These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Jelani Akinyemi Affonso
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#281 - 2013-06-20 03:07:48 UTC
Kari Juptris wrote:
Think of all the Mammoths that will be reprocessed if this change goes through. We've lost the Mammoth in our timeline here on Earth. Let's preserve it in the EVE timeline. Extinction isn't a joke Cry

Do you really want to be responsible for the galactic genocide of the Mammoth ship race because of a whim?


This ^^^^ Many times over..

+1 for the Mammoths
vov

Art team could just give the Mammoth a texture upgrade if they don't like it.
Karsa Egivand
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#282 - 2013-06-20 03:21:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Karsa Egivand
Jelani Akinyemi Affonso wrote:
Art team could just give the Mammoth a texture upgrade if they don't like it.


Tbh, the texture isn't what makes the difference between the Mammoth and the Hoarder. It is the basic structure that is wildly different.

I prefer the Hoarder because it is much less boring than the pretty straightforward Mammoth design. But then, I also like ships like the Moa/Gila, so we know I might not be mainstream.

It boils down to: the Mammoth is a pretty boring, straight design, with some fairly dull boxy elements thrown in. I like the angled elements of the Hoarder, which make it less ... vanilla.
Bren Genzan
Open University of Celestial Hardship
Art of War Alliance
#283 - 2013-06-20 03:31:36 UTC
Keep up the good work, Rise. Big smile
Jelani Akinyemi Affonso
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#284 - 2013-06-20 03:40:44 UTC
Karsa Egivand wrote:
Jelani Akinyemi Affonso wrote:
Art team could just give the Mammoth a texture upgrade if they don't like it.


Tbh, the texture isn't what makes the difference between the Mammoth and the Hoarder. It is the basic structure that is wildly different.

I prefer the Hoarder because it is much less boring than the pretty straightforward Mammoth design. But then, I also like ships like the Moa/Gila, so we know I might not be mainstream.

It boils down to: the Mammoth is a pretty boring, straight design, with some fairly dull boxy elements thrown in. I like the angled elements of the Hoarder, which make it less ... vanilla.


You can keep flying your hoarder
and CCP can make it the middle ship between the wreathe and the Mammoth

While switching back to the Mammoth to the main industrial ship for Minnies

and everyone will be happy..

vov
Salpun
Global Telstar Federation Offices
SLYCE Pirates
#285 - 2013-06-20 03:42:46 UTC
Lets keep the Mammoth.

Loss of verity is a bad thing.

Please take another look CCP.

If i dont know something about EVE. I check https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/ISK_The_Guide

See you around the universe.

Callic Veratar
#286 - 2013-06-20 03:50:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Callic Veratar
Based on the recent Minmatar ship designs I have a concept image for a new disruption battleship: image
Debir Achen
Makiriemi Holdings
#287 - 2013-06-20 04:04:19 UTC
(A couple of people have already mentioned the Badger I oddity, but I'll mention it again so it doesn't get lost)

I did appreciate the differentiation in pre-reqs in the old system. I think it's a good idea to have one hauler at Indy I, and the other at Indy III. "Here's a basic hauler". "OK, now that you've put in some (token) investment, here's a choice of haulers for different roles". I'm not saying that the L3 hauler should be in all ways better than the L1 version (like it mostly is now), but I think there's merit in not giving multiple haulers straight away.

(For that matter, I'd have no problem in restricting some frigs until you reach level III in the racial skill, with the distinction not being "power" but "good basic option" vs "choose your specialisation". Eg: put the fast frig and the exploration frig at L1, with the heavy combat frig, the E-War frig, and the logi frig at L3).

More thoughts for future (needs more hulls, though):
- frig hauler is good idea, maxing out at 8-10k
- genuinely tanky hauler (eg includes racial resistance or active tank bonuses - maybe reuse Badger II and Bestower models with minor tweaks)

Finally, the Mammoth's multiple cargo bays always made me wonder why we didn't two numbers: max capacity and largest single item. Would really only come into play with cargo containers and ships, though, so maybe not worth the effort.

PS: keep the mammoth!

Aren't Caldari supposed to have a large signature?

Tangsu
State War Academy
Caldari State
#288 - 2013-06-20 04:12:28 UTC
Great job, but:

As a hisec PvE guy. I think you should have ONE industrial that is extremely hard to gank. I mean, give the victims SOME chance.

Regards


Wilhelm Arcturus
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#289 - 2013-06-20 04:16:57 UTC
Is it too late to praise the Mammoth and question the taste of the art team?

