These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Maximus Tyberius
Free People United Inc.
#581 - 2013-06-29 18:46:36 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:


The Inty 5 needs a completely new role. It needs to get a 25K Gal V bay that does not get affected by cargo expanders or rigs to become a poor mans hauler.

If that change is made it will stop being compared to the Bestower.


No matter how many times you say "poor man's hauler" for a ship that was the best of the best, a ship that wrote countless chapters in EVE history


IT'S JUST NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!
Endeavour Starfleet
#582 - 2013-06-29 18:53:11 UTC
Maximus Tyberius wrote:
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:


The Inty 5 needs a completely new role. It needs to get a 25K Gal V bay that does not get affected by cargo expanders or rigs to become a poor mans hauler.

If that change is made it will stop being compared to the Bestower.


No matter how many times you say "poor man's hauler" for a ship that was the best of the best, a ship that wrote countless chapters in EVE history


IT'S JUST NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!




Tell that to the drake.
Maximus Tyberius
Free People United Inc.
#583 - 2013-06-29 18:59:18 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:



It does not look neat to me.

You want to add another ship to the game to change things around when the changes CCP rise has made will be plenty to break the Homogenization.

We do not need to add more T1 haulers to the game. Eventually hopefully the Iteron II III and IV will be moved to the ORE Line, renamed, and given an amazing model. After they do that they can do another balance pass on the remaining lineup and hopefully move to cargo bays that do not get affected by rigs or expanders.



That is YOUR opinion not the whole eve community, so replace WE for I
and MY opinion is that the industrials were fine untill that stupid tiericide stuff

now they have to create stupid new bays to justify that estupid mistake

the game was good before so my opinion is that eve should take a step back on this one...
Maximus Tyberius
Free People United Inc.
#584 - 2013-06-29 19:04:54 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
Maximus Tyberius wrote:
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:


The Inty 5 needs a completely new role. It needs to get a 25K Gal V bay that does not get affected by cargo expanders or rigs to become a poor mans hauler.

If that change is made it will stop being compared to the Bestower.


No matter how many times you say "poor man's hauler" for a ship that was the best of the best, a ship that wrote countless chapters in EVE history


IT'S JUST NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!




Tell that to the drake.



Yes, they nerfed the drake, another legendary ship, but it wasn't cause someone proposed the drake as a "poor man's battlecruiser" ;)
Endeavour Starfleet
#585 - 2013-06-29 19:08:20 UTC
This "Stupid Tiericide stuff" as you call it has made a bunch of ships in EVE online do more than ship spin and gather dust. This latest change to haulers will make them useable for a good many players and make it so that not always one ship does all things.
Endeavour Starfleet
#586 - 2013-06-29 19:23:34 UTC
Maximus Tyberius wrote:
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
Maximus Tyberius wrote:
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:


The Inty 5 needs a completely new role. It needs to get a 25K Gal V bay that does not get affected by cargo expanders or rigs to become a poor mans hauler.

If that change is made it will stop being compared to the Bestower.


No matter how many times you say "poor man's hauler" for a ship that was the best of the best, a ship that wrote countless chapters in EVE history


IT'S JUST NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!




Tell that to the drake.



Yes, they nerfed the drake, another legendary ship, but it wasn't cause someone proposed the drake as a "poor man's battlecruiser" ;)



No but the nerf to the ship changed the game alot more than a change to the Iteron V. Implementing my idea to convert the Iteron V into a poor mans hauler would remove further homogenization from the industrial line and provide newer players a good ship. As well as start the trend that will hopefully end this mess of cargo expanders.
Maximus Tyberius
Free People United Inc.
#587 - 2013-06-29 19:26:01 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
This "Stupid Tiericide stuff" as you call it has made a bunch of ships in EVE online do more than ship spin and gather dust. This latest change to haulers will make them useable for a good many players and make it so that not always one ship does all things.



You are mistaken, I'm not talking about the ship rebalancing or the new roles, that is just great, i agree with you that now every ship has something to add to the gameplay.

I'm talking about the skill levels needed to use these ships,

What I'm against is training racial industrial 1 and be able to fly all of them. maybe with combat ships it's ok , personally I would had kept some variety on the skill levels needed.

