These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Specialty Haulers should be made to need cargo expanders, too!
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#61 - 2016-02-22 01:59:37 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:

That's what I'm saying!!


Yield isn't volume, so, no, it isn't what you're saying unless, in your brilliance, you've entirely conflated the two sides of the analogy.

I was trying to explain to you how you're conflating yield with volume, and you, in your apparent brilliance, responded by stating my point against you as if it was your point against me.

YOU said that volume cannot be compared because yield is separate.


Let me explain to you how an analogy works.

The two things on the left side of the analogy are not actually LIKE the two things on the right side of an analogy.

Rather, Left1 and Left2 have a relationship to each other that is comparable to the relationship between R1 and R2.

In the same way that the amount an epithal can haul has FUCKALL to do with the amount a normal indy can haul, the yield of a gas cloud harvester has nothing to do with the yield of a mining laser. They are not balanced against each other. They are qualitatively different, even if they share superficial similarities.

Additionally, this little chestnut:

Quote:
If they wanted to decrease the price of PI goods by making them easier to ship, they could and should simply decrease the volume of the PI goods, because then they'll fit into freighters more easily as well. If they didn't want to increase the capacity of storage units and launch pads, they could simply shrink their volume to match the shrunk volume of the goods going into them.


Who said they wanted to make them easier to move across the board?

They're already plenty easy to move with a freighter. That was never a problem for the type of logistics to which freighters are suited, and it still isn't.

Epithals are largely for intrasystem work. Mine flies between my POS and POCOs. It occasionally goes out through a static, goes no further than the first station, where its contents promptly become Some Courier Contractor's Problem.

Sure, you can haul your PI crap around the universe in an epithal if you want, but they're not actually large enough for that to be efficient. Mine wouldn't even leave my hole if I had a freighter-sized static.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#62 - 2016-02-22 02:06:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
In the same way that the amount an epithal can haul has FUCKALL to do with the amount a normal indy can haul, the yield of a gas cloud harvester has nothing to do with the yield of a mining laser. They are not balanced against each other. They are qualitatively different, even if they share superficial similarities.

Okay sure let's just ignore freighters as a factor here.



SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Who said they wanted to make them easier to move across the board?

They're already plenty easy to move with a freighter. That was never a problem for the type of logistics to which freighters are suited, and it still isn't.

I rest my case. You are failing to consider multiple factors in a more complex equation, and Teckos Pech is accusing me of doing that.

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."
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#63 - 2016-02-22 02:10:01 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Perhaps, specialty ships have their specialty cargo holds unaffected by expanders because balance is not just between ships, but also what they do. Did it even enter your brain that perhaps when CCP was thinking about this that maybe...they looked at this issue and felt yeah...PI needed a production buff...which in turn would lower prices?

It did enter my brain...way back during the few minutes I spent reading the devblog about the release of these monstrosities, and I came to the conclusion that didn't make a lick of sense and it was far more likely that CCP just threw stats at these things in a lazy attempt to give them a purpose.

If they wanted to decrease the price of PI goods by making them easier to ship, they could and should simply decrease the volume of the PI goods, because then they'll fit into freighters more easily as well. If they didn't want to increase the capacity of storage units and launch pads, they could simply shrink their volume to match the shrunk volume of the goods going into them.

I don't understand what is so difficult about this.

SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Yield has nothing to do with how much tritanium builder bob can fit in his freighter to bring over to his assembly array. That's volume.

That's what I'm saying!!


I disagree with the volume argument. The thing is with, using the Epithal as an example, is that by having the ship with a dedicated cargo hangar that does not depend on cargo expanders they allow such ships to fit for travel--i.e. warp core stabilizers, and maybe an i-stab or nano along with rigs as well to help them get past ships that would otherwise blow them...and their cargo up.

In other words, while decreasing the volume of PI might do the trick, it may not do as much as freeing up the low slots on the specialty ships.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#64 - 2016-02-22 02:12:38 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:


SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Who said they wanted to make them easier to move across the board?

They're already plenty easy to move with a freighter. That was never a problem for the type of logistics to which freighters are suited, and it still isn't.

I rest my case. You are failing to consider multiple factors in a more complex equation, and accusing me of doing the same.


Is this some sort of ironic performance art?

Lowering the volume, as you suggested, would have made them easier to haul around, period. Adding the epithal made it easier to deal with loading/unloading POCOs, without altering freighter-volume logistics.

Or, in other words, I just explained how the epithal addresses single factor in a more complex equation, relative to your solution of, "JUST CHANGE ALL THE VOLUMES".

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#65 - 2016-02-22 02:14:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
Teckos Pech wrote:
I disagree with the volume argument. The thing is with, using the Epithal as an example, is that by having the ship with a dedicated cargo hangar that does not depend on cargo expanders they allow such ships to fit for travel--i.e. warp core stabilizers, and maybe an i-stab or nano along with rigs as well to help them get past ships that would otherwise blow them...and their cargo up.

In other words, while decreasing the volume of PI might do the trick, it may not do as much as freeing up the low slots on the specialty ships.

Also what I've been saying this whole time.



Whether we buff regular haulers or nerf specialized haulers, or both, something needs to be done to put them on an even remotely similar level with each other.


SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Lowering the volume, as you suggested, would have made them easier to haul around, period. Adding the epithal made it easier to deal with loading/unloading POCOs, without altering freighter-volume logistics.

Or, in other words, I just explained how the epithal addresses single factor in a more complex equation, relative to your solution of, "JUST CHANGE ALL THE VOLUMES".