Yeah, put me on that list.
Derath Ellecon
Washburne Holdings
#290 - 2013-06-20 04:19:14 UTC
Wilhelm Arcturus wrote:
Is it too late to praise the Mammoth and question the taste of the art team?

Yeah, put me on that list.



+1000 for the mammoth

Otherwise i honestly dont care that much. T1 haulers are cheap enough I'll switch to whichever makes sense for what i need to do.
Sullen Bear
Arctic Spirit
#291 - 2013-06-20 04:28:30 UTC
Please, NO HOARDER! Mammoth looks much better!
Joe Buzzard
Buzzard Bait and Salvage VLLC
#292 - 2013-06-20 04:52:15 UTC
+1 Bestower Cloak/MWD
Phoenix Einherjar
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#293 - 2013-06-20 05:02:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Phoenix Einherjar
I can't speak for the whole Mammoth issue, but I, for one, was rather dissapointted by losing my IttyV exclusivity to the skill changes. Too late to change back now of course without breaking CCP's "if you can fly it before you can fly it now" rule.

If some of these proposed T1 changes go through then T2's need to be changed too. At the same time.

As far as the T1's go I think it'd be a good idea to add more ships to the other races rather than taking away the other ittys. Make the "in-between" ships not in-between at all but fufill distinct roles. My suggestions follow many already reflected in this thread and some are good, some not-so-good:
- "Combat Indy" - has an extra turret slot, or a 5m^3 drone bay
- "Salvaging Indy" - has extra highs for salvagers but no turret slots. This would be an indeirect buff to the ninja salvaging profession and provide potential hilarity (lolneuts). This ship would also be paper-thin on tank though and no Noctis-style bonuses. Make it a step between a destroyer-salvager and a Noctis.
- "Ore-hauler" - completely remove cargo bay (or make it like 20m^3) and give it a massive ore bay instead

Or for some completely off the wall super-gimmicky ideas:
MJD hauler
EWAR/ECCM hauler (e.g. bonus to ECCM bursts or target disruptors)

I would imagine art re-designs for many of the ideas above rather than the tack-another-can-on Iterons (as much as I love that concept)

As far as T2 indy balance - I firmly believe blockade runners should be immune to CONCORD cargo scans (or introduce a module that achieves this and can only be fit to blockade runners via a ship bonus like CovOps)
For the other T2 haulers, ship bonuses should reflect the fact that people buffer tank, not active tank. Bonuses to reppers are kinda silly

[URL=http://paradoxicalhonour.blogspot.com]Paradoxical Honour (blog)[/URL]

Galphii
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#294 - 2013-06-20 05:04:06 UTC
Just adding my voice to the chorus of support for the mammoth. Although it's a little uneven, the overall model shape and design philosophy is excellent. I recall thinking it was a battleship when I first laid eyes on one, and I'd take a mammoth over an itty 5 (or 4) anyday. Tell art to do a revised model of it (like the stabber etc) if they're not happy, but the hoarder is an appalling pile of space-excrement Cool

"Wow, that internet argument completely changed my fundamental belief system," said no one, ever.

Rhavas
Noble Sentiments
Second Empire.
#295 - 2013-06-20 05:19:51 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
About the Mammoth: I just checked in with Art briefly and they confirmed that they simply don't like the way the Mammoth looks. I'll point them to this thread and see what they have to say about your feedback =)


I had too much to write in response, so I put up a blog post.

Industrial Art

TLDR:

  • If the art department thinks the Hoarder looks better than the Mammoth, they are smoking way too much crack. And I say that as someone who generally lauds the Art department at every opportunity (love the new stargate models, BTW). The Mammoth needs to be the Minmatar large hauler.
  • Read Maximus's post in this thread (#100).
  • Turn the Hoarder into an ORE "relocation ship" with a big huge ship bay and not much else, to let non-capital pilots move fitted ships.

Author of Interstellar Privateer Shattered Planets, Wormholes and Game Commentary

Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#296 - 2013-06-20 05:25:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Alvatore DiMarco
Before I begin, I want to say: I see what you did there, giving the Battle Badger both a turret and a launcher for its two high slots.

I would have addressed this earlier, but I wanted a little time to think of a more suitable reply.
CCP Rise wrote:

T2 haulers of course will get rebalanced as well, but likely not until after some more pressing T2 classes (let me get done with this so we can do HACs =)


Do all of us a favor and kindly forget that HACs exist until this last bit of Tiericide is done, and done properly. A statement like that, even if meant in jest, gives the distinct impression that you don't care as much about this as you did the previous ship types or HACs.