But this tiericide is the source of the industrial problem, they should had been treated differently, cause tiers still do work in this case, as I said before, more skill level = more cargo space. The best solution is the simplest...
Endeavour Starfleet
#588 - 2013-06-29 19:34:26 UTC
For the new specialized Iterons. More skill = a 10 percent bonus to specialized cargohold. So it is encouraged to train that skill up to III and IV.

In my idea for the Iteron mark V. The bay caps out at 25k at Gallente Industral V (5 percent per skill level)

Making it a requirement of III and IV to fly it would just harm newer players so I am against that.
Scuzzy Logic
Space Spuds
#589 - 2013-06-29 20:26:41 UTC
Eladaris wrote:
Taleden wrote:
Fair enough, I just wanted to clarify since you seemed to think I was suggesting creating a new skill.
...
Hah -- we all know that's exactly what will happen, though. Haulers weren't touched for the last ten years, and since Rise confesses they're not a very interesting ship class in general, I don't think we can expect any more changes for the next ten years. This rebalance is not bad, but let's not kid ourselves about the near future.

Edited my post after you posted this, but I think a new skill would be their best goal. Which is why my skill name was rather generic. CCP does like adding new skill sinks. Doubly so when they can get folks to train it to V! 4 Sensor Comp skills? I'm looking at you. Along with some of the other newly added skill sinks.

And, yup, Hauler's will be ignored for a LONG time. And the T2's will probably be the second to the last ship to be re-balanced (right before the dreaded Capital balance pass).


It's sad, because, if any specific class of boats never get flown for their intended purpose, it's Deep Space Transports.
Endeavour Starfleet
#590 - 2013-06-29 20:34:03 UTC
The transport ships need a huge change in the future in my opinion. I want to quote myself from earlier.

Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
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.
Echo Mande
#591 - 2013-06-29 21:47:22 UTC
All in all it looks like an interesting set of changes. Two questions:
1) Has the question of the ore hauler also hauling compressed ore been answered yet?
2) Will any of the specialist haulers be able to haul moongoo in their special bays?

Wallet remarks everywhere
Octoven
Stellar Production
#592 - 2013-06-29 21:51:37 UTC


The issue here is T1 specialization. In the frigate series there are sufficient in each race to do each job. However, there arent in the industrial family and thus they give certain roles to certain ships that require cross training. As for the Ity-5 I would be fine with the bestower gaining cargo space and beating the ity-5 out in that regard so long as it wasnt faster. As it stands the Bestower is both faster and more cargo space than the Ity-5 and that is NOT balanced at all. Furthermore, the other 3 ships in the same tier as bestower are given 5 slots for thier tank assuming there are no cargo extender mods.

Bestower - 2H 4M 6L - For 11 slots, 6 Armor Tank slots Total Base HP - 2240
Badger MKII - 2H 5M 4L - For 11 slots, 5 Shield Tank slots Total Base HP - 2250
Mammoth - 2H 4M 5L - For 11 slots, can do 5 Armor Tank slots Total Base HP - 2175
Iteron MKV - 2H, 4M, 5L - For 11 slots, 5 Armor Tank slots Total Base HP - 2160

Seeing as how all four have very similar total HP, that much seems balanced; however giving one indy a slot more in its tankable area just seems too OP to me. I would suggest swapping that extra low on the Bestower back over to the mid slot...then it would be more balanced.
Endeavour Starfleet
#593 - 2013-06-29 22:36:40 UTC
Octoven wrote:


The issue here is T1 specialization. In the frigate series there are sufficient in each race to do each job. However, there arent in the industrial family and thus they give certain roles to certain ships that require cross training. As for the Ity-5 I would be fine with the bestower gaining cargo space and beating the ity-5 out in that regard so long as it wasnt faster. As it stands the Bestower is both faster and more cargo space than the Ity-5 and that is NOT balanced at all. Furthermore, the other 3 ships in the same tier as bestower are given 5 slots for thier tank assuming there are no cargo extender mods.