You never explained why you think only that aspect should be adjusted, while keeping the others the same (as before).

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."
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#66 - 2016-02-22 02:15:23 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:


Quote:
If they wanted to decrease the price of PI goods by making them easier to ship, they could and should simply decrease the volume of the PI goods, because then they'll fit into freighters more easily as well. If they didn't want to increase the capacity of storage units and launch pads, they could simply shrink their volume to match the shrunk volume of the goods going into them.


Who said they wanted to make them easier to move across the board?

They're already plenty easy to move with a freighter. That was never a problem for the type of logistics to which freighters are suited, and it still isn't.

Epithals are largely for intrasystem work. Mine flies between my POS and POCOs. It occasionally goes out through a static, goes no further than the first station, where its contents promptly become Some Courier Contractor's Problem.

Sure, you can haul your PI crap around the universe in an epithal if you want, but they're not actually large enough for that to be efficient. Mine wouldn't even leave my hole if I had a freighter-sized static.


Mine do go between systems, but they are travel fit--i.e. they are designed to let me get through a gate and past 1 maybe 2 ships (assuming no bubble/dictor).

Prior to the Epithal I did use Iteron Vs max fit for capacity and once in awhile they died whereas the Epithal would/does not.

So, as a result of the introduction of the Epithal more of my PI product make it to market. I'm pretty sure I'm not alone (based on the whine threads about Epithals in LS and their warp core stabs).

Of course, when it comes to moving things to market I do not use an Epithal as it is too inefficient and easily ganked.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#67 - 2016-02-22 02:18:02 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:


SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Who said they wanted to make them easier to move across the board?

They're already plenty easy to move with a freighter. That was never a problem for the type of logistics to which freighters are suited, and it still isn't.

I rest my case. You are failing to consider multiple factors in a more complex equation, and accusing me of doing the same.


Is this some sort of ironic performance art?

Lowering the volume, as you suggested, would have made them easier to haul around, period. Adding the epithal made it easier to deal with loading/unloading POCOs, without altering freighter-volume logistics.

Or, in other words, I just explained how the epithal addresses single factor in a more complex equation, relative to your solution of, "JUST CHANGE ALL THE VOLUMES".


Wow...Reaver accusing somebody else of looking at just one dimension. Shocked

Lol

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#68 - 2016-02-22 02:18:53 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:


Mine do go between systems, but they are travel fit--i.e. they are designed to let me get through a gate and past 1 maybe 2 ships (assuming no bubble/dictor).


That's more of an option for null-PIers, but I doubt you're going far, anyway, right?

I guess you could technically do multi-system WH PI but just thinking about it makes me want to shoot myself. Ugh

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#69 - 2016-02-22 03:53:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:


Mine do go between systems, but they are travel fit--i.e. they are designed to let me get through a gate and past 1 maybe 2 ships (assuming no bubble/dictor).


That's more of an option for null-PIers, but I doubt you're going far, anyway, right?

I guess you could technically do multi-system WH PI but just thinking about it makes me want to shoot myself. Ugh


Correct, 1-3 jumps at most. It is a short range ship. If there are more jumps a JB is definitely involved. And yeah, it is a NS thing.

And yeah, multi-system WH PI...pass me the gun when you are done...oh, wait. Big smile

Edit: 2 jumps at most, now that I look at the map.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#70 - 2016-02-22 14:36:01 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Lowered!? No, it would be raised a lot. I don't think you understand how stacking penalties work.

I understand the penalties, evidently in this specific case as my son would likely say dad you cannot math.
You are correct on the base cargo hold size.

I would go back and correct my statements but the conversation has moved on and it would be disruptive to change it now, so I will simply admit my error here and move on.
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
#71 - 2016-02-23 13:00:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Xe'Cara'eos
Cristl wrote:
Unusually, both the first and second posters in a thread are correct here I'd say.

Keep the specialist haulers as they are.

Apply Reaver's 2nd point: buff generic haulers' base capacity, but also apply stacking penalties to cargo expanders. This will give them more choices in fitting, shouldn't break freighters (with only 3 low slots), and remove the somewhat overblown exponentiation of a base ability.

I would go so far as to agree unequivically with the above....
yes it IS a slight buff to EHP fit freighters... but we could always slightly reduce their base HP slightly and then play til the numbers were right.....

EDIT: for all other haulers, I think this would only be a good thing

For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.
Cristl
#72 - 2016-02-24 18:14:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Cristl
I feel we could be getting off-topic here.

For me, i never consider the T1 haulers: It's a choice between the specialist haulers like the Epithal, transports like the Prowler or Mastodon, or freighters like the Nomad.

I'm pretty sure this could be improved - give stacking penalties to expanders and rigs, while buffing the base cargo of T1s, and then they can actually fit some sensible modules. In this sort of field the cheapo-options need to be close otherwise they haven't a damned chance.

The freighter issue is practically solved by bumping the T2 expanders from a 27.5% bonus to 32.5%, for instance.
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#73 - 2016-02-24 18:23:11 UTC
Cristl wrote:


For me, i never consider the T1 haulers



You haven't lived until you've battle-Nereused.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
#74 - 2016-02-24 21:18:52 UTC
Cristl wrote:
[stuff]
The freighter issue is practically solved by bumping the T2 expanders from a 27.5% bonus to 32.5%, for instance.

could you explain this to me please? or are you talking about stacking penalised expanders?

Cristl wrote:
[stuff]
freighters like the Nomad.
[stuff]

nomad is a JF, just saying

For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.