These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Feature Request] Expanded Cargohold Scripts
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Rawthorm
The Establishment
#1 - 2016-04-10 11:46:24 UTC
Expanded Cargohold modules have been around almost as long as the game and have not really changed. The ships that use them however have gone through many changes and specialized bays have now become common place.

Perhaps it's now time to make these modules script enabled so that we can use these to increase specialist bays. In most cases there shouldn't be any balance issues, however if there are these can be countered by having some scripts give penalties to other areas.

Bays that could benefit from scripted Expanded Cargohold modules:


  • Drone Bay
  • Fleet Hanger
  • Fuel Bay
  • Ship Maintenance Bay
  • Ore Bay
  • Specialist Gallente Iteron Bays (Minerals, PI, ect)


From an industrial standpoint we've always been able to expand cargo before the specialization so why not now? Expanded Ore bays will allow barges and expedition frigates to stay in belts longer at the expense of the low slot that otherwise would have housed mining upgrades or survival mods.

In regards to capitals, allowing them to sacrifice tanking or energy mods to give them longer endurance in the field with more fuel or fighters is a fair trade off, as is the potential to increase fleet and ship storage for move operations.
Elyia Suze Nagala
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#2 - 2016-04-10 11:59:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Elyia Suze Nagala
Why not just make a T3 Indy with subsystems? SMH.

It's an idea though.
Rawthorm
The Establishment
#3 - 2016-04-10 12:17:18 UTC
Elyia Suze Nagala wrote:
Why not just make a T3 Indy with subsystems? SMH.

It's an idea though.


Thought about it, but it seems fairly limited where a module change could give greater flexibility to dozens of ships. The T3 industrial card could be better played as a way of cobbling together an industrial/mining hybrid for long expeditions into 0.0 and WH space.
Iain Cariaba
#4 - 2016-04-10 12:37:26 UTC
Rawthorm wrote:
Expanded Cargohold modules have been around almost as long as the game and have not really changed. The ships that use them however have gone through many changes and specialized bays have now become common place.

Perhaps it's now time to make these modules script enabled so that we can use these to increase specialist bays. In most cases there shouldn't be any balance issues, however if there are these can be countered by having some scripts give penalties to other areas.

Bays that could benefit from scripted Expanded Cargohold modules:


  • Drone Bay
  • Fleet Hanger
  • Fuel Bay
  • Ship Maintenance Bay
  • Ore Bay
  • Specialist Gallente Iteron Bays (Minerals, PI, ect)


From an industrial standpoint we've always been able to expand cargo before the specialization so why not now? Expanded Ore bays will allow barges and expedition frