These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev Blog: Rebalancing and Renaming Industrials

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Beofryn Sedorak
#121 - 2013-07-17 15:22:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Beofryn Sedorak
Kelmurdoch wrote:
I think the Itty IV/Miasmos will see alot less use than the other variants. With the exception of gas it simply doesn't hold enough isk/m in value to be useful for something like ice mining while being role restricted and otherwise unable to hold the refined ice products.

Increase the base to 60k or so and things are better.


Jetcan mining.

Your assumption is incredible short sighted.
Beofryn Sedorak
#122 - 2013-07-17 15:31:11 UTC
Estella Osoka wrote:
Why not just make the "extra" Iterons into ORE industrials, and require them to use the ORE Industrial skill?


I can see reading is very challenging for you. Your thought is about as far away form original as it gets, and it has been brought up, debated, put to bed, many times over.

TL;DR Stop wasting peoples time with your unoriginal ideas because you're too lazy to read.
Beofryn Sedorak
#123 - 2013-07-17 15:42:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Beofryn Sedorak
Photon Ceray wrote:
Rebalancing haulers is a good and welcome change.

The renaming is interesting, rather un-intuitive but I guess people will get used to it.

Just one thing though, please make the specialized haulers have a significant advantage in hauling the specific content!

Otherwise, why anyone use a specialized hauler that can only carry 30k when they could carry 50k with a general hauler that only requires industrial IV. "just coz it's cool" is not enough :)

so IMO, specialized haulers should be able to hold at least 25% more than the biggest general bay to be worth it.


First off, none of the specialized bays are under 40km3. Secondly, you get an additional 10% per level. Please do your research before ranting. kthx.
Beofryn Sedorak
#124 - 2013-07-17 15:47:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Beofryn Sedorak
Gogela wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
Lady Zarrina wrote:
I realize these changes need to be done for various reasons. But will tech 1 industrial ever be more than just a floating loot pinata?

I certainly hope so.

Being a super stealthy or hard to kill loot pinata is the role of T2.

Then what would be the motivation to get a blockade runner or DST?

I think these changes are fine and make sense. I still think you need a mini-freighter class... something like a 100k m3 cargo hold retailing for about 100 mil to bridge the gap between standard indys and freighters for hauler types.


It's a pretty decent price gap between 100mil and an Orca, but the Orca fills that role quite well. Perfect skills with rigs and expanders brings the general cargo bay to 90km3, + the fleet hangar 40km3
Beofryn Sedorak
#125 - 2013-07-17 15:53:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Beofryn Sedorak
Radgette wrote:
god damn those names ><

you do realise noone is gonna call them that right. well maybe some noobs

I'm kind of confused though:

you go through the modules removing the different names saying it's hard for noobs to remember all the new names then you add a bunch of new names to the indy ships :P

Surely the normal "Iteron" should keep it's name as it is the progenitor of the class, a mark 5 with no mark one or reference to it seems strange also I understand changing the names of the ships getting dedicated bays to differenciate but the Itty 1 is just a standard hauler so ye no idea why your renaming it.


Believing that no one will use the new names is an incredibly ignorant claim born obviously out of your general unhappiness with no regard for logic or reason.

Despite having read the OP (Which I have to assume you did because you're aware of the name changes) and still having "No idea why *you're renaming it [them]." Is just more evidence supporting the conclusion that you're just being whiney and immature.
Beofryn Sedorak
#126 - 2013-07-17 15:57:57 UTC
Vyktor Abyss wrote:
I'm sorry for not following the discussion etc

The only question I've got is:

Like with T2 cruisers being made slightly redundant by T1 cruiser changes, doesn't this set of changes make the T2 Industrials kind of redundant and overpriced for their 'roles'?

Perhaps if you could list the maximum cargo capacities (with full sets of expanders) for all the haulage types, and contrast that with the T2 haulers I'd comprehend better...

But right now, I'm feeling my rather pricey T2 rigged Occator and Viator just became rather obsolete... Or am I wrong?

Cheers.


T2's are designed for hostile space, not maximum cargo. Fitting them for maximum cargo ruins their advantage in tank. So my oppinion would be that you are wrong.
Beofryn Sedorak
#127 - 2013-07-17 15:59:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Beofryn Sedorak
Sable Moran wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
If you don't have the resources to do something correctly the first time, then don't waste time on it till you do.


