These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

Orca changes I would like to see for winter
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2012-09-28 03:34:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Omnathious Deninard
Change cargo holds around
Cargohold 30,000 > 6,000. (-24,000)
Ore Hold 50,000 > 200,000 (+150,000)
Edit: Corp Hanger 40,000 (+0)
Ship Maintance Bay 400,000 (+0)
Alter skill bonuses
Industrial Command Bonus
+5% to Ore Hold per level
+5% to mining foreman links per level
Slot Layout
High Slots 4 (+1)
Mid Slots 4 (+0)
Low Slots 2 (+0)

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Astroniomix
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#2 - 2012-09-28 04:17:10 UTC
Part of the point of the orca is to give people something to move cargo that is too big for an industrial in something smaller and less expensive than a freighter.

So I'm going to have to say no to your idea.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2012-09-28 04:39:10 UTC
Astroniomix wrote:
Part of the point of the orca is to give people something to move cargo that is too big for an industrial in something smaller and less expensive than a freighter.

So I'm going to have to say no to your idea.

And orca is almost as expensive as a freighter and also most people move there cargo from the safety of the corporate hanger bay, not the regular cargo hold.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Ruareve
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#4 - 2012-09-28 05:40:51 UTC
Oddly enough, I'd agree to this change. I think there is a definite need for a mid-size freighter and too many times people point to the Orca. Make the Orca a pure mining support vessel and then there would be no reason to avoid putting in a 200k-300k size freighter.

Yet another blog about Eve- http://ruar-eve.blogspot.com/
Astroniomix
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#5 - 2012-09-28 06:22:09 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Astroniomix wrote:
Part of the point of the orca is to give people something to move cargo that is too big for an industrial in something smaller and less expensive than a freighter.

So I'm going to have to say no to your idea.

And orca is almost as expensive as a freighter and also most people move there cargo from the safety of the corporate hanger bay, not the regular cargo hold.

Yea orca prices went full ****** it appears. I bought mine for like 450.

Still don't like your idea.
ugh zug
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2012-09-28 07:28:44 UTC
id like to see the industrial capitals revisited too but its not going to happen anytime soon.

your idea is to give the orca an ore bay of 180k m^3 ore at level 5 for the loss of massive universal cargo and it hauls just about the same amount of ore as before with cargo rigs and expanders? why bother at all except to nerf the most versatile ship out there? i admit the 2% extra mining foreman bonus would be nice but that just defeat the purpose of tweaking the ore bay?

Also the tractor beam bonus is actually very handy but the orca lacks the highs, scan res, locked targets, and lock range to be fully utilize.

imo rather the ore bay should be 350k to 400k m^3, and allow fleet members to drop directly into it.
drop the base cargo to 10-15k m^3 if not less.
drop corp hangar size to 20k m^3.
add more slots, highs mids and lows.
give the ship proper stats befitting the capital tag, or stop referring to the orca as such.

speaking of names the Orca is an Apex predator, so why did ccp give the name to an derpy industry capital ship?

Want me to shut up? Remove content from my post,1B. Remove my content from a thread I have started 2B.
Kopfy
#7 - 2012-09-28 08:07:54 UTC
Then they could implement a t2 black ops Orca which has no ore hold but a very nice Jump fuel bay and maybe a little boost to the ship hangar.

also, medium freighters, yes please.
King Rothgar
Deadly Solutions
#8 - 2012-09-28 08:27:23 UTC
I much prefer the orca as is. It currently fills the role of midsized freighter. The prices are completely ****ed on it currently but that's another issue. Last orca I bought cost 450M and normal freighters cost 700-800M at the time. It also warps around a lot faster than a normal freighter.

[u]Fireworks and snowballs are great, but what I really want is a corpse launcher.[/u]
HELLBOUNDMAN
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#9 - 2012-09-28 08:44:40 UTC
Astroniomix wrote:
Part of the point of the orca is to give people something to move cargo that is too big for an industrial in something smaller and less expensive than a freighter.

So I'm going to have to say no to your idea.


They're going to be rebalancing indy ships.

I'm sure they'll either introduce or rebalance them to be able to carry larger amounts.

Thus, no need for the cargohold on the orca, and least, after itty rebalance.
kerradeph
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#10 - 2012-09-28 09:16:35 UTC
if they mess around with the various holds of the orca, make sure to balance the rorqual equally.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#11 - 2012-09-28 11:50:47 UTC
So looks like up the ore hold and play with the slot layout? How about
Ore Hold 200,000
+5% ore hold capacity per level
Add +1 high slot

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#12 - 2012-09-28 11:52:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Omnathious Deninard
kerradeph wrote:
if they mess around with the various holds of the orca, make sure to balance the rorqual equally.

The only thing I really see the rorqual needs if to ditch the need to deploy to gain the bonus to boosting and maybe up the ore hold to 300,000 (+50,000), other than that it seems pretty solid

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#13 - 2012-09-28 14:00:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Nikk Narrel
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
kerradeph wrote:
if they mess around with the various holds of the orca, make sure to balance the rorqual equally.