While the life of a low/null PvPer may not involve much piloting of industrial ships, others spend considerable time doing exactly that. They may just be T1 industrials, but they're the backbone of many peoples' entire EVE experience. A lot of trade in EVE is conducted via T1 industrials; ammo and ships and supplies being moved to places that are too dangerous for freighters or too remote to justify the time it would take to send one there. T1 industrial pilots deserve as much careful consideration and attention to detail in the rebalancing of their ships as all the Stabber, Kestrel and Hyperion pilots have gotten. Please do not lazy-out on us and give us a pasted-on fix just because you have something easier and more fun to do after this phase of the project is completed.

That being said, I'm not distinctly unhappy with the solution presented. If absolutely nothing better can be come up with, then this is already an improvement. I just think there's got to be some kind of way to avoid homogenization altogether while not making any one race the obvious "best".

The Charon has the best cargo capacity of the four races, the Obelisk has the best EHP, the Fenrir the best alignment time and the Providence seems to be balanced in the middle between the three. Inheriting these traits down the line into the racial T1s that eventually lead up to them seems like a logical way of preserving flavor while also allowing for Tiericide to improve on them.

This might just be the most challenging bit of Tiericide work that you and Fozzie have had to engage in since the whole project started. All the T1 haulers have the exact same purpose and do pretty much the exact same thing. On top of this, there aren't very many ways to diversify it - especially when half of the races only have one ship each and giving both of them a third ship would tack at least a month onto the process while Art creates new assets.

EDIT: The blog linked in the post above me is actually very good and really does need to be read - especially the last part.
None ofthe Above
#297 - 2013-06-20 05:41:06 UTC
I am sorry but this rebalance is... boring.

I really thought you guys would do something interesting after the Mining Barge/Exhumer work.

Did you not read Jester's article?

http://jestertrek.blogspot.com/2013/06/will-haul-for-food.html

I don' t think he's square on. But that at least had some interesting elements. Was hoping to see a Hauler that had the procurer's tank

The max haulers need to be much bigger. 20-30K? Compared to Orca and Freighter these things are so tiny.

That's what these are: hauler versions of newbships.

Oh well. I have my Orca and Charon -- so I am good. Pity there is nothing interesting here for newer pilots.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#298 - 2013-06-20 05:47:03 UTC
Sucya Alldown wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Taleden wrote:
Two things about this proposal strike me as pointlessly irritating:

- The Itty5 losing its cargo crown to the Bestower is a slap in the face for everyone who trained Gal Indy 5 specifically to maximize their sub-capital hauling capacity (and for the record, that does not include me). That wold be fine if there was a solid reason for the change -- then you could give the customary "your 30 days' training granted you a benefit for a long time, but it has to change now and that's that" -- but in this case, there is no solid reason. The Bestower doesn't have to be bigger than the Itty5; they're so close that you might as well swap their numbers so that the Itty5 remains on top. The only reason to make the Itty5 worse than the new Bestower at exactly what the Itty5 was previously best at is if you're intentionally trying to be a jerk to current Itty5 pilots.


So far as I can see, the Iteron V hasn't lost a single cubic metre of cargo space.

Yes but the reason some people trained gallente industrial to level 5 was because it had the LARGEST cargo capacity. If they knew the Amarr were going to have it they would have trained Amarr Industrial to 5 instead. I being one that did train gallente 5 on more than one character for that very reason I even had a character that a friend had given me that was trained to minmatar indy v and i took the time training it to gallente v for the LARGEST cargo capacity. So I do take it as a kick in the nuts when there is no valid reason for making another races hauler bigger now.
I personally would be more supportive of removing the racial haulers and going to Ore for all haulers up to and including Jump freighters.


So you're not mad because you're worse off, but because other people are better off?

OK that's getting a lot of sympathy from me.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Kel hound
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#299 - 2013-06-20 06:09:01 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
About the Mammoth: I just checked in with Art briefly and they confirmed that they simply don't like the way the Mammoth looks. I'll point them to this thread and see what they have to say about your feedback =)



If this is the same art department that has neglected the Moa model for all these years would you kindly go smack them over the head with a rolled up newspaper for me? I would do it myself but I'm not sure if I will be able to make it to the next fanfest.
Caitlyn Tufy
Perkone
Caldari State
#300 - 2013-06-20 06:24:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Caitlyn Tufy
CCP Rise wrote:
To the above concerns - I can see that you are able to make a list of "best" by capacity, but in reality the difference between capability between Amarr and Gallente is tiny.