If the human race had followed that rule we would still live in caves.


While incredibly short sighted and quite definately incorrect, I can appreciate the sentiment of your statement.
Tsabrock
Circle of Friends
#128 - 2013-07-17 16:00:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Tsabrock
Having just returned to the game, I'm afraid I wasn't able to debate these changes. I wasn't even aware they were in the works until this Dev post.

That said, I'm a bit on the fence with these changes. I've always felt that the different Empire ships were a little too homogenous - when a new mechanic hit, all races got the new mechanic at the same time. From a game play standpoint, this makes sense, since you don't favor one race over the other, but from a lore/continuity standpoint, it didn't make much sense at all.

Now, just to make sure I'm following all of this right - it seems Gallente got the most benefit out of this change by far. Minmatar got a new Ammo-hauling ship (an interesting idea, but not sure how useful it'll be. Can it haul drones too?). Caldari don't really get any new ships, but their Mark II gets renamed, and the Mark I gets Missile slots. I didn't see Amarr getting anything at all? Did they get left in the cold?

At first glance, it seems that those people with high Gallente Industrial skills will benefit from this the most. This seems like an odd design choice, considering balance has been so important in the past. Am I missing something?

Also, how will this impact the balance of Transports. Blockade Runners still have their role as the ultimate sneaky transport, but DST's need to compete with the revamped T1's sturdier hulls.
Beofryn Sedorak
#129 - 2013-07-17 16:03:33 UTC
Photon Ceray wrote:
To be honest, t1 inudstrials aren't worthy of being named after greek gods and stuff, these names should be reserved for PVP ships.

Also, the names will create some confusion, especially for newer player.

It's fine giving them special names, but make the names more intuitive and related to what the ships do, because not all people read the dev blog and even those who did still don't know latin and will forget what the names stand for 10 mins after reading.

I hope you at CCP won't get stuck over the names of ships, that didn't take from the development budget - I hope, if it did then you need to hire me instantly and i'll be naming everything for you!.


Your arogance on top of your ignorance is getting irritating. Please accept that CCP is doing what they're doing. They've been doing it for 10+years on 3 AAA titles. They likely have a better sense of how to/not to do things than yourself.

As for people remembering the names, People will learn the new names in the exact same manner they've learned the other names of ships. When it matters to them.
Valkyrs
Deep Vein Trading
#130 - 2013-07-17 16:32:57 UTC
Good move, the training time difference was a small consideration back when I started but ultimately trivial down the road.

I have 83 mammoths. And each one is uglier then the next.

I'm glad I will be able to use more variety, for specific tasks.

Thanks CCP, keep up the good work!
Sorcerror
Nocturnal Romance
Cynosural Field Theory.
#131 - 2013-07-17 17:29:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Sorcerror
There still more need for more specific cargo industrials on Caldari/amarr side (I have like 9 chars with mostly caldari spec):
Pos Fuel
Capital Components
Moon Materials
Pos Modules/Poses/Constructions/Sov

Those things i and many people i know around in 0.0 haul, and not some pesky minerals/ore which also could be hauled by other type of ships.
PI indy is cool
But Pos fuel, Cap parts, Moon materials, Pos/Sov modules - are indies for 0.0
Contik Ardman
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#132 - 2013-07-17 18:52:34 UTC
Will the Special Edition Industrials be renamed, too?

  • Iteron Mark IV Amastris Edition -> Miasmos Amastris Edition
  • Iteron Mark IV Quafe Ultra Edition -> ...
  • Iteron Mark IV Quafe Ultramarine Edition -> ...
Silivar Karkun
Doomheim
#133 - 2013-07-17 19:51:41 UTC
Contik Ardman wrote:
Will the Special Edition Industrials be renamed, too?

  • Iteron Mark IV Amastris Edition -> Miasmos Amastris Edition
  • Iteron Mark IV Quafe Ultra Edition -> ...
  • Iteron Mark IV Quafe Ultramarine Edition -> ...


special edition ships will remain as they are....
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#134 - 2013-07-18 01:43:19 UTC
CCP Eterne wrote:
Industrials serve a very important role in EVE Online, serving to transport goods and materials across the cluster. As part of the continuing Tiericide initiative, all Industrials will soon be rebalanced to give them specific roles. As part of this rebalancing, some of the ships will be renamed to reflect the new order.