Bestower - 2H 4M 6L - For 11 slots, 6 Armor Tank slots Total Base HP - 2240
Badger MKII - 2H 5M 4L - For 11 slots, 5 Shield Tank slots Total Base HP - 2250
Mammoth - 2H 4M 5L - For 11 slots, can do 5 Armor Tank slots Total Base HP - 2175
Iteron MKV - 2H, 4M, 5L - For 11 slots, 5 Armor Tank slots Total Base HP - 2160

Seeing as how all four have very similar total HP, that much seems balanced; however giving one indy a slot more in its tankable area just seems too OP to me. I would suggest swapping that extra low on the Bestower back over to the mid slot...then it would be more balanced.


No. And again how many times must it be said that the Gallente lineup is balanced by the fact that most of the line is going into specialized haulers? And there are calls to nerf down the Inty V to help prevent more homogenization. I am again of the opinion it should be completely changed into a poor mans hauler.

I get it. You or one of your alts trained into Gallente Industral V and you are watching the King of the Hill be dethroned. However that is one of the risks of training a skill from IV to V. And CCP should not make it easier for future nerfs to the iteron II II and IV so that the pilots of the V can continue to feel superior.
Endeavour Starfleet
#594 - 2013-06-29 22:42:26 UTC
Echo Mande wrote:
All in all it looks like an interesting set of changes. Two questions:
1) Has the question of the ore hauler also hauling compressed ore been answered yet?


I have not seen them answer that yet. And hopefully the answer will be no. As it would make these ships vulnerable to future nerfs.

Echo Mande wrote:
2) Will any of the specialist haulers be able to haul moongoo in their special bays?


Again hopefully no. POS operations should be moved into the Tech 2 line. (A complete bay for almost all POS operations)
Rena'Thras
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#595 - 2013-06-29 23:18:41 UTC
Well, I'm not a big forums poster (I got here from Jester's Trek), but I wanted to weigh in on this one. If nothing else, to let the devs know that there are a lot of people that like hauling and stuff and appreciate them spending a little time and giving a little love to these ships from time to time, too!

Not ALL of EVE is combat. Well...not all of it is pew pew combat (I suppose marketing and hauling are forms of economic combat. XD)

.

Anyway, I like these changes. After Odyssey went live, I suddenly wondered why any hauler other than the Itty V (which I finally got the training and ability to fly) would be used by anyone. I've thought for a long time that haulers don't really have any diversity and fitting options for any special tasks. It's just, "New rank in Industrial skill? Here's your bigger hauler!"

...given, I'm particularly apt to think that way due to picking Gallente at character creation.

But these changes would have been nice before Odyssey, and, I believe, are simply wonderful after it - at least before it, there was some niching as people went up through their skills. But after Odyssey, there was no reason to fly anything but the biggest ones for your race (or the Itty V if you had Gallente Indy as your highest hauler skill.)

.

This is not unlike the changes made to the Mining Barges that made the Procurer useful for the first time ever, and gave the Retriever a niche even for people that could fly a Covetor.

The Itty I as an anti-gank ship for unwary pilots and the specialized holds of the others in the Iteron line make for some interesting options to play with. At the very least, it means the Itty V isn't the best hauler at all times.

.

So I'm mostly posting to say I like the change, and I like it when CCP Devs through just a little love at the non-combat PvP/PvE side of things from time to time.

...now, if only they'd make a data/relic site cruiser... :p
Rena'Thras
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#596 - 2013-06-29 23:30:20 UTC
Scuzzy Logic wrote:
It's sad, because, if any specific class of boats never get flown for their intended purpose, it's Deep Space Transports.


I was actually wondering about this. I'm general in the dreaded carebear new player meta-descriptor, so it's not like I know anything, but I didn't really see much point to them for what they're supposed to do. I'd think you're going to use the cloaked ones for any high value cargo, and for large cargoes, the few null sec people I've run with have either a character themselves or someone from their corp/alliance with a Jump Freighter do the carrying. A DST isn't going to be able to get through nastier prate actions or gate camps on its own anyway for very long (I'd think determined pirates will have some extra warp scramblers the first time or two you bust through them in your DST.)

.

