These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Less low slots on the new haulers please.

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Caviar Liberta
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#61 - 2013-09-04 14:45:39 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Peter Raptor wrote:
I see so now catching haulers will ACTUALLY make you think and plan, unlike before, and you're sad about that?? Roll


This requires the haulers to fit things other than cargo extenders.


You mean like shield extenders, invuln adap field, asb and a low slot full of wcs + shield rigs?
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#62 - 2013-09-04 14:51:04 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Its actually a valid point not a whine. Cargo expanders were necessary before but now not so much. So why not fit all your lows with WCS. Now unless you have multiple tacklers its either alpha or lose the target. Like 2 faction screams at least. Frigs n inties are totally screwed here.

Solo is mega screwed. T1 haulers +4 to +5 warpcore strength standard :)

But now that they can carry so much more, they need more tank. There's no point in carrying more, but still being so paper thin that a single T1 cata can blap them in half in a hit.
Low slots allow hull tanking, or agility improvements.

If a target is WCS fitted, you shouldn't need to scram them, because you should be able to kill them before they warp. If the target is tank fitted, then they will get scrammed. The OP wants them to not be tanked, and not be able to warp away, leaving them with close to 0% chance of surviving. That's not a way to balance them.

They're already quite difficult to catch. Recently spent 3 weeks out in null, I got 32 kills playing a few hours each day after work in Proteus with a sebo, pretty fast locker. Of those 32 kills I got 1 T1 indy.

Basically what happens is indy jumps in, aligns, mwd, cloak. If he messes up you get him. If not hes cloaked till insta warp. Now even if he messes up he escapes. Unless you manage to bubble the whole gate or they land in your bubble cause theyre not local and dont have offset book marks theyre getting away.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Ruby Pyrenne
Doomheim
#63 - 2013-09-04 15:08:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Ruby Pyrenne
Perhaps I am unaware of certain things, so apologies upfront for anything I may overlook something while thinking about an alternative for the OP.

But, if you cannot keep the Industrial pinned down, they move slow, dont speed up that fast to initiate their warps so perhaps bump them to interrupt the warp-process?

Granted, I haven't yet gotten the time to see how the revamped haulers manage themselves agility wise, but they should be relatively easy to bump and destroy, especially for a cloaky ship with a MWD fitted.


EDIT: I just read Infinity Ziona's entry, and my suggestion would not be as useful as I imagined Sad

  http://rubypyrenne.wordpress.com/ part III posted @ 12 sept 2013
Caviar Liberta
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#64 - 2013-09-04 15:10:10 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Its actually a valid point not a whine. Cargo expanders were necessary before but now not so much. So why not fit all your lows with WCS. Now unless you have multiple tacklers its either alpha or lose the target. Like 2 faction screams at least. Frigs n inties are totally screwed here.

Solo is mega screwed. T1 haulers +4 to +5 warpcore strength standard :)

But now that they can carry so much more, they need more tank. There's no point in carrying more, but still being so paper thin that a single T1 cata can blap them in half in a hit.
Low slots allow hull tanking, or agility improvements.

If a target is WCS fitted, you shouldn't need to scram them, because you should be able to kill them before they warp. If the target is tank fitted, then they will get scrammed. The OP wants them to not be tanked, and not be able to warp away, leaving them with close to 0% chance of surviving. That's not a way to balance them.


You forgot that shield tanking is an option.
Lexar Mundi
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#65 - 2013-09-04 15:22:39 UTC
Edora Madullier wrote:
Lexar Mundi wrote:
Louise Beethoven wrote:
Plz plz dont take away my risk free kills

The OP is the real carebear here

I'm hunting anything not just haulers if you read my other posts.


If I understand correctly, you think that since you're a WH-dweller, thus not being able to refit/reship as easily as an empire-dweller, you must be able to kill any enemy ship who would come by with one single ship and one single fit, while keeping your precious cloak to avoid being on the receiving end? Pretty unbalanced, imo.

