These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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, Round 2

First post
Author
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#481 - 2013-06-28 07:47:21 UTC
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
It is sort of circular that Industrials are designed around a specific fit.

I don't know about changing the way expanders work. That would probably break a lot of other common fits outside of T1 Industrials.

But separate bays that aren't effected by cargo expanders means we could get out of the rut of balancing Industrial ships under the assumption they will all be fit with 3 T1 cargo rigs and a T2 expander in every low slot. Just use the racial industrial skill to increase Industrial bay size. That way, ships can be given a balancing pass where the cargo capacity is one thing, and classifying the ship as being best HP, speed, or agility can be done with all available fitting space on the table.

yeah i like your solution, because i wouldn't know how to 'fix' expanders without breaking them on other ships
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#482 - 2013-06-28 07:54:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Benny Ohu
Arrendis wrote:
Benny Ohu wrote:

i see no reason t2 haulers would have to be balanced next to expanders. they'd suffer the same percieved problems t1 would anyway. besides, if something is broken you fix it, you don't keep building your house on sand. even if t2 had to be balanced at the same time, so be it.

that's really a meaningless argument to make - if you do not like the implications of the concept imma putting out there (that expanders might be a cause for difficulty in balancing industrials) you should address the concept, not minor issues like having to consider t2s

i mean all t1 ships/mods balancing is made with a general idea of how they'll fit alongside t2 stuff yet to be balanced


I think the difference between 'balancing cargohold expanders' vs 'balancing T1 cruisers' is that changing T1 cruisers didn't change T2 cruisers at all. My scythe being a valid logi hull doesn't make my scimitar into a mining cruiser. But if you balance the T1 haulers by crippling the Expanded Cargoholds, or the Cargohold Optimization Rigs, then until you get to the 'yet to be balanced' point in time, the T2 haulers are crippled.

So the T2 haulers would need to have the same fix applied at the same time, in order to offset any change to the modules and rigs that both ships have in common. Because they'd need the same offsets, just to be - in effect - unchanged. For exactly the same reason that you said:

Quote:

no, -if- cargo expanders are an issue they need to be looked at at the same time as industrials because of the close connection (especially if cargo expander mechanics are limiting design freedom on industrial balancing)


Because the T2 haulers are no less closely linked to the cargo expanders.
yeah but what i meant by the 'house on sand' thing is that if there's a problem with expanders, they must be considered at the same time as t1 indies anyway. if t2 stuff needs to be tweaked or balanced at the same time, then it gets done at the same time. saying 'here's a problem, let's leave it how it is, build more broken stuff on top of it, and consider it later when we're looking at other broken stuff' just leads to a shitload of broken stuff and a terrible game, expecially when you get to more broken stuff it's easier to say 'we already build more broken stuff on top of broken stuff, balancing even more broken stuff is now easier to do on top of all of that instead of moving back and doing it all properly'

'more work' or 'this wasn't planned' are not reasons to build your house on sand instead of moving the site to stone
Endeavour Starfleet
#483 - 2013-06-28 07:57:00 UTC
Arrendis wrote:
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:

I am agreeing with a goon? In this topic? WHAT!?


Goons aren't always the bad guys.

Or even the Bad at EVE™ guys.


As once can tell. I am generally just against large alliances having unfair advantages. Or forcing their way of life on others (When they descended on Incursion topics demanding nerfs to highsec group content) However I don't automatically just think one wants to destroy EVE over another.

For instance I will remember how the Goons leader went against the trend of so many in his alliance and actually defended incursion content.

And it is not just goons that keep saying "NERF LOCAL NAO!"

The issue I take is when those from large alliances keep comparing ships that wont beat an orca for short range ore or mineral hauling (Not to mention a freighter) to normal haulers which are used for different tasks.

One says he pays others to do his hauling. Fair enough but for someone who is spacerich this is like George HW Bush's Grocery store moment.
Arrendis
TK Corp
#484 - 2013-06-28 07:57:58 UTC
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:

If it was a fleet hanger instead of an ammo only bay, that would give it some serious utility near a battlefield.