Gallente max capacity (t1 rigs): 38433m3
Amarr max capacity (t1 rigs): 39201m3

There is 2% difference. If you feel compelled to cross train because technically Amarr is at the top now, I think that's okay. The old gap looked like this:

Gallente: 38433m3
Minmatar: 28259m3

In the old scenario, 26.5% difference actually was enough that you were basically compelled to train one race.

I prefer the new version


Respectfully, Rise, people are minmaxers. Unless specifically going for looks, you'll still have "the best" and "the worst". If you're focusing solely on cargo capacity, that's what people will be looking at and the obvious choice here is going to be Bestower, regardless of how small the difference.

But what if - just IF - cargo capacity wasn't everything? What if different haulers had different advantages? What do people need T1 hauling ships for?

1. small relatively expensive cargo and L1-2 courier missions
2. low sec
3. large, cheap cargo

For no. 1, people mostly use frigates right now, for instance Minmatar Probe. Here's the base relevant stats:

[Probe]
Speed: 450 m/s
Warp speed: 6 AU/s
Align time: 3.8s
Cargo: 400 m3
Slots (H/M/L): 3/4/3
EHP (average): 1354
Sig size: 38

Now compare it to the current fastest industrial in game, the Amarr Sigil:

[Sigil]
Speed: 242 m/s
Warp speed: 4.5 AU/s
Align time: 10.3s
Cargo: 3750 m3
Slots (H/M/L): 2/3/5
EHP (average): 3225.4
Sig size: 210

As you can see, there is no reason whatsoever to use a Sigil over the Probe here. The Probe is faster, smaller, more agile and has more than enough cargo for any L1 or L2 mission. If doing a Low Sec courier run, its small sig, fast align time and fairly good sensor strength will make it a relatively safe choice compared to the Sigil. The only area where Sigil wins is the cargo size, where it obviously can't hope to compete with larger haulers. That's why it was never seriously considered as a contestant for a useful industrial.

But what if it was brought closer to the Probe? You would now have a dedicated fast and agile small cargo ship that could work as a cheap, easy to train variant of the Blockade Runner. Not only that, but you now have a T1 industrial that's an obvious go-to ship for L1-2 courier missions AND a T1 industrial that can be used for low sec hauling. Not as safe as a Blockade Runner, mind you, but safe enough. This group would have the lowest cargo hold and ehp, but the highest speed (especially warp speed). It would effectively be the "frigate industrial".

Next up, you have group 3, the large cargo haulers. You correctly surmised that different number of low slots is a bad idea, because people will just stuff in as many expanded cargoholds as possible and call it a day. I actually like your approach to it - the Badger, for instance, has the lowest top level cargo hold, but also has the highest unmodified cargo hold. These ships would be slow, squishy, but have the highest cargo hold, just like now.

Finally, I would add the third group, the "combat hauler". It would have the highest ehp, medium cargo hold, average speed, normal warp speed (3 AU/s), but would also have the ability to mount a small number of guns. If you want to go wacky on it, you can also add a smuggling bonus on it, say, -15% chance of successful scan (both by players and by NPC navies). The purpose for these ships would be in-combat resupplies and armed cargo convoys. Stat-wise, I'm thinking cruiser with similar sig and ehp, slightly lower amount of guns, mid-range cargo hold between the "frigate hauler" and "large hauler"

You now have three groups of haulers, each with specific purpose. When moving to T2, Blockade Runners would build on our "frigate hauler" by adding a bit larger cargo hold and cloak in return for slower speed and larger sig, while the Deep Space Transport would combine the large hauler and the combat hauler into an armed "mini freighter".

Plus, if you add the smuggling bonus to the "combat hauler", you can effectively open another profession for players to dabble in, smuggling goods from one side of New Eden to the other.

Downsides: two ship assets would need to be created by the art department - Combat Badger would be easy, the Amarr one not so much - and two Iterons remain unused.


One final word on cargo holders - I'd add rigs, modules or containers that would effectively "trade" a portion of general cargo hold - say, 3000 m3 - for a much larger specialized cargo hold - for instance, 10,000 m3 of PI goods or minerals. That way, a single Bestower would be able to carry as much as - in our example -125,000 m3 of minerals, reducing the need for "ore compression" through manufacturing, while at the same time limiting the ability to carry manufactured goods in excessive quantity.

Just my 0.02 isk :)