These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Net7
MyLeftArmy
#681 - 2013-07-04 08:52:39 UTC
Highsec Clarke wrote:
So we talk about T1 Industrials... What about ORE Industrials... ???
So the ambitious miner wants to get into an Orca but has to learn "Ore Industrials" for... ... hmm... mining in a Noctis?... or whatever... So the skill is absolute useless for a miner... What about making at least two of the "Outsider"-Iterons or at least their concepts into ORE industrials?
Maybe i'm not right, but I think the above mentioned Orca should be overhauled too... I think the most of us would exchange the maintance hangar for ore space... or at least a part of it... and the bonus should be for orehold... split the mined ore between 3 different hangars is just... unnecessary...


this... Being serious as well, jokingly I would say however a "medium" orca or something! Talk about a skill added with only ONE ship REALLY in mind (that being the orca).
Marcus Harikari
#682 - 2013-07-04 09:39:18 UTC
iteron should keep highest cargo space because of those of us who trained gallente indy to 5 to fly iteron5
Eladaris
Indefinite.
#683 - 2013-07-04 11:08:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Eladaris
Highsec Clarke wrote:
So we talk about T1 Industrials... What about ORE Industrials... ???
So the ambitious miner wants to get into an Orca but has to learn "Ore Industrials" for... ... hmm... mining in a Noctis?... or whatever... So the skill is absolute useless for a miner... What about making at least two of the "Outsider"-Iterons or at least their concepts into ORE industrials?
Maybe i'm not right, but I think the above mentioned Orca should be overhauled too... I think the most of us would exchange the maintance hangar for ore space... or at least a part of it... and the bonus should be for orehold... split the mined ore between 3 different hangars is just... unnecessary...


As they've avoided T1 capital ships like the plague through the entire T1 re-balance phase... My guess is they'll keep avoiding them 'till the end.

Honestly I think the Orca is fine as a general purpose hauler. You can throw a few mining boats into the bays, you can fill the other bays with ore. The Orca is perfect as it is, they should instead give us two separate ships specifically for Ore and a Ship Tender type role.... somewhere down the road when art assets aren't the excuse of the day.

Also, they're not taking the Itty's into ORE, it's obviously not in the cards. I think they should add ORE or Interbus ships, but that's also not in the cards with the current Art team excuses everywhere.

I also agree the Itty V should get nerfed to pave the way for a real difference between the racial ships, and that the Eve dev's should swap to bays so we can leave the olden days of all CE's / rigs behind us... but neither are happening in this pass. Also...

Marcus Harikari wrote:
iteron should keep highest cargo space because of those of us who trained gallente indy to 5 to fly iteron5


stuff like this is why we can't have nice things.
BadSeamus
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#684 - 2013-07-04 11:30:16 UTC
Nice changes - you nailed it.
Zifrian
The Frog Pond
Ribbit.
#685 - 2013-07-04 12:10:03 UTC
Given such a low barrier to entry for flying all races of industrials, I don't see the reason to complain about any of it. These are really great changes and gives a lot more variety to an otherwise boring class of ships. Can't wait for T2 updates where the real crying will begin!

Maximze your Industry Potential! - Download EVE Isk per Hour!

Import CCP's SDE - EVE SDE Database Builder

Oraac Ensor
#686 - 2013-07-04 16:55:54 UTC
Marcus Harikari wrote:
iteron should keep highest cargo space because of those of us who trained gallente indy to 5 to fly iteron5

If you extended that reasoning across every aspect of EVE, we would have total stagnation - nothing would ever change.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#687 - 2013-07-04 16:56:09 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
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.


sounds good on the mods re-balance what approach are you taking?
i would like to see a role based approach much like the tiercide objective

meta 0 - base mod stats
meta 1 - low cap usage /base stats
meta 3 - low fitting requirements / base stats
meta 4 - high all round performance / higher cap usage
T2 - best at one specific stat only / higher fitting requirements

of course this won't work on all mods so you would have to balance around other things

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using

Endeavour Starfleet
#688 - 2013-07-04 20:20:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Endeavour Starfleet
Marcus Harikari wrote:
iteron should keep highest cargo space because of those of us who trained gallente indy to 5 to fly iteron5


No

It also needs a change. And in my opinion a change to a cargo bay that can not be affected by cargo expanders and max 25k at Gallente Industral V is plenty enough for those who took it that high. Especially if it is balanced around being cheap to build.
Parrot47
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#689 - 2013-07-04 21:22:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Parrot47
Those of us that have fitted cargo expanding rigs on our current Ity II-IV should have them removed (not destroyed) since I am assuming that cargo expanders will not affect the specialized bays.

These are expensive (12Mil+ per ship) rigs that are now going to be worthless on them.

Am I alone on this? Not asking for compensation, just to unfit the current rigs....