With the current mechanics, all the ammo Hoarder could do is drop a jetcan of ammo for others to loot. Not ideal when jet cans die easily to bombs, smart bombs, or even newbees in slashers. There are limits on how often it can make a jet can. It can't sit cloaked next to a jet can and still pick it up quickly. The cloaks it could fit have limits as well, like time to re-cloak and slowing down an already very slow ship. All in all, the ship isn't all that great, and is only good for the fleet as something that makes a jetcan.

If CCP is really thinking of an ammo truck role, a fleet hanger with refit would make putting a Hoarder near a battlefield a much less painful idea. Already setup to toggle fleet and corporation access. Allows for other useful battlefield materials, like drones and liquid ozone. A much nicer option than trying to defend a jetcan with a Hoarder on a nullsec battlefield.


Oh, a fleet hangar would be lovely.

No, I'm actually thinking 'grind down X number of structures, then everyone regroups w/the truck, and it kicks out the can of 27,000m3 ammo, and people pick it up, then the fleet moves to the next system' and you repeat the process X number of structures later. Now, getting 200 battleships to pick up ammo in an orderly fashion without people taking it all and leaving none for the next guy... that'll be harder.
Arrendis
TK Corp
#485 - 2013-06-28 08:01:15 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:

yeah but what i meant by the 'house on sand' thing is that if there's a problem with expanders, they must be considered at the same time as t1 indies anyway. if t2 stuff needs to be tweaked or balanced at the same time, then it gets done at the same time. saying 'here's a problem, let's leave it how it is, build more broken stuff on top of it, and consider it later when we're looking at other broken stuff' just leads to a shitload of broken stuff and a terrible game, expecially when you get to more broken stuff it's easier to say 'we already build more broken stuff on top of broken stuff, balancing even more broken stuff is now easier to do on top of all of that instead of moving back and doing it all properly'

'more work' or 'this wasn't planned' are not reasons to build your house on sand instead of moving the site to stone


Agreed - but that's why the T2s would have to be done at the same time. So it might well be that the specialized bays are a 'right now' measure, and the final revamp to T1 industrials comes when the T2s are finally up for their turn.
Endeavour Starfleet
#486 - 2013-06-28 08:03:04 UTC
+1 on the Fleet hangar idea for ammo trucks. Even if it means CCP will reduce the overall hold a bit.
Shepard Wong Ogeko
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#487 - 2013-06-28 08:06:46 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:


......

I don't know about changing the way expanders work. That would probably break a lot of other common fits outside of T1 Industrials.

But separate bays that aren't effected by cargo expanders means we could get out of the rut of balancing Industrial ships under the assumption they will all be fit with 3 T1 cargo rigs and a T2 expander in every low slot. Just use the racial industrial skill to increase Industrial bay size. That way, ships can be given a balancing pass where the cargo capacity is one thing, and classifying the ship as being best HP, speed, or agility can be done with all available fitting space on the table.





You know thinking about this I got to say this is an aspect that would be interesting to look at in the future. It would give more meaning to moving the specialized haulers to ORE and then doing a new balance pass to incorporate that into the standard lineup.

I am agreeing with a goon? In this topic? WHAT!?



Well, not completely agreeing.

If they are going to do separate Industrial Bays as a way to break out of the 'max expanded' fitting rut, they should do it now. It's obviously on the table from the restricted bay idea. But if they do it halfway like the current ones, it means being horribly unbalanced, where Gallente get the choice hulls and the other races are still stuck in the old 'max expanded' way of doing things. The huge bays may be balanced by the restrictions, but then the scales tip because they can add low slot mods and rigs that would never be used on the other Industrials.

They should make the break to separate bays for the T1 industrials now. Leave cargo rigs/mods as is, and then give Transports the same treatment when it is their turn.

Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#488 - 2013-06-28 08:08:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Benny Ohu
Arrendis wrote:
Benny Ohu wrote:

yeah but what i meant by the 'house on sand' thing is that if there's a problem with expanders, they must be considered at the same time as t1 indies anyway. if t2 stuff needs to be tweaked or balanced at the same time, then it gets done at the same time. saying 'here's a problem, let's leave it how it is, build more broken stuff on top of it, and consider it later when we're looking at other broken stuff' just leads to a shitload of broken stuff and a terrible game, expecially when you get to more broken stuff it's easier to say 'we already build more broken stuff on top of broken stuff, balancing even more broken stuff is now easier to do on top of all of that instead of moving back and doing it all properly'

'more work' or 'this wasn't planned' are not reasons to build your house on sand instead of moving the site to stone


Agreed - but that's why the T2s would have to be done at the same time. So it might well be that the specialized bays are a 'right now' measure, and the final revamp to T1 industrials comes when the T2s are finally up for their turn.
i was aware t2s might have to be done at the same time (even though i expressed doubt), i was just confronting starfleet's assertion that this would remove the option of a rethink of expanders

basically my post was kicking starfleet's post down a well

e: although there's other issues brought up by starfleet and shepard regarding changing expanders and i already said i liked shepard's cargo thing instead so can we get off this line of conversation now :(
Endeavour Starfleet
#489 - 2013-06-28 08:09:18 UTC
Arrendis wrote:
Benny Ohu wrote:

yeah but what i meant by the 'house on sand' thing is that if there's a problem with expanders, they must be considered at the same time as t1 indies anyway. if t2 stuff needs to be tweaked or balanced at the same time, then it gets done at the same time. saying 'here's a problem, let's leave it how it is, build more broken stuff on top of it, and consider it later when we're looking at other broken stuff' just leads to a shitload of broken stuff and a terrible game, expecially when you get to more broken stuff it's easier to say 'we already build more broken stuff on top of broken stuff, balancing even more broken stuff is now easier to do on top of all of that instead of moving back and doing it all properly'

'more work' or 'this wasn't planned' are not reasons to build your house on sand instead of moving the site to stone


Agreed - but that's why the T2s would have to be done at the same time. So it might well be that the specialized bays are a 'right now' measure, and the final revamp to T1 industrials comes when the T2s are finally up for their turn.


This.


I would personally love if CCP had infinite resources and we could have the debate on what T2 ship becomes the POS hold and which one becomes the capital "Milk Cow" (U-Boats that serviced other U-Boats at sea in the 2nd world war) tender. And do it right now.

But they don't. And there are very big issues that need to be fixed first. ( Modular POS and NAO! ) Before they dive too deeply into this.
Arrendis
TK Corp
#490 - 2013-06-28 08:14:24 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:

One says he pays others to do his hauling. Fair enough but for someone who is spacerich this is like George HW Bush's Grocery store moment.


Well, keep in mind, that organizational capability I was talking about? In the larger alliances I've been part of/dealt with, that's included freight service - you set up a courier contract, and pay X isk/m3, with a minimum order size, and there you go.

It's actually a lot cheaper to use your alliance's logistics service than it is to buy a jump freighter of your own. So it's not necessarily an issue of 'I'm spacerich, I hire the little people to haul stuff' - though it might well be exactly that.

Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#491 - 2013-06-28 08:23:05 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
This.


I would personally love if CCP had infinite resources and we could have the debate on what T2 ship becomes the POS hold and which one becomes the capital "Milk Cow" (U-Boats that serviced other U-Boats at sea in the 2nd world war) tender. And do it right now.

But they don't. And there are very big issues that need to be fixed first. ( Modular POS and NAO! ) Before they dive too deeply into this.

you're not getting this. this is the discussion on industrial balance. we will discuss industrial balance. what you've been saying is 'hey maybe doing it properly would take extra work'. it either takes extra work or they choose to do what they're doing now. that's fine. that's glaringly obvious to anyone posting. but it doesn't stop people discussing what they think might be problems or better ways of doing things. bringing up the idea that 'ccp can't do everything' as an argument against an idea is entirely pointless. as is 'you stupid rich goon i bet you're arguing something else because this change is bad for you'. neither actually addresses any argument or idea someone posts. you need to stop it because it's a waste of time and doesn't facilitate an actual discussion.

ccp is perfectly capable of prioritising their own work on the game. it doesn't and shouldn't stop us discussing industrial balance.
Endeavour Starfleet
#492 - 2013-06-28 08:36:32 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
This.