Seems like you want everything served on a silver platter.

You have to admit that some specific ships with specific fits will be able to evade your ship if you're not willing/able to adapt.

This is EVE.

The cloak is to make sure they don't see me and log off. 1 ship on D scan, even if it's a T1 cruiser will make 5 or 6 C1 / C2 residence flying T3s go back to their POS and log off.

It seems a lot of you don't know a thing about W-space
Lexar Mundi
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#66 - 2013-09-04 15:29:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Lexar Mundi
Ruby Pyrenne wrote:
Perhaps I am unaware of certain things, so apologies upfront for anything I may overlook something while thinking about an alternative for the OP.

But, if you cannot keep the Industrial pinned down, they move slow, dont speed up that fast to initiate their warps so perhaps bump them to interrupt the warp-process?

Granted, I haven't yet gotten the time to see how the revamped haulers manage themselves agility wise, but they should be relatively easy to bump and destroy, especially for a cloaky ship with a MWD fitted.


EDIT: I just read Infinity Ziona's entry, and my suggestion would not be as useful as I imagined Sad

Yeah the new PI ship is pretty fast as it is even without cloak warp. I have one on my PI alt atm with only 4 warp stabs. No rigs, no mids and it aligns around the speed of a shield nano cruiser with my skills.

~edit~
granted my PI "alt" is 3 years old
Vrenth
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#67 - 2013-09-04 15:46:42 UTC
Hictor. I'll just leave this here.
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#68 - 2013-09-04 15:59:05 UTC
Well now let's think about this.

Can a hauler be tanked better now?

It's a game of resists and ISK so far.

If a hauler is tanked, it merely takes more firepower to kill it. Therefore, an alpha strike comes from.. more ISK.

So if the cost of the hauler's contents exceeds the cost of what you use to suicide gank it, it's considered a success of sorts (though CCP even says that suicide ganking is not meant to be profitable).

I have a tanked hauler that I am told, is futile. Yet I never haul more than would be worth the cost of a tornado. So what I try to do is make it too hard for gank with a few destoyers, but not make it expensive enough to be worthwile to gank with a tornado.



If the OP is for real, then let us relish and bath in these tears for EZ-kills are gone in this case.

Now, if only we could fit Target Lock Breakers on haulers and industrials overall. That would finally be a use for a somewhat useless module. Restricting them to battleships is kinda dumb because the module implies a travel fit while the constraint implies a combat module.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Lexar Mundi
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#69 - 2013-09-04 16:04:34 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Well now let's think about this.

Can a hauler be tanked better now?

It's a game of resists and ISK so far.

If a hauler is tanked, it merely takes more firepower to kill it. Therefore, an alpha strike comes from.. more ISK.

So if the cost of the hauler's contents exceeds the cost of what you use to suicide gank it, it's considered a success of sorts (though CCP even says that suicide ganking is not meant to be profitable).

I have a tanked hauler that I am told, is futile. Yet I never haul more than would be worth the cost of a tornado. So what I try to do is make it too hard for gank with a few destoyers, but not make it expensive enough to be worthwile to gank with a tornado.



If the OP is for real, then let us relish and bath in these tears for EZ-kills are gone in this case.

Now, if only we could fit Target Lock Breakers on haulers and industrials overall. That would finally be a use for a somewhat useless module. Restricting them to battleships is kinda dumb because the module implies a travel fit while the constraint implies a combat module.

ECM burst my friend ECM burst
Rengerel en Distel
#70 - 2013-09-04 16:06:28 UTC
This just in: Trying to do everything solo in a MMORPG is inefficient.

With the increase in shiptoasting, the Report timer needs to be shortened.
Sid Hudgens
Doomheim
#71 - 2013-09-04 16:13:20 UTC
T1 industrial ships have become too much of a pvp challenge and have to be nerfed? Really?

