These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Jattila Vrek
Green Visstick High
#221 - 2013-06-19 20:50:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Jattila Vrek
One thing I remember from being a new player is that the rigs were prohibitively expensive, much more expensive than the ship. I'd love to see the smaller ship not only being more agile, but also being a cheaper 'small' class ship that uses small rigs. It wouldn't necessarily need to have more tank - that's what the tech II DST is for. Next step would be to introduce battlehip sized haulers that fit between freighters and the normal haulers.
FishySquirrel
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#222 - 2013-06-19 20:54:44 UTC
Well at least it gives me a reason to reprocess my mammoths, I guess >.>
Gogela
Epic Ganking Time
CODE.
#223 - 2013-06-19 21:12:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Gogela
ALL RIGHT! These are really good changes, CCP. The 2 slots high on the indys is a great idea... I think that was needed. Probably the best change but it's nice to see the capacity get a little bump there too. Now people can fit more loot in their hold which is good for gatecampers too. Pirate

I still think there's some good opportunity here to add another class of hauler though. I think you should offer something like a mini-freighter class, with 50k-100k m3 capacity, maneuverability like a freighter, but with one high, 2 mid, and 1 low slot(s), no rigs. Put the build reqs at the equivalent of 80 Iteron V's, and add a new skill. That's my friendly advice... for what it's worth. There's a gap for new players between transport ships and freighters that's pretty huge. I think a mini-freighter would balance that out and give haulers a more linear path to freighters and JFs. Doing this could also help spread the markets out in empire a lot more. Areas of empire far flung from Jita, Rens, and Amarr are thin because in oder for it to be worth it for traders they need to mark up items quite a bit, which keeps people making the trek to Jita to buy bulk goods. If logistics was less of an issue, I think it would encourage more people to train up Tycoon IV or V and put up more orders at lower prices, which would encourage laziness and thus more volume in sales in these further flung areas... then the economy might get a little healthier around the periphery.

So... is that something that makes sense to you CCP? Or no? Smile

Signatures should be used responsibly...
Mirta Vanderkill
Sgt. Holtman's Heroes
#224 - 2013-06-19 21:13:35 UTC
In terms of adding new industrial roles, why not have some of the 'in-between' ships serve alternative roles?

For example:

Iteron I: "Box TrucK", As is, Smaller Cargo Capacity, but good tank & Agility.

Iteron II: "Pickup Truck", Smallest cargo capacity, Excellent Agility, Excellent Speed. Autopiloter's wet dream.

Iteron III: "Dump Truck", Minimal Cargo hold (~100m3) Massive Ore Bay, designed for use in mining gangs as a mobile jet can.

Iteron IV: "Car Carrier", Minimal Cargo Hold, ~50-100k carrier-style ship bay, for moving ship hulls to market

Iteron V: "Commercial Truck", As is, Largest Cargo Capacity at the cost of all else.

These are the roles I've seen used with T1 haulers that aren't covered anywhere else. Obviously, carry similar changes throughout the races as appropriate, adding 2-3 more haulers each.
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#225 - 2013-06-19 21:27:27 UTC
Mammoth should be the largest minmatar hauler. It also looks better too Cool

Now it doesn't really matter which races haulers you train, they are all the same. Great job...

Honestly the users here on forums come up with more creative ideas for haulers...
Davion Falcon
Those Once Loyal
#226 - 2013-06-19 21:28:23 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:


First, something kind of simple: why the Hoarder instead of the Mammoth? This basically comes down to art direction. At earlier stages in this rebalance we considered both removing some ships from the game, and also adding more. Part of that discussion led to art asking that we use the Hoarder rather than the Mammoth as one of the primary Minmatar industrials.



Isn't this the same art team that thought removing the frills from the Vagabond was a good idea? That alone should tip you off when there's community backlash against replacing the Mammoth with the Hoarder.

Ruthlessness is the kindness of the wise. Never forgotten, never forgiven.
Edward Lessingham
Independent Traders and Builders
#227 - 2013-06-19 21:29:53 UTC
I use the Mammoth almost exclusively. I'm not opposed to logical rebalancing and repurposing, but why leapfrog the Hoarder over the Mammoth? Why not just adjust each as you see fit and not disturb "the order". I don't want to have to buy a whole new fleet of haulers in order to maximize my hauling capabilities -- especially if its only for 'artistic' reasons. If you must do this, then allow us to swap our Mammoths for the new Hoarders (gratis).
While you're into cosmetic overhauls, the poor old Wreathe could use a facelift.
Kane Fenris
NWP
#228 - 2013-06-19 21:34:48 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
I'll try to get a meeting tomorrow with Art and see if we can reach an agreement about the Mammoth. I'm kind of surprised so few of you like the Hoarder though, its pretty hilarious looking.