I would personally love if CCP had infinite resources and we could have the debate on what T2 ship becomes the POS hold and which one becomes the capital "Milk Cow" (U-Boats that serviced other U-Boats at sea in the 2nd world war) tender. And do it right now.

But they don't. And there are very big issues that need to be fixed first. ( Modular POS and NAO! ) Before they dive too deeply into this.

you're not getting this. this is the discussion on industrial balance. we will discuss industrial balance. what you've been saying is 'hey maybe doing it properly would take extra work'. it either takes extra work or they choose to do what they're doing now. that's fine. that's glaringly obvious to anyone posting. but it doesn't stop people discussing what they think might be problems or better ways of doing things. bringing up the idea that 'ccp can't do everything' as an argument against an idea is entirely pointless. as is 'you stupid rich goon i bet you're arguing something else because this change is bad for you'. neither actually addresses any argument or idea someone posts. you need to stop it because it's a waste of time and doesn't facilitate an actual discussion.

ccp is perfectly capable of prioritising their own work on the game. it doesn't and shouldn't stop us discussing industrial balance.


Benny Ohu wrote:

e: although there's other issues brought up by starfleet and shepard regarding changing expanders and i already said i liked shepard's cargo thing instead so can we get off this line of conversation now :(



The whole thing got off topic anyway. Tech 2 transport rebalancing needs to be in it's own topic. That is likely to be an even more controversial as people have quite a bit of SP invested in those ships.
Minamel
Perkone
Caldari State
#493 - 2013-06-28 08:52:54 UTC
Like the changes so far..

What would i like as specialized Hauler Ship?
What do i like most in my T3´s?

Interdiction Nullifier!! Roll
Arrendis
TK Corp
#494 - 2013-06-28 09:03:20 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:

ccp is perfectly capable of prioritising their own work on the game. it doesn't and shouldn't stop us discussing industrial balance.


Well, then let's discuss!

CCP's obviously decided they want haulers to handle 35-40k on the high end for general-purpose hauling, and about 50% more on the specialized holds. So, really, that's how they should simplify it down. Set the large haulers up for that range. So if they're looking at 6000m3 (for skill 1) to 37k for the Itty V, then you're looking at about increments of 7,750.

Which, of course, doesn't work - it's larger than the base 6k.

But these are the large haulers, so we have to assume you're talking about them anticipating full expansion even before skills. That would give us, I think... 31,000 for skill 1 w/full expansion?

So call it 30,000m3 + 5% per level of skill, and voila, a progression of 1,500m3 per level of skill.

Adjust up or down as wanted for racial variance.

Then you work on the other stuff like EH, align time, speed, etc.

Then for the T2s, you increase the capacity by a little bit by making the multiplier 7.5% per skill level, add a low slot to whatever layout you set for the T1s, and add back in the DST's +2 Warp Stability, and there you are.
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#495 - 2013-06-28 09:04:28 UTC
Two turrets on the Sigil. Processed ice products in the mineral bay. Call it perfect.
Coriele Calec
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#496 - 2013-06-28 09:20:25 UTC
Comments in no particular order.

Specialized haulers: The specialized haulers don't really need to carry more than 55 000 m^3. This is still better than the Bestower (witha maxfit of GSCs the Bestower weighs in somewhere around 50 700 m^3), but a much smaller difference. Given the fitting options of the specialized ships - rigs and lows that would otherwise be reserved - the ships will still have a clearly defined niche use worth pursuing. You could probably even dump it down to 50k flat without removing it as a serious contender for enough flight profiles to make it worth picking up.

Not average enough: The Iteron V could also do with losing another 1-1.5k worth of cargo capacity to make the choice more interesting. It doesn't look sufficiently average yet compared to the others.

