These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123
 

Thoughts on a Proposal for the Tiericide of the Industrial Ship Class.

Author
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#41 - 2013-02-13 06:42:12 UTC
Tennessee Jack wrote:
I considered the mass issues also, which comes again back to wormholes, as these ships would become the new wormhole closers (over a battleship mass, with the potential to fit a mwd on it and have a massive tank. It has to stay small in mass.

This is an oddity I haven't figured out as of yet. It would be a mess to setup restrictions for this ship.
Why does it have to stay small? What's wrong with using it as a wormhole closer? To get its mass really high, you have to put massive stuff in the cargo. It'll still probably be sorta expensive, in part just because you need an industrial that can hold so much mass. Probably the most useful thing will be that you can adjust the mass to just the right amount. What's wrong with that? It'll make closing wormholes slightly less scary and not actually any easier than it already 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."

Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#42 - 2013-02-13 06:48:00 UTC
Hakan MacTrew wrote:
Just had a thought. It's a bit silly, but you never know.

What are people's thoughts on Pirate Industrials?

Make them smuggler types, but maybe give them ewar, scan proof holds or other interesting and maybe unique bonuses?
I like this a lot. It could help to bring back the kind of piracy that CCP wanted EVE to have but were never able to put in it.

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."

Tennessee Jack
Doomheim
#43 - 2013-02-13 13:32:50 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Tennessee Jack wrote:
I considered the mass issues also, which comes again back to wormholes, as these ships would become the new wormhole closers (over a battleship mass, with the potential to fit a mwd on it and have a massive tank. It has to stay small in mass.

This is an oddity I haven't figured out as of yet. It would be a mess to setup restrictions for this ship.
Why does it have to stay small? What's wrong with using it as a wormhole closer? To get its mass really high, you have to put massive stuff in the cargo. It'll still probably be sorta expensive, in part just because you need an industrial that can hold so much mass. Probably the most useful thing will be that you can adjust the mass to just the right amount. What's wrong with that? It'll make closing wormholes slightly less scary and not actually any easier than it already is?


It's giving a new role to a ship that never had it before. I am more concerned about its mass and its change to gameplay. The restriction of c1 wormholes is there for a reason
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#44 - 2013-02-14 05:48:22 UTC
Tennessee Jack wrote:
It's giving a new role to a ship that never had it before. I am more concerned about its mass and its change to gameplay. The restriction of c1 wormholes is there for a reason
It wouldn't give the industrials any special roles. They would just be doing the same thing other ships can do, only slightly better. Wormhole collapsing isn't a role because any ship can do it.

I know exactly what adding onboard mass to ships would do to gameplay. The majority of people wouldn't notice any change, but industrial and freighter pilots would soon learn that the mass of your cargo affects your align time. Hauler pilots would be able to make faster trips when carrying small loads, and would be slowed down when carrying a lot. The biggest effect of this is that people would no longer choose not to make a trip just because they didn't fill their cargohold yet. It would increase the efficiency and realism in EVE significantly, and offer yet another way that pirates can take advantage of unprepared people who don't belong in lowsec.

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."

Hakan MacTrew
Konrakas Forged
Solyaris Chtonium
#45 - 2013-02-14 07:24:34 UTC
This could work, but I think all hauling ships would need to be rebalanced at the same time. It already takes eons to get a lower skilled charon to warp, with additional mass from cargo I would probably be able to make dinner and have a nap before it reached the next system.

Swapping the ship velocity bonus to an agility bonus could offset the effect a little.

All in all, I'm pro cargo-mass-calculation.
Kathern Aurilen
#46 - 2013-02-15 03:06:32 UTC
PhatController wrote:
Cargo expanders and rigs would not be used if this happened, as wasting a slot for a tiny 50-200m3 or cargo on a ship that already has 35k m3 is pointless. Also, why add guns/missiles to haulers. Also agree that +1 warp strength is OP.

But most of all, why fix something that isn't broken? I don't see any real benefit to doing this.

The only thing I can think of atm that's need changed in the hauling space, is the addition of a ship to plug the huge hole in between industrial's and haulers, maybe in the 250-350k m3 range.

With a cargo extender 2 in a 35k hold would give u a 44625 m3 hold... 27.5%

No cuts, no butts, no coconuts!

Forum alt, unskilled in the ways of pewpew!

Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#47 - 2013-02-15 11:17:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
Hakan MacTrew wrote:
This could work, but I think all hauling ships would need to be rebalanced at the same time. It already takes eons to get a lower skilled charon to warp, with additional mass from cargo I would probably be able to make dinner and have a nap before it reached the next system.

Swapping the ship velocity bonus to an agility bonus could offset the effect a little.