It won't affect be because I'm not in a null sec corp and all that, but the idea of using them as tenders for fleets would be interesting, though I imagine other ships are already used for that (Orcas?)

But the other thing about the T2s is that there's less of them - only two per race - and they're already super specialized. You have the small, fast, cloakers and you have the big, slower, tanky ones with some warp protection.

So while the idea of specialized bays is kind of a cool notion, CCP would really have to add more hulls to the T2s before being able to do that since they're already specialized as it is.

Though I'd like to think that they could do something like giving DST's some kind of jump capability or something might help out, I don't know what the full effects of that would be (the cloakers already can use the cov ops cynos, right?)

.

Not that I'm against the idea, I just think they'd have to add more hulls before they could do too much with that because the T2s are already super specialized with respect to each other PER RACE. Across races, I could see your argument, though.

But then I'm just a newb that's been playing for a while, so I don't really know anything, lol
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#597 - 2013-06-29 23:33:58 UTC
I throw my full support into these changes. Just because they finally fixed the fittings on them.

No longer will we have 600+ CPU on a ship with 20 PG. What sense that made to somebody a decade ago, I will never know. Even if there were no other positive changes made, and there were plenty, this alone would be worth applauding.

Now let's finish this and move into T2 cruisers!

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Endeavour Starfleet
#598 - 2013-06-29 23:48:00 UTC
Rena'Thras wrote:

I was actually wondering about this. I'm general in the dreaded carebear new player meta-descriptor, so it's not like I know anything, but I didn't really see much point to them for what they're supposed to do. I'd think you're going to use the cloaked ones for any high value cargo, and for large cargoes, the few null sec people I've run with have either a character themselves or someone from their corp/alliance with a Jump Freighter do the carrying. A DST isn't going to be able to get through nastier prate actions or gate camps on its own anyway for very long (I'd think determined pirates will have some extra warp scramblers the first time or two you bust through them in your DST.)

.

It won't affect be because I'm not in a null sec corp and all that, but the idea of using them as tenders for fleets would be interesting, though I imagine other ships are already used for that (Orcas?)


You are seeing how EVE has changed but many ships are yet to have changed with it. T2 Transports are a prime example of this.

Rena'Thras wrote:
But the other thing about the T2s is that there's less of them - only two per race - and they're already super specialized. You have the small, fast, cloakers and you have the big, slower, tanky ones with some warp protection.


That is not very specialized actually. Most were using the transports just for moar cargo and the cloaky one to move cargo a little better through hostile areas. Too homogenized really.

Rena'Thras wrote:
So while the idea of specialized bays is kind of a cool notion, CCP would really have to add more hulls to the T2s before being able to do that since they're already specialized as it is.


I disagree that we need more hulls. If you get away from the idea that the races have to have the same ability you can say perhaps that Gallente keeps the current classic transports while Amarr gets stuff to move very very precious items and Caldari gets operations (A POS supporter and a Cov Ops capital fleet tender) That leave 2 more ships of mimmy that can be given highly specialized roles.

Rena'Thras wrote:
Though I'd like to think that they could do something like giving DST's some kind of jump capability or something might help out, I don't know what the full effects of that would be (the cloakers already can use the cov ops cynos, right?)


Hmm that is actually an Interesting idea. One of the Mimmitar hulls could be a short range jump capable (High fuel cost) transport. No where near as efficient as a Jump Freighter. but good for aspects that need to bypass say a gate camp.
Shepard Wong Ogeko
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#599 - 2013-06-30 00:27:10 UTC
Rena'Thras wrote:
(the cloakers already can use the cov ops cynos, right?)


They can use covert cynos, and the can travel through the covert jump bridges of Black Ops battleships. That is why they are currently used as ammo and fuel trucks. The ammo only Hoarder will not be replacing that role for a number of reasons.
Eladaris
Indefinite.
#600 - 2013-06-30 01:29:36 UTC
Octoven wrote:

Bestower - 2H 4M 6L - For 11 slots, 6 Armor Tank slots Total Base HP - 2240


Armor tank... on a T1 industrial. For reals? Sorry, I pretty much stopped reading anything you were posting after that.