These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Nerf specialized industrials - make them use cargo expansion too
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#81 - 2014-09-13 09:58:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
Fer'isam K'ahn wrote:
Steppa Musana wrote:
In a game of risk/reward these changes are not a waste but in fact are rather necessary. They can be most easily compared to the freighter changes of late. You are literally arguing to take away the risk/reward formula and keep the choices homogenized. That is not healthy for EVE.

You are throwing the almighty risk/reward over everything (like most) to cover up the basic mistakes not to choose the porper tool for the job, but instead insisting in editing them and others so you can more easily get away with using an insufficient tool and make it look like the sufficient one. Where you are actually taking away choices for the sake of a more homogenous blend.

'Specialized' says it all, why does it have to be comparable to any other ship that has the 'hauler' tag ?

Nobody is throwing the almighty risk/reward point as some sort of token way to win an argument. Risk vs reward is an extremely important part of how EVE works, especially with ship fittings across all types of ships.

I'm arguing for a risk vs reward mechanic in fitting industrials, all of you who oppose me have not offered any reason why risk vs reward-based fittings is bad, and furthermore have not offered any particular methods of doing it which could be better. Instead, you miss the entire point and use the almighty "it's specialized, therefore no comparison" argument to try to say that I have no right to make my comparisons; then you make comparisons yourself and claim it's balanced.

1.) I am not arguing whether or not it is balanced.
2.) The balance can be addressed separately.
3.) This post is about risk vs reward in fittings.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Ned Thomas
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#82 - 2014-09-13 12:24:27 UTC
If anything, reducing the base size of the hold results in making the specialized haulers less valuable to kill. Making the hold size variable would make them even less attractive as an attacker could no longer make a general assumption on the value.

Not the greatest way to introduce more risk here.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#83 - 2014-09-14 04:27:34 UTC
You're wrong. Gankers know that they can find targets who fit for hauling capacity. The defensive haulers already aren't worth their time because they rarely get caught no matter how many ships you put against them. All the money from ganking comes from lousy pilots. Giving lousy pilots an incentive to use less tank will make gankers' lives easier and more profitable.

But don't take my word for it. Any pro industrial gankers here want to agree/disagree with me?

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Komi Toran
Perkone
Caldari State
#84 - 2014-09-14 05:13:48 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
I'm arguing for a risk vs reward mechanic in fitting industrials, all of you who oppose me have not offered any reason why risk vs reward-based fittings is bad, and furthermore have not offered any particular methods of doing it which could be better.

The problem is, the only thing you have given an example of being unbalanced is the Epithal. Why are we overhauling an entire system simply to balance one ship? So that's my particular method: nerf the Epithal directly if it bugs you. Get rid of a mid and a low. Done.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#85 - 2014-09-14 06:13:42 UTC
Komi Toran wrote:
The problem is, the only thing you have given an example of being unbalanced is the Epithal. Why are we overhauling an entire system simply to balance one ship? So that's my particular method: nerf the Epithal directly if it bugs you. Get rid of a mid and a low. Done.

I gave another example, the Iteron Mk V. When fit for full defensiveness, it has extremely low cargo capacity. This cargo capacity builds slowly with each cargo mod and doesn't begin to grow large until you have almost nothing else in the rig and low slots. The defense vs cargo capacity is highly skewed, making the ship only useful for hauling in safe areas with a max cargo fit. Same goes for the Bestower, Tayra, and Mammoth.

Giving cargo modules a stacking penalty and boosting base cargohold to compensate ensures that a max defense setup still has a significant amount of cargo space even if a max cargo setup has much more. It also means that a high cargo setup can have other fitting options, albeit much more limited when you fit cargo expanders, but not eliminated entirely. Also, raising the cargo module expansion amount to 40% makes it take about 4-5 expanders before stacking penalty brings the return down really low and also ensures that the base cargohold is much smaller than the max cargohold. Much more balanced that way.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."