All in all, I'm pro cargo-mass-calculation.
Of course they would need rebalancing. Like I said, they should warp faster than current when empty, and only slower than current when filled with dense cargo. It would require looking at item density, fixing (and adding in some cases) module mass-to-volume ratios, and then checking how these ships align when full to the brim with heavy stuff, and adjust their base mass and inertia modifier until the difference in align time between empty and full is favorable; not too much and not too little.

Kathern, that person was talking about someone else's idea to make cargo expanders grant a static amount of cargo space, instead of a percentage-based bonus like they do currently.

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."

Bugsy VanHalen
Society of lost Souls
#48 - 2013-02-15 16:54:41 UTC
PhatController wrote:
Cargo expanders and rigs would not be used if this happened, as wasting a slot for a tiny 50-200m3 or cargo on a ship that already has 35k m3 is pointless. Also, why add guns/missiles to haulers. Also agree that +1 warp strength is OP.

But most of all, why fix something that isn't broken? I don't see any real benefit to doing this.

The only thing I can think of atm that's need changed in the hauling space, is the addition of a ship to plug the huge hole in between industrial's and haulers, maybe in the 250-350k m3 range.

The size of a jump freighter?

I'd rather just see a big boost to the ORCA cargo hold to fill this need. Since it can no longer be used as a unscanable hauler, compensate it by giving it a much larger cargo bay. This would equally benift those using it for mining fleets as it could hold more ore.

To the OP. Your general idea is close to what I believe we will get. With the exception of combat modules, and +1 warp strength on a T1, I just can't see that happening.

I expect we will get 3 indys for each race. Not sure what they will do about the extra 2 gal inddy's but really the itty 2 and 4 are rarely used.

I would say we will get one with a cargo buff, one with a tank buff, and one with a speed buff for each race. Current T1 indys have 5000-10000 ehp when cargo fit. I could see the tanked version getting 20-30,000 but that's about it. it is a T1 indy after all. other two will probably still be in the 5-10k ehp range.

I just hope they keep at least one blockade runner with two high slots. currently only the prowler has 2 high slot, but is is nice for scanning moons as it can fit a cov-ops cloak and a probe launcher, with plenty of extra probes in the cargo bay. This is a needed tool. In fact I think all T2 blockade runners should have two high slots.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#49 - 2013-02-17 01:40:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
Bugsy VanHalen wrote:
PhatController wrote:
The only thing I can think of atm that's need changed in the hauling space, is the addition of a ship to plug the huge hole in between industrial's and haulers, maybe in the 250-350k m3 range.
I'd rather just see a big boost to the ORCA cargo hold to fill this need.
Please stop mentioning the Orca as a suitable mini-freighter, because it just is not. It has enough cargo room for the role; that's not the issue. The reason it doesn't work is because it doesn't align faster than a freighter, it's not significantly cheaper to train for or to buy, it has lots of roles that a mini-freighter doesn't need. It has just too much extra baggage, if you will.

Do we really have to point this out to every single person? Is there not one person out there who has the common sense to see why an Orca is not a good fit as a mini-freighter? I am so tired of pointing this out to you people.

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."

Melekhar Tazinas
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#50 - 2013-02-17 06:44:47 UTC
What would you say would be a good price range for a mini-freighter, then? It should clearly be cheaper than an Orca, but ~300-400m might make it too affordable already?
Arronicus
State War Academy
Caldari State
#51 - 2013-02-17 09:21:07 UTC
Alara IonStorm wrote:

3. Orca and Rorqual

The Cargo Expander Change will hurt the Orca which is why I suggest the ORE Bay be Expanded to a lofty 250000 Orca / 500000 Rorqual and their Cargo Hold be dropped to around 2500m3 for Crystal Storage.




OP Advertises thread as Industrial tiericide/rebalancing, but is secretly using thread to promote OP's idea that the Rorqual and Orca should be nerfed as hauling ships, and should only be able to carry 2500m3 of items, instead of 100k/120k as is currently possible.

No, no, and no. So glad to know that CCP won't be making this kind of blunder.
Caitlyn Tufy
Perkone
Caldari State
#52 - 2013-02-17 11:55:38 UTC
Arronicus wrote:
[quote=Alara IonStorm]OP Advertises thread as Industrial tiericide/rebalancing, but is secretly using thread to promote OP's idea that the Rorqual and Orca should be nerfed as hauling ships, and should only be able to carry 2500m3 of items, instead of 100k/120k as is currently possible.

No, no, and no. So glad to know that CCP won't be making this kind of blunder.