Counting GSCs again: The Mammoth not breaching 36 000 m^3 also means it'll fit 11 GSCs, versus the Bestowers 13. Giving it another 800 m^3 would fix that. If this isn't viewed as a problem given the tradeoff of speed, then I'd argue that bumping the Iteron V below the 36k limit wouldn't be a problem either, as it would make the Amarr and Caldari lines look better.

Additional flavour: Personally, I'm also a Big Fan of a slight scanning bonus for the the Minmatar line. It adds flavour - similar to the drones on the Iteron - making it slightly more useful for certain applications, without in any way unbalancing anything. Especially not now that everyone has two highslots.

Misc: The tankier versions all look nice, yay for more hull tanking, yay for drones, yay for warpspeed increases (its not a lot of seconds, but Jita->Rens they add up a lot quicker than you'd like). Nice touch that the Wreath and Badger will be able to fit an additional GSC compared to their role mates for some extra carry capacity.


(So much better than the the first draft!)

I also have a request about the formatting in the OP though, could we get more numbers of cargo against skill (/expanders and rigs)? Right now, you're listing the regular cargo on the big haulers using lvl 5 skills, but the specialized haulers on the level I skills? (If that's not the case, I'd still like a more clear formatting on which numbers apply which skills sets!)

In particular, a "real" comparision is probably going to be a fully tanked specialized vessel against a fully cargo fit non-specialized vessel. Its less obvious than it should be how such a comparison would pan out the way we're currently getting the numbers, and I think that's degrading the quality of the feedback.
Kaeden Dourhand
Raven's Sway
#497 - 2013-06-28 09:28:26 UTC
Quote:
Not average enough: The Iteron V could also do with losing another 1-1.5k worth of cargo capacity to make the choice more interesting. It doesn't look sufficiently average yet compared to the others.


seconding this, again. With the current numbers (not hatin' on the ideas, just the numbers), there is too little incentive for anyone to train amarr or caldari when they can just train gallente to 5 and have all the bays they need + a good hauler.
Endeavour Starfleet
#498 - 2013-06-28 09:28:58 UTC
Well if you want to open pandoras box by looking at T2s in this topic...

In my opinion the Tech 2s should continue the trend started by the specialized T1s. One race ought to keep the classic Transport and covert hauler while the others become highly specialized ships.

Caldari
- POS Ship with a hold designed for just about everything POS related.
- Capital Ship tender with hold designed to jump fuel and drones (Fighters etc..)

Amarr
- Super EHP with very little cargo for carrying those extremely precious items.
- Paper tank. But can warp inside a bubble. Very little cargo and meant again for hauling small precious items.
Endeavour Starfleet
#499 - 2013-06-28 09:32:53 UTC
Coriele Calec wrote:
Comments in no particular order.

Specialized haulers: The specialized haulers don't really need to carry more than 55 000 m^3. This is still better than the Bestower (witha maxfit of GSCs the Bestower weighs in somewhere around 50 700 m^3), but a much smaller difference. Given the fitting options of the specialized ships - rigs and lows that would otherwise be reserved - the ships will still have a clearly defined niche use worth pursuing. You could probably even dump it down to 50k flat without removing it as a serious contender for enough flight profiles to make it worth picking up.




No. They already got nerfed back a bit with the change to base cargo which will mean newer players have to train longer to make better use of these ships. They do not need any further nerfs when you note that most will only take Gallente to III or IV after this anyway.
Tiber Ibis
The Paratwa Ka
#500 - 2013-06-28 09:43:07 UTC
Edward Pierce wrote:
If you really want to add some racial variety, remove the Iteron M. V so that Gallente don't have a general hauler option.

All the pro-variety people should be cool with that right? Since cross-training is no big deal.

This is what I am thinking to be honest. The gallente general purpose haulers need to be the worst, or at least not as good as they are right now. The specialised haulers are so good that it seems unfair to make the gallente general purpose haulers this good also. My thoughts would be to make the iteron V a specialised hauler as well and remove the normal cargo space.