Look for a post with final word sometime tomorrow.



i support the hoarder over the mammoth !
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#229 - 2013-06-19 21:42:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
Jattila Vrek wrote:
One thing I remember from being a new player is that the rigs were prohibitively expensive, much more expensive than the ship. I'd love to see the smaller ship not only being more agile, but also being a cheaper 'small' class ship that uses small rigs. It wouldn't necessarily need to have more tank - that's what the tech II DST is for. Next step would be to introduce battlehip sized haulers that fit between freighters and the normal haulers.
I would really like to see a frigate-sized hauler that can haul maybe 2000-3000m3 of cargo at maximum, but would be slightly tanky (in proportion to its size of course) and would have not only a very fast align time but would also have a high max velocity. When fitted with a 1MN MWD, it should be able to go around 1500-2000m/s.

Howabout 3 size classes of industrial, 6 total industrials per race?

FRIGATE INDUSTRIALS
* fast-aligning hauler with high structure HP, low sig radius, around 15-20MW powergrid, and around 5000-6000 max cargo
* fast-aligning, fast-moving tanky type with low sig radius, around 30-40MW powergrid, and around 2000-2500 max cargo

CRUISER INDUSTRIALS
* medium hauler with high structure HP, around 70-90MW powergrid, and around 20,000-25,000 max cargo
- * AMARR: fitting service hauler with bonus to cap transfer, fitting service, and a 15,000m3 module bay
- * CALDARI: refueling ship with bonus to cap transfer and a 25,000m3 fuel bay that can carry POS fuel blocks and all refined ice components
- * GALLENTE: ore hauler with 40,000m3 ore and tritanium bay
- * MINMATAR: ship carrier with 250,000m3 ship maintenance bay

BATTLESHIP INDUSTRIALS
* max space hauler with high structure HP, around 200-300MW powergrid, and around 100,000-125,000 max cargo
* defense/combat hauler with almost full battleship HP and slots, racial defense skill bonus, around 4000-5000MW powergrid, 5-6 high slots with turrets/launchers (fits medium weapons), drone bay/bandwidth (with a lot of extra drone room), and 20,000-25,000 max cargo

Also, I'll support the hoarder over the mammoth if we can swap our already-rigged mammoths' rigs to a hoarder. The names will still seem a bit out of balance.
And I wanna see the hoarder's arms worked on. I'm picturing a water strider or a whip scorpion. Come on, lets make it grab stuff!!

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."
Ersahi Kir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#230 - 2013-06-19 22:03:49 UTC
I honestly like the look of the hoarder more, but if you're going to axe one of the minmatar industrials it should be the horder. The mammoth really is the iconic minmatar hauler.

I still would like to know why industrials are sporting ~1k CPU when they simply can't use it all.
Ryelek d'Entari
Horizon Glare
#231 - 2013-06-19 22:08:18 UTC
Glaring problems not addressed in the rebalance:


(1) CPU. Why the ridiculous CPU on these ships? Give them real CPU and force us to make decisions regarding cloak/shield/MWD/etc. I know there's some "history" here about non-implemented industrial support modules, but now is the time to fix it.

(2) Hoarder vs Mammoth. There are plenty of rigged mammoths out there that will become inferior. Rigged hoarders? Not so much. If the art dept likes the model of the hoarder so much then switch the models on the ships. I guarantee you that the percentage of people who care about their tugboat's model is vastly less than the percentage of people who care that their rigged mammoth hauls less than it used to.

(3) 1 high slot on all the high-cargo industrials is terrible for wormholers. Give them the option to fit both a probe launcher and a cloak. Again you can use CPU limitations to force them to make tradeoffs.

(4) Fails to address the problem that armor tanking a hauler is foolish. And with the penalty to structure that expanded cargoholds incur, putting a DCU on any hauler is a waste of a slot. Recognize that all these ships should always be shield tanked, and design accordingly. These new Amarr haulers in particular have ridiculously tiny base shields.

(5) Nobody puts guns on haulers. There's no situation in which it's even remotely the right thing to do.

Other observations:

Why is the Badger1 2/5/5 slot layout? You went and differentiated the bestower/badger2 in the big-indy class by their slot layouts, but right now the sigil is the only weird outlier in the small-indy class.

