Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Suppose a query on cargo if one try's to use a C1 could cover that particular issue.
If BS in cargo, deny access.

Hey sorry I've been missing for a bit - weekends you know.

So I don't have much to add here, glad that you guys are still feeling good about this mostly. A couple small updates though:

We are not going to do any name changes. There's just too much risk/cost in doing that with not enough benefit in this case. It is specifically concerning that we would change them based on current function, then change function in some way down the line and be left with names that make no sense. In general changing what things are called is pretty yucky so I feel good about avoiding it here.

As far as WHEN, I can't say exactly but its a good chance that it will be before the end of Summer.

Have fun see you o/

Where's your humor!? My name is Mineral Ore.

I really hope you and the team at CCP can find a way to get them out sooner than that. The new haulers are going to make these tasks something that isn't as much as a nightmare to do. Then again I can understand if there are other changes like HAC rebalancing scheduled as well.

This is Tiericide the other times they have done this kind of change they have moved build requirements up to or near that of the highest Tier before the change.

Personally I suspect we will see a similar change here. These ships will become useful so their Mineral requirements will go up to that of the V today in my opinion.

Sounds good.
Well, we'll get over the names. I for one have no problem with it. Never got really behind why it is that much of a trouble (for the community that is). Of course, unique names would really help but in the end, writing Mk 1 thru 5 isnt that hard either. Unless I'm missing something ultra important on tha subject.

It would still be cool if we could squeeze in some other little things, you know - Pretty please!

As hopefully the T1 line has been discussed properly perhaps we can start thinking about Tech 2!

I have started a topic for this https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=254792

You still have it all wrong.. you have the opportunity to make a real useful change

You need 3 distinct roles before you even start throwing numbers about , such as:

Mining support industrial - would be useful for many roles but with added benefit in transporting ore gas and fuel in a seperate hold, average sized normal hold to make it flexable, would have a good slot layout typically and 2/3/4.

Exploration support industrial - smallest hold but has sufficient fitting to be very flexible can apply a decent tank and also fit a wide range of exploration equipment, it has a small ship hanger to carry a frigate, typical slot layout would be 4/5/5. I would even go so far as to say battle badger !

Transport industrial - has a large hold, small tank and not much choice in fitting 1/2/2

To prevent exploits just don't allow storage of unpackaged transports in carrier hangers or holds (just as you can't put a can in another can).


Where does this leave T2?
Blockade runner - same basic layout as the exploration ship but with bigger hold bay and tank - basicly perfect as a mini orca for wormhole use.
Cloaky transport - as today with possibly a slightly smaller bay, with a fuel bay to augment more specialisation for supporting blackops capitals and fuelling pos.

This then gives a wider range of options for T3 transports.. one day soon (tm).

You can now only fit 2 in a carrier.

Yes, we will be rebalancing the manufacturing requirements in a similar manner to other recent rebalance efforts.

Yes, on to HACs =)

I completely agree that this rebalance paves the way for more industrial ship rebalancing in other classes, but those efforts aren't on the short term radar. There's just so many ships to work on! And new ones to create! And we really want to start chipping away at mod rebalance as well.