The only thing I really see the rorqual needs if to ditch the need to deploy to gain the bonus to boosting and maybe up the ore hold to 300,000 (+50,000), other than that it seems pretty solid

The rorqual has a different set of issues entirely, thanks to other threads bashing POS protected and off grid boosting.
Needing to deploy the rorqual for those boosting bonuses kills any reasonable argument to have it operate out of the belt.

EVE pilots learned the hard way that attacking a target over the short period needed to pop something with the rorqual's stats is too simple. You just ignore and tank the defenders while focusing on that cap ship, and any ships lost will not be significant compared to the value of that cap ship kill.

That is part of the reason we have jump freighters, devs saw that fleeting up to guard a regular freighter on a supply run was not balanced.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2012-09-28 14:05:48 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
kerradeph wrote:
if they mess around with the various holds of the orca, make sure to balance the rorqual equally.

The only thing I really see the rorqual needs if to ditch the need to deploy to gain the bonus to boosting and maybe up the ore hold to 300,000 (+50,000), other than that it seems pretty solid

The rorqual has a different set of issues entirely, thanks to other threads bashing POS protected and off grid boosting.
Needing to deploy the rorqual for those boosting bonuses kills any reasonable argument to have it operate out of the belt.

I understand this, which is why the rorqual should be able to provide bonused boosting without the need to deploy, at the time it is the only ship that needs to deploy to provide maximum boosting, which makes no sense at all.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#15 - 2012-09-28 14:18:19 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
kerradeph wrote:
if they mess around with the various holds of the orca, make sure to balance the rorqual equally.

The only thing I really see the rorqual needs if to ditch the need to deploy to gain the bonus to boosting and maybe up the ore hold to 300,000 (+50,000), other than that it seems pretty solid

The rorqual has a different set of issues entirely, thanks to other threads bashing POS protected and off grid boosting.
Needing to deploy the rorqual for those boosting bonuses kills any reasonable argument to have it operate out of the belt.

I understand this, which is why the rorqual should be able to provide bonused boosting without the need to deploy, at the time it is the only ship that needs to deploy to provide maximum boosting, which makes no sense at all.

Add the ability to compress without deploying, and it makes sense. Otherwise it has no realistic place to perform this action.

As to the orca changes, I tend to agree with you. These mining ships keep getting misused for PvP, and the dev's attempts to restrict that is making it less useful for mining.

The barges and exhumers swapping to ore holds is a very obvious mining only focus, so ships like the mackinaw don't get turned into haulers.

I would give the Orca a bonus to it's ship maintenance bay: another 50k per level of Industrial Command Ship, but usable only by mining ships like the rorq bay is for this bonus space (eliminating the chance of storing BS in one).

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#16 - 2012-09-28 14:32:55 UTC
You got a mining buff.

Orcas are fine. You can "AFK" enough already, and mineral and ice prices are dropping through the floor.


Rorqual needs work, I agree.

Where I am.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#17 - 2012-09-28 14:39:53 UTC
Bloodpetal wrote:
You got a mining buff.

Orcas are fine. You can "AFK" enough already, and mineral and ice prices are dropping through the floor.


Rorqual needs work, I agree.

Lol afk and Orca in the same statement. This proposed change does not make it any easier to afk mine.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#18 - 2012-09-28 14:39:58 UTC
Increasing the holds of the T1 indys, without increasing the tank, is pandering to gankers. Even now, a fully loaded Itty 5 is asking for it to be blown up. By, at most, a single battlecruiser.

Personally, I'd like to see a proper mid sized freighter with a tank of a similar ehp/m3 ratio to the current freighters.

I guite like the larger ore bay idea, with a reduced cargo space for the orca

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#19 - 2012-09-28 14:41:54 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
kerradeph wrote:
if they mess around with the various holds of the orca, make sure to balance the rorqual equally.

The only thing I really see the rorqual needs if to ditch the need to deploy to gain the bonus to boosting and maybe up the ore hold to 300,000 (+50,000), other than that it seems pretty solid

The rorqual has a different set of issues entirely, thanks to other threads bashing POS protected and off grid boosting.
Needing to deploy the rorqual for those boosting bonuses kills any reasonable argument to have it operate out of the belt.

I understand this, which is why the rorqual should be able to provide bonused boosting without the need to deploy, at the time it is the only ship that needs to deploy to provide maximum boosting, which makes no sense at all.

Add the ability to compress without deploying, and it makes sense. Otherwise it has no realistic place to perform this action.

That could be easily fixed by changing the industrial core, and leaving the ship as is. Remove the -100% velocity modifier from the core and remove the 10x mass modifier also.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#20 - 2012-09-28 15:12:48 UTC
Updated
i thought about changing the sma around but it is very useful to be able to hold a couple cruisers in the event of ganks

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
12Next page