These changes, combined with tiericide, don't really make pumping the skills for these industrials very attractive. 5%/level is not much considering they are rank4 skills. Please consider dropping the base capacity and increasing the skill bonus to 7.5% or 10% per level to encourage (and reward) those who have trained high skills in these ships. (which does not include me, btw, I have only level 3)
Swidgen
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#232 - 2013-06-19 22:16:01 UTC
Alphax45 wrote:
Isn't 4,5,6 covered by the Orca?

4, 5 and 6 are covered by the Orca, but the feeling was at some point we'd get an industrial with at least a fleet hangar to serve as an empire ship taxi without needing any mining skills at all. Many more people have a need to move ships around than miners, and many of those people don't even like mining which results in wasted SP for a role they have no interest in playing. I'd like something smaller than a carrier to haul ships around highsec every once in a while. I have no need for an ore bay.

Differentiation was expected with the T1 industrial rebalancing effort. I have great respect for the enormous amount of work that has gone into tiericide and ship rebalancing, but these changes are nothing more than casual tweaks. It's like Rise walked into Fozzie's cubicle on Monday morning and said, "Fozzie, we have to get these industrial ships out of the way for once and for all," and they were done by lunchtime.
Maximus Aerelius
PROPHET OF ENIGMA
#233 - 2013-06-19 22:17:09 UTC
Hoarder over Mammoth...are you serious? Shocked

If you do decide to go down this route (don't listen to the arty farty types) then how will the Mammoths that have Rigs be addressed? I have rigged Mammoths that, if replaced by the Hoarder, I wouldn't want to use and would switch but I'd like to know that I'd have my Rigs returned rather than losing them if I repro'd all my Mammoths due to an 'Art Department' change.

[b]Fast Character Switching "XP Stylee" Undocking - More Routes Out of Station[/b] Here's my tear jar > |_| < Fill 'er up!
Alina Coppola
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#234 - 2013-06-19 22:17:44 UTC
All industrials looks the same because they all have too many slots and fitting and have their fits converge.

There is far too much CPU everywhere

If you have enough grid for cloak + mwd trick, tank is irrelevant

If you have lots of lows, you can manipulate cargo/mobility characteristics to fit what you are doing

The highslot constraint is interesting as we can see from responses. The WH folks need 2 slots while many players don't, this is a working differential point for ships.

Imagine the industrial line with ships each having 4 slots total (with a increase in base stats in different directions) and how radically different each ship would be used.
Orakkus
ImperiaI Federation
Goonswarm Federation
#235 - 2013-06-19 22:23:48 UTC
Ryelek d'Entari wrote:
Glaring problems not addressed in the rebalance:


(1) CPU. Why the ridiculous CPU on these ships? Give them real CPU and force us to make decisions regarding cloak/shield/MWD/etc. I know there's some "history" here about non-implemented industrial support modules, but now is the time to fix it.

(2) Hoarder vs Mammoth. There are plenty of rigged mammoths out there that will become inferior. Rigged hoarders? Not so much. If the art dept likes the model of the hoarder so much then switch the models on the ships. I guarantee you that the percentage of people who care about their tugboat's model is vastly less than the percentage of people who care that their rigged mammoth hauls less than it used to.

(3) 1 high slot on all the high-cargo industrials is terrible for wormholers. Give them the option to fit both a probe launcher and a cloak. Again you can use CPU limitations to force them to make tradeoffs.

(4) Fails to address the problem that armor tanking a hauler is foolish. And with the penalty to structure that expanded cargoholds incur, putting a DCU on any hauler is a waste of a slot. Recognize that all these ships should always be shield tanked, and design accordingly. These new Amarr haulers in particular have ridiculously tiny base shields.

(5) Nobody puts guns on haulers. There's no situation in which it's even remotely the right thing to do.



With these points, I'd also like to address the myth of the "tanky" hauler that seems to be on CCP mind. A tanky hauler is pretty worthless when it gets caught. Doesn't matter if that ship has 2000 EHP or 2 million EHP, if it can't destroy aggressing ships, then it's just another victim.

He's not just famous, he's "IN" famous. - Ned Nederlander
Taleden
North Wind Local no. 612
#236 - 2013-06-19 22:30:10 UTC
Orakkus wrote:
With these points, I'd also like to address the myth of the "tanky" hauler that seems to be on CCP mind. A tanky hauler is pretty worthless when it gets caught. Doesn't matter if that ship has 2000 EHP or 2 million EHP, if it can't destroy aggressing ships, then it's just another victim.