"....as if 10,058 Goon voices cried out and were suddenly silenced."
KnowUsByTheDead
Sunlight...Through The Blight.
#72 - 2013-09-04 16:16:50 UTC
Rengerel en Distel wrote:
This just in: Trying to do everything solo in a MMORPG is inefficient.


No, this can't be. THIS JUST CAN'T BE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Once you realize what a joke everything is, being the comedian is the only thing that makes sense.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#73 - 2013-09-04 16:21:10 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Its actually a valid point not a whine. Cargo expanders were necessary before but now not so much. So why not fit all your lows with WCS. Now unless you have multiple tacklers its either alpha or lose the target. Like 2 faction screams at least. Frigs n inties are totally screwed here.

Solo is mega screwed. T1 haulers +4 to +5 warpcore strength standard :)

But now that they can carry so much more, they need more tank. There's no point in carrying more, but still being so paper thin that a single T1 cata can blap them in half in a hit.
Low slots allow hull tanking, or agility improvements.

If a target is WCS fitted, you shouldn't need to scram them, because you should be able to kill them before they warp. If the target is tank fitted, then they will get scrammed. The OP wants them to not be tanked, and not be able to warp away, leaving them with close to 0% chance of surviving. That's not a way to balance them.

They're already quite difficult to catch. Recently spent 3 weeks out in null, I got 32 kills playing a few hours each day after work in Proteus with a sebo, pretty fast locker. Of those 32 kills I got 1 T1 indy.

Basically what happens is indy jumps in, aligns, mwd, cloak. If he messes up you get him. If not hes cloaked till insta warp. Now even if he messes up he escapes. Unless you manage to bubble the whole gate or they land in your bubble cause theyre not local and dont have offset book marks theyre getting away.

The removal of low slots wouldn't stop that happening though. You could do that in a battleship, that's just a sign of the other player playing well. Since all an industrial can do is run away, it makes sense they would be good at doing that one thing.

Caviar Liberta wrote:
You forgot that shield tanking is an option.
No, I didn't. It's just not realistic. A shield tanked an indy would barely scrape another second of life, and for what? You can't fight back, and you can't outrun them. You can slowboat an extra km away before they are looting your wreck.
Again, indy's can only run away. Taking that ability away from them would cripple them out of use. Removing low slots would mean you can;t fit agility mods or hull tank, so the chances of you aligning out before getting blapped are slim.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#74 - 2013-09-04 16:22:30 UTC
Rengerel en Distel wrote:
This just in: Trying to do everything solo in a MMORPG is inefficient.

Unless you're travelling in a multi WCS MWD Cloaking indy of course. Goes both ways.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
I Love Boobies
All Hail Boobies
#75 - 2013-09-04 16:30:01 UTC
Seems like the OP is the carebear in this situation. Doesn't want to work too hard for his easy kills. This is Eve. Old saying still applies. Adapt or die.
Kahetha
Eclipse of Darkness
#76 - 2013-09-04 16:41:49 UTC
OH look. A "PVPer" crying about how hard it is to rake in easy kills... In other news water is wet and air might be breathable, more ion this at five!
Josef Djugashvilis
#77 - 2013-09-04 16:42:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Josef Djugashvilis
Reading tough guy, 'but mom, it ain't fair posts' are enough to make a care-bear cry tears of happiness.

Do carry on.

This is not a signature.
Caviar Liberta
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#78 - 2013-09-04 16:50:49 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Its actually a valid point not a whine. Cargo expanders were necessary before but now not so much. So why not fit all your lows with WCS. Now unless you have multiple tacklers its either alpha or lose the target. Like 2 faction screams at least. Frigs n inties are totally screwed here.

Solo is mega screwed. T1 haulers +4 to +5 warpcore strength standard :)

But now that they can carry so much more, they need more tank. There's no point in carrying more, but still being so paper thin that a single T1 cata can blap them in half in a hit.
Low slots allow hull tanking, or agility improvements.