Thing is, Orca and Rorqual are supposed to be mining support ships, but they're often used as a mini freighter / super transport or mobile bases, because there's no intermediate ships. In my opinion, we could split industrial as follows:

Tech 1:
1. Small fast transport with high speed, low cargo space in 5k m3 region (sort of industrial frigate)
2. versatile transport with moderate speed, cargo space in 40k m3 region and the ability to use cynos
3. combat transport with moderate speed, maximum cargo space in 20k m3 region (mostly lower, as it would be tanked), decent health and the ability to field cruiser-like dps

Tech 2:
1. Blockade Runner (same as now, except potentially with 2 highs on all of them)
2. Deep Space Transport changed into a mini Freighter (slighly better aligning as Orca, no ore hold, hangar, fewer slots, but around 200k m3 max cargo and considerably lower cost

3. Freighter (same as now)
4. Jump Freighter (same as now)

This way, Orca would retain its flexibility, the current top end T1 transports would remain where they are, but we'd get a few dedicated ships and an intermediate step between T1 and Freighters that doesn't require you to become a mining director :)
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#53 - 2013-02-17 13:09:51 UTC
Caitlyn Tufy wrote:
2. Deep Space Transport changed into a mini Freighter (slighly better aligning as Orca, no ore hold, hangar, fewer slots, but around 200k m3 max cargo and considerably lower cost
The mini-freighter should be tech 1. Just something cheap-for-its-size so it can be as affordable as possible. The Deep Space Transport line should have its attributes looked at. Perhaps a third line of transports should be added, matching with the idea of three types of industrial. But Deep Space Transports should be awesome and expensive, as is befitting their being tech 2.

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."

Caitlyn Tufy
Perkone
Caldari State
#54 - 2013-02-17 14:12:08 UTC
The problem with that suggestion is how fast the ship is available and how much it costs. A mini freighter would need to be priced somewhere around 400-500 million isk, which is more than any other T1 ship that I'm aware of. Furthermore, it would need a separate skill that would push its training time to around 8 days (same as battleships), lest it would be an equivalent of giving a 1 day old character the ability to pilot battleships/mining barges. There has to be some sense of progression, from light industrials to medium sized ones to large ones.

Perhaps it would make more sense to split the ships into different sizes, same as combat ships or mining barges are, similar to this (only primary skills are listed, spaceship command / advanced spaceship command would be added as needed, of course; it would take 30 minutes to train basic industrial, 8 days for light freighter and about a month for freighter. T2s would be sidegrades to their corresponding size.

Racial Industrial skill I (basic industrials T1)
Racial Industrial skill V -> Racial Transport skill I (industrials T2)
Racial Industrial skill III -> Racial Freighter skill I (light freighters T1)
Racial Industrial skill III -> Racial Freighter skill III -> Capital Freighter I (freighter T1)
Racial Industrial skill III -> Racial Freighter skill III -> Capital Freighter IV -> Jump Freighter I (freighter T2)
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#55 - 2013-02-17 14:33:00 UTC
Making a ship bigger and more expensive isn't an excuse to make it tech 2. Tech 2 has nothing to do with magnitude. You're right that it would need to be pretty expensive. Orcas and freighters cost more though, and they are tech 1. Also, being tech 1 has nothing to do with the training time. Obviously, the ship would probably require advanced spaceship command, but the specifics of that should be left up to CCP. They're really good at sorting that stuff out.

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."

Jason Xado
Doomheim
#56 - 2013-02-17 16:12:23 UTC
I like the ideas of having Industrials that fill specific roles. Here is a quick list of ideas I just brainstormed through:

1.) Mining Support - Large Ore Hold, Very Small General Hold, Lot's of high slots and tractor beam bonuses.
2.) Combat Supply - Ship Maintenance Array, Allow Ship Fitting, Ammo and Charges hold, High Defense
3.) PI Support - Large PI Hold, Very Small General Hold
4.) Small Fast Supply - Small Hold, fast and agile
5.) Convoy Defense - Medium Hold - Guns and such
6.) Ship Transport - Large Ship Hold (just hold assembled ships, not a maintenance array). Very Small General Hold.
7.) Combat Drop Ship. Has room for one ship. Can fly into battle and allow one player to switch his ship with the one in hold. Good abilities to get out of combat after drop is made.
8.) Supply Ship - Large Ammo and Charges hold, long range reverse tractor beam to send ammo and supplies to fleet mates. Or maybe some sort of supply beam that works like a logistics beam but moves items from ship to ship.
9.) Cargo Smuggler - Contrband Hold, Reduced chance of customs detection


Anyway just some ideas to throw around :-)
Vayn Baxtor
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#57 - 2013-02-17 19:11:57 UTC
All sounds great so far.

I just want to see that we do actually get something to help the corp/ally cargo logistics pilots. I'd almost say it is a damn necessity to have a decent cyno ship that can do half of what a JF can do, too. It is often too much of a workload to get things from A to B, especially for small corps that have just a few people who have such.

Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all.

Previous page123