Since we the players are not able to anticipate these changes that are implemented, I feel like this in not a grand request, and is in-fact a rather basic expectation.
Eladaris
Indefinite.
#690 - 2013-07-04 22:14:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Eladaris
Parrot47 wrote:
Those of us that have fitted cargo expanding rigs on our current Ity II-IV should have them removed (not destroyed) since I am assuming that cargo expanders will not affect the specialized bays.

These are expensive (12Mil+ per ship) rigs that are now going to be worthless on them.


Totally wrong actually. As pointed out elsewhere the rigs / expanders in the lows combined with high skills will net you a massive boost in your cargo hold. This is most important in the Itty for PI, because that extra cargo space will allow you to carry a pair of Command Centers.

It won't give you the bang for the buck that hanging them on your old ships gave, but it's plenty of reason for them to avoid a refund.
HiddenPorpoise
Jarlhettur's Drop
United Federation of Conifers
#691 - 2013-07-04 23:35:10 UTC
Marcus Harikari wrote:
iteron should keep highest cargo space because of those of us who trained gallente indy to 5 to fly iteron5
Ite is actually better than bestower at every role; I'm fine with it being very slightly smaller. The only real advantage the bestower actually has is it can fit a warpstab for a smaller loss of cargospace. That's offset by it being slowest and easiest to kill by far. Sigel is the thing to fly on that line.
Emrys Ap'Morgravaine
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#692 - 2013-07-05 03:53:24 UTC
Mostly I really like it.

My only issue is the Iteron IV having the ore bay with the ability to haul all types?

I'd suggest splitting it down a bit, giving the iteron IV the storage bay for one type, and moving the other 2 types to other races.

So some sort of tanker looking thing for hauling gas.

As for the ice, could make a flying heatsink thing for each race, with 'x' amount of storage, but with some sort of storage bonus if moving their racially specific ice?
chillore
Small Flat Sharing Group
#693 - 2013-07-05 04:54:43 UTC
Denidil wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
As far as the Orca - Because it does things other than have an Ore hold, I'm not super concerned about the overlap with the Iteron Mark whatever, but I'll check with Fozzie/Ytterbium to see what they think about it.


Good :D The Orca and Rorqual are big arse mining capitals and thus should really have ore bay far in excess of a tech 1 industrial. Especially since the Mackinaw's bay is only 5km3 less than the Orcas now. Orca really should have 300,000m3 to 400,000m3 and the Rorq should have like 1,000,000m3. They're big, slow, and they're ORE ships.


Well, thats a good point to be considered.
DurFea
TEXAS RENEGADES
#694 - 2013-07-05 09:34:51 UTC
I've been wishing for a reconfigurable Tech-3 Industrial for a long time.....

ORE Reconfigurable Industrial Ship
Required Skills:

  • ORE Reconfiguration Specialization
  • ORE Industrial V
  • Advanced Spaceship Command III


Subsystems:

  • ORE Engineering Systems
  • ORE Propulsion Systems
  • ORE Industrial Specialization Systems
  • ORE Cargo Specialization Systems
  • ORE Command Specialization Systems


Engineering Subsystem options would include subsystem modules that vary between CPU and POWER GRID, or standard CARGO BAY and STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY, or a subsystem module for COVERT RECONFIGURATION.

Propulsion Subsystem options would include modules for HIGHER NORMAL VELOCITY, GREATER AGILITY, FASTER WARP SPEED, INTERDICTION NULLIFICATION, or JUMP DRIVE.

Industrial Subsystem options would include subsystem modules for supporting ASTEROID MINING, GAS CLOUD HARVESTING, ICE MINING, SALVAGING, or CLONING (possible DUST 514 tie-in)

Cargo Subsystem options would include EXPANDED CARGO BAY, ORE & ICE BAY, PI & Command Center BAY, POS MODULES & TOWER BAY, CORPORATE HANGER BAY.

Command Subsystem options would include subsystem modules to support fitting various mining gang-links with additional bonuses, or perhaps ship-based bonuses similar to mining gang-links but would increase with each additional Tech-3 ship in the fleet -- more ships working together, the bigger the bonuses.


The visual model for the ship could look like various configurations between an Orca and an Iteron with different cargo bay arrangements along a central fuselage structure.

Just my 2-isk, food for thought.
Vayn Baxtor
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#695 - 2013-07-05 17:31:39 UTC
Just my take on T3/Subsystems. The subsystem-'system' in general would really make the game interesting, but I find that these selections specifically are "too good", if not, a bit overpowered. T3 ships in general are more of a curse than a blessing.

Cloaking and Interdiction-Nullifier are things that should be mutually exclusive to begin with - but that is not really worth complaining abou here.

In terms of an "If we would get a T3 industrial vessel", that it should feature some new and unique things and not the cookie cutter stuff. Plus, it is likely that such a T3 vessel will be huge and have a sluggish align time. Doubt the nullifier will really help whatsoever.

But it would cool to see a T3 industrial vessel nonetheless.
As said by many people already, Industrial Shpis in general could really become very useful if they have the specific special bays. The current problem here of course is that CCP said specific racial Indys to have special bays, hence the debate and complaints.