I think the idea is to differentiate some of the haulers on the number of Tornado volleys they can survive. Right now, most haulers die to a single Tornado which means they can't carry more than ~150m before being gank bait. A "tanky" hauler only needs 15-20k EHP and suddenly it can carry 300m before being attractive to a two-Tornado gank squad.

But there's also an idea earlier in this thread to have an actual combat-worthy industrial; something with pretty serious tank but a smaller (or maybe ammo-only) cargo bay which could be used to resupply a fleet mid-battle. Not sure how often such a thing would actually be used, but it was an idea anyway.
Josilin du Guesclin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#237 - 2013-06-19 22:37:52 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Quote:
honestly, just remove all indies from the game and put in i set of Ore manufactured haulers.


Some of us like this option a lot - unfortunately it would mean doing the same for all t2 haulers and all t1/t2 freighters, which would be A: A giant commitment in terms of art asset creation, B: A waste of assets that already exist and C: would probably be hated by a lot of players because of how much flavor and history it would remove from the game.


It makes no logical sense, either. The haulers pre-date all the ORE ships, and the idea that the k-space empires would all use ships from an outside entity for the most basic of functions is just daft.
Orakkus
ImperiaI Federation
Goonswarm Federation
#238 - 2013-06-19 22:39:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Orakkus
Taleden wrote:

I think the idea is to differentiate some of the haulers on the number of Tornado volleys they can survive. Right now, most haulers die to a single Tornado which means they can't carry more than ~150m before being gank bait. A "tanky" hauler only needs 15-20k EHP and suddenly it can carry 300m before being attractive to a two-Tornado gank squad.


Yeah, I understand that point, but the usual response to those situations has always been to add another ship, which then put the argument back to the inevitable pointlessness of focusing on industrials being strictly "tanky".

He's not just famous, he's "IN" famous. - Ned Nederlander
Melek D'Ivri
Illuminated Overwatch Group
#239 - 2013-06-19 22:42:51 UTC
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:
switch the mammoth with the hoarder please. No one wants to fly that ugly monstrosity called the hoarder and it wouldn't make sense that the mastodon has a mammoth hull otherwise.


I actually quite enjoy the hoarder..... but he does have a point about the mammoth/mastodon.

To the OP [CCP] Cool

- Iteron mark IV is the Occator hull isn't it?, so maybe give the IV the V layout and make the V the oddball?
- whichever Minmatar ship ends up being the odd man out could very nicely be reskinned into a generic (not ORE, see below) hauler availbile from one of the NPC hauling and shuttling corps, think Interbus, etc
- use 2 of the Gallente ships to make ORE specialized mining hauler / planetary interaction / Maybe even salvage hauler ships

ORE Industrials reskins (since ore ships are basically Gallente by nature anyway!)
* Iteron mark III might make a good companion to the much neglected Primae as a PI collection vehicle
* Iteron mark II might make a good companion to the Noctis, maybe some extra highs and a bonus to salvage/tractor, but some special role in this trade - or could even make this a hacking specialized ship, IE give it and it only the ability to grab multiple cans in the hacking "minigame"
* Iteron mark IV or V would be a good ore hauler ship, think here single link Orca with a small fleet bay? no ability to haul ships and a small true cargo bay would be perfect for this.

Minmatar Repurpose
* make the Mammoth (or Hoarder) a ship of purpose otuside of the normal hauling game. It make be able to make its debut as the first Angel hauler?ShockedIdeaTwistedTwisted Do it! Factions needs hauler too afterall...... could segue very well into CCP's future plans to have skill books for:

Faction Frigate
Faction Destroyer
Faction Cruiser
Faction Battlecruiser
Faction Battleship
Faction Industrial

Cool
Swidgen
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#240 - 2013-06-19 22:49:56 UTC
Punctator wrote:
iteron m5 was always the best industral, now it will be little ****. wtf? and someone could call it good change?
iteron makes proud its owner in old days - now every industrial will be the same - it is realy **** this unification.

I'm loving the Itty V pilot tears, keep 'em coming!

Look, you trained Gallente industrial 5 for a certain amount of cargo space. It was the largest available for many years. If Amarr indy pilots wanted that same cargo space all they had to do was crosstrain Gallente Industrial 5. Itty V loses NOT A SINGLE M3 OF CARGO SPACE. And now if Gallente pilots want "the best" they have to crosstrain Amarr Industrial 5. Things change and you are literally crying massive tears because of :chage: even though you lose nothing yourself. Awesome tears. Would you like some cheese with that whine?