If a target is WCS fitted, you shouldn't need to scram them, because you should be able to kill them before they warp. If the target is tank fitted, then they will get scrammed. The OP wants them to not be tanked, and not be able to warp away, leaving them with close to 0% chance of surviving. That's not a way to balance them.

They're already quite difficult to catch. Recently spent 3 weeks out in null, I got 32 kills playing a few hours each day after work in Proteus with a sebo, pretty fast locker. Of those 32 kills I got 1 T1 indy.

Basically what happens is indy jumps in, aligns, mwd, cloak. If he messes up you get him. If not hes cloaked till insta warp. Now even if he messes up he escapes. Unless you manage to bubble the whole gate or they land in your bubble cause theyre not local and dont have offset book marks theyre getting away.

The removal of low slots wouldn't stop that happening though. You could do that in a battleship, that's just a sign of the other player playing well. Since all an industrial can do is run away, it makes sense they would be good at doing that one thing.

Caviar Liberta wrote:
You forgot that shield tanking is an option.
No, I didn't. It's just not realistic. A shield tanked an indy would barely scrape another second of life, and for what? You can't fight back, and you can't outrun them. You can slowboat an extra km away before they are looting your wreck.
Again, indy's can only run away. Taking that ability away from them would cripple them out of use. Removing low slots would mean you can;t fit agility mods or hull tank, so the chances of you aligning out before getting blapped are slim.


of course, removing the lows from about any ship would break it, armor tank, dps, tracking, ew amplifier, drone damage modification, shield relay, cap relay modules.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#79 - 2013-09-04 17:28:31 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Its actually a valid point not a whine. Cargo expanders were necessary before but now not so much. So why not fit all your lows with WCS. Now unless you have multiple tacklers its either alpha or lose the target. Like 2 faction screams at least. Frigs n inties are totally screwed here.

Solo is mega screwed. T1 haulers +4 to +5 warpcore strength standard :)

But now that they can carry so much more, they need more tank. There's no point in carrying more, but still being so paper thin that a single T1 cata can blap them in half in a hit.
Low slots allow hull tanking, or agility improvements.

If a target is WCS fitted, you shouldn't need to scram them, because you should be able to kill them before they warp. If the target is tank fitted, then they will get scrammed. The OP wants them to not be tanked, and not be able to warp away, leaving them with close to 0% chance of surviving. That's not a way to balance them.

They're already quite difficult to catch. Recently spent 3 weeks out in null, I got 32 kills playing a few hours each day after work in Proteus with a sebo, pretty fast locker. Of those 32 kills I got 1 T1 indy.

Basically what happens is indy jumps in, aligns, mwd, cloak. If he messes up you get him. If not hes cloaked till insta warp. Now even if he messes up he escapes. Unless you manage to bubble the whole gate or they land in your bubble cause theyre not local and dont have offset book marks theyre getting away.

The removal of low slots wouldn't stop that happening though. You could do that in a battleship, that's just a sign of the other player playing well. Since all an industrial can do is run away, it makes sense they would be good at doing that one thing.
.

Battleships can MWD cloak but I doubt they would have lows filled with WCS. If a battleship does try an inty or frig spamming overview with mwd on can decloak and scram but with indies with 3 or more WCS even a +3 scram will fail.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Rengerel en Distel
#80 - 2013-09-04 17:32:19 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:

Battleships can MWD cloak but I doubt they would have lows filled with WCS. If a battleship does try an inty or frig spamming overview with mwd on can decloak and scram but with indies with 3 or more WCS even a +3 scram will fail.


Sorry, where does it say when you log on that just because you're in a pvp ship, that you automatically get to kill those that aren't? If you wish to run around solo and pick your targets, then you get to pay for that by the targets sometimes getting away.

With the increase in shiptoasting, the Report timer needs to be shortened.