of smaller ships as opposed doing individual trips with these but even that can already be accomplished by courier contracting and hauling with any of the ships capable of taking the assembled size of these.

The reason why hi sec ships do not have ship maint bay which can carry combat ships is to avoid criminals ignoring the sec status by hauling their gank catalysts up into the target with Orca, warping to it, grabbing the catalyst and ganking away.

Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK! GOT the bastard.

Arronicus
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#331 - 2014-05-21 08:11:08 UTC
Neutral Jita Hauler wrote:
If they didn't take the lazy route with a fleet hanger and instead created a non-restricted 'general goods bay', all of this would have been prevented.


So much this. Losing the ability to pack ~3 hulks in my rorq with a bustard now to have a hauler with my hulks for mining convenience >.>
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#332 - 2014-05-21 11:09:32 UTC
So there had been a problem that had prevented use of the "ammo only" check for fleet hangars years ago, but it turns out one of our programmers fixed it in 2012 as part of another change and forgot to tell people. Lol

So although it's appropriate for the DSTs to be fairly large, we're bringing them back to the ~400k size since we don't need to worry about balance issues around carrier or rorqual cargo capacity.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

Dave Stark
#333 - 2014-05-21 11:18:13 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
So there had been a problem that had prevented use of the "ammo only" check for fleet hangars years ago, but it turns out one of our programmers fixed it in 2012 as part of another change and forgot to tell people. Lol

So although it's appropriate for the DSTs to be fairly large, we're bringing them back to the ~400k size since we don't need to worry about balance issues around carrier or rorqual cargo capacity.


a bustard is 290k.

any reason why you're adding another ~100k to it, since you don't need to worry about balance issues?
(did you accidentally hit 4 not 3?)
Gotze
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#334 - 2014-05-21 11:23:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Gotze
CCP Fozzie wrote:
So there had been a problem that had prevented use of the "ammo only" check for fleet hangars years ago, but it turns out one of our programmers fixed it in 2012 as part of another change and forgot to tell people. Lol

So although it's appropriate for the DSTs to be fairly large, we're bringing them back to the ~400k size since we don't need to worry about balance issues around carrier or rorqual cargo capacity.


So , are you gonna fix it so anything can be in fleet hangar ?

Cool so we can have 2 DST inside a carrier.
Rabbit P
Nuwa Foundation
The Therapists
#335 - 2014-05-21 11:27:23 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
So there had been a problem that had prevented use of the "ammo only" check for fleet hangars years ago, but it turns out one of our programmers fixed it in 2012 as part of another change and forgot to tell people. Lol

So although it's appropriate for the DSTs to be fairly large, we're bringing them back to the ~400k size since we don't need to worry about balance issues around carrier or rorqual cargo capacity.


so the assembled volumes of the DSTs increased or not?
BadAssMcKill
Aliastra
#336 - 2014-05-21 11:33:53 UTC
So can you put stuff in them and then put them in a carrier SMA or ???
Kyt Thrace
Lightspeed Enterprises
Goonswarm Federation
#337 - 2014-05-21 11:37:57 UTC
BadAssMcKill wrote:
So can you put stuff in them and then put them in a carrier SMA or ???


only ammo

R.I.P. Vile Rat

CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#338 - 2014-05-21 11:46:03 UTC
Fleet hangars will follow the same rules as normal cargo when you attempt to place a ship inside of a Ship Maintenance Bay. And the numbers in the OP are currently correct.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

Dave Stark
#339 - 2014-05-21 11:47:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
CCP Fozzie wrote:
And the numbers in the OP are currently correct.


so why do DSTs now take up an extra 100k m3?

actually, never mind, i just clocked it.
*looks at hoarder*
Gotze
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#340 - 2014-05-21 11:49:23 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
G's Biatch wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone. Allowing launching and scooping of structures from fleet hangars is something that needs more investigation, so we're increasing the standard cargo holds on all the DSTs so they can easily deploy and scoop structures.

We are also increasing the assembled volumes of the DSTs a bit, to keep the balance surrounding DSTs hauling cargo in ship maintenance bays.

We have discussed the questions surrounding hauling of battleships into C1 wormholes with the CSM and internally, and decided that we are ok with this function at this time. Using a DST to get a battleship into a C1 siege still requires the attackers to have their own starbase set up in the system for disassembly.



Fozzie Can we fill the Fleet Hanger and place these ships in SMA's in cap ships, or will the Ammo only rule still apply?

Thanks


The ammo only rule does not apply to fleet hangars.



So you are changing your mind ?