One decent solution would be to introduce subsystem-bays, in my opinion, as well as introducing an ORE vessel (T3 or whatever Tech of your liking). Wish we could actually see subsystems become a vital function to T1, T2 and T3 - opening doors to versatility while ensuring no cookie cutter and overpowering principles.

An ORE T3 vessel would at least help migate the complaint of "Why Gallente, and not xyz?". Plus, the standard industrials could focus more on being stepladders on an Industrial branch of whatsoever while avoiding this frequent "stepping on other ships' feet" situation we keep having.


([b]and ffs finally have the possibility of getting Indy hulls as combat variants like a real "battle badger" etc" Twisted)

Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all.

The Renner
Canadian Operations
#696 - 2013-07-05 23:56:19 UTC
Not sure if it's been answered yet, but are there plans to let one of the special bay iterons haul moon goo?
Number One Everything
D'Anconia Commerce
#697 - 2013-07-06 04:14:45 UTC
CCP Rise, could you update the first page with the changes mentioned later? I really would rather not go through all 35 pages to check all the changes. I know about the one on page 13, but it would be nice to update the first page because that's the post everyone is going to see and base their opinions on.
Saja Chou
Just an other alt corp 2
#698 - 2013-07-06 16:07:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Saja Chou
(sry for the bad english also sry if i write like a noob XD)

i see the Problem in the to many iteros and the missing role for a 3. hauler also the missing ship on 2 factions

so why dont give this 3.hauler in the game? for the start take one of the hulls paint and call it different and the graficers put the hull or changes later in the gme.

Switch one iteron to ore (the 4?) give it a other Cockpit and paint it yellow XD
and sry but put one iteron out of the game
Switch the ships how has owned to this one that match the stats mostly

and now do some fancy stuff with the 3.haulers
why dont build a mini orca only für t1 and ore?

faction haulers:
small shiphangar max for a cruiser but only t1 ships
you can also only equip t1 ships on it
not that big cargohold but as a special: not to scann (for those who dont have a cloaky to carry expensive stuff)
moderate fleethold
dronebay

ore hauler:
shiphangarsize for exhumers/barges
can equip Sub capital ore ships
nice orehold
fleethold big enough for a full hulk fit also with t1 Strip or cloaky?
drone bay

and on top some realy fancy role Bonus to the ships
good aktiv tank and resi Bonus?
maybe can go in warp also with a t1 cloaky but than the cloak goes off?
per Level Little warpspeed and align bonus so he can ran away t1 frigs?
for the ore: can equip a command module, tractor Bonus, shield/Amor logi Bonus maybe can equip in larger range (for the miner crystals)

it is about bring some movement in this class to the game and solve the "to many iteron" Problem or also dont realy have i great idea for those.
if there are no 3.role now you can point on, put it later in. meanwhile build the 3.hulls and Change the one moved to ore.
and for a while sit out the Players hatestorm to steal there iterons XD
Oraac Ensor
#699 - 2013-07-06 18:21:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Oraac Ensor
Eladaris wrote:
Parrot47 wrote:
Those of us that have fitted cargo expanding rigs on our current Ity II-IV should have them removed (not destroyed) since I am assuming that cargo expanders will not affect the specialized bays.

These are expensive (12Mil+ per ship) rigs that are now going to be worthless on them.


Totally wrong actually. As pointed out elsewhere the rigs / expanders in the lows combined with high skills will net you a massive boost in your cargo hold. This is most important in the Itty for PI, because that extra cargo space will allow you to carry a pair of Command Centers.

It won't give you the bang for the buck that hanging them on your old ships gave, but it's plenty of reason for them to avoid a refund.

But it's only of real value on that one ship. Removal and reimbursement is still relevant for the other ships and anyone with the PI ship could still re-purchase and re-install if they wanted to.
Ted Cisse
Lanisters
#700 - 2013-07-07 06:22:56 UTC
What I would love is to have 1 of these 3 options:

1- a ship specially designed for transporting minerals or
2- have a special mineral bay inside the freighters or
3- have some kind of cargo container designed for freighters that would be used exclusively for hauling more minerals.

So example:

Mineral cargo expanded (50% bonus in capacity)

Container Vol: 450 000 m3
Mineral Capacity Vol: 675 000 m3


So basically the Idea is for the player to have the choice to either go for full expanded mineral capacity or half/half.

Trading is a known and supported profession in eve but for a mineral traders the profession is heavily disadvantaged specially if you trade in hi-sectors and there's a couple of reasons for that:

1-A freighter class ship is supper slow even if you have all the skills completed and you're manually flying your ship.
2-Multiple stations to stop and the distances can be very far...30 jumps and more sometimes.
3-Hi-sector minerals value is very low...specially titanium and pyrite and to compensate for this you need to sell bigger quantitys


Thank you for reading :)