In his first ever dev blog, CCP Rise lays out all the changes.


Named to reflect the New Order? I can get behind this.

'The James 315' - a transport ship with a bay specifically designed to hold Catalyst hulls. (5500k m^3, can only hold unpackaged ships)

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#135 - 2013-07-18 01:44:07 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Makoto Priano wrote:
AWESOME.


Now-- AHACs? Pretty please? And let's get those numbers released for medium rail rebalance? :D


Unless CSM raises something major in the next day or two you should have some new stuff to look at before the end of the week =)


Now as someone that loves flying an Ishtar, and that is sitting on plenty of HAC BPCs, this makes me all warm and fuzzy inside.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
Octoven
Stellar Production
#136 - 2013-07-18 09:17:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Octoven
Fade Toblack wrote:
Natasha Maraska wrote:
So are any other of the other races getting any love on this? That's nice for Galls and ok for Cald, but everyone else only having 2 haulers and no specializations? Seems like forcing purists to have to buy and train more skills just to be equal...


No, you've got a general hauler with a large cargo bay for every race.

If you want a ship with a specialized bonus you cross-train, it works the same way that if you want a bonus to ECM you need to train Caldari etc. If you want to be able to switch between different bonuses, you need to be able to fly multiple races.

I'm sure that CCP will spread any future bonused hulls around the other races, but there's no requirements for new bonuses at the moment, and no art department time to do new hull designs.


True that; however, each race has equal numbers of ships in their combat classes. 7 frigates, 2 destroyers, 4 cruisers, 3 battlecruisers, 3 battleships. The scorpion is the only BS to give ECM bonus making you cross train; however, the same could be said about the geddon and neuts...the point being that each race has equal quantities of ship regardless of specialization.

The same should be true for industrials as well. It would be one thing to give the gall a specialized ship and nothing to the rest but in this example the gall are getting 3 while minmatar get one, the caldari and amarr sit back with their hands out still. From what ive seen on the bays, there are 4 types of specialized bays, i think its more then adequate to split them equally among the four races. Let the minmatar keep the Hoarder's ammo bay, let one of the old itties keep a bay perhaps PI, give the caldari the mineral one maybe and the amarr the ore bay.

Thus you would need to eliminate 2 ships out of the gall lineup and craete models and 2 new assets for amarr and caldari respectively. Each race would have equal ships that way. PLUS if you fly caldari and want the PI indy you STILL need to cross train as you pointed to the ecm example; however, if you fly mostly gallenete and want a mineral bay you would cross train to fill that role. Either way I'd prefer that setup then the one proposed.
Lag Ellecon
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#137 - 2013-07-18 09:22:00 UTC
The changes seem interesting not shure about the ammo bay What?. But the bays do seem like a good idea
How about allowing your fleet members to open the bays similar to the Orca
Waldemar Caldari
Havana Club International
#138 - 2013-07-18 09:33:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Waldemar Caldari
English
Please, stops with the nonsense!

Read the ships at place and puts!

Nevertheless, please, makes simply new ex-tenders, for the different loading kinds! This would be the most sensible(meaningful), and we would have ours needing(requiring) navigates(has a slash) we for different purposes(targets)!!!


Quote:
I am German of languages players, I use a translator there I no English is able


Deutsch
Bitte hört mit dem unsinn auf!

Last die Schiffe an ort und stelle!

Bitte macht doch einfach neue Extender, für die verschiedenen Ladearten! Das wäre das sinnvollste, und wir hätten unsere schiffe die wir für verschiedene zwecke Brauchen!!!
Waldemar Caldari
Havana Club International
#139 - 2013-07-18 10:05:15 UTC
English
whom you would have, however, now the choice between 5 different ships (specifically) or you have a ship and the respective ex-tenders / Rigs what you would prefer?

Deutsch
wen du aber jetzt die Wahl zwischen 5 verschiedenen Schiffen(spezifisch) hättest oder du hast ein Schiff und die jeweiligen Extender/Rigs was würdest du vorziehen?
Kusum Fawn
Perkone
Caldari State
#140 - 2013-07-18 14:27:05 UTC
I just want to put this out there
From the dev Blog
Dev Blog wrote:

You can expect to see all of this on Tranquility for our Odyssey 1.1 release coming up later this summer. Hope you enjoy the changes!

See you in space o/

CCP Rise


why is this not going to sisi for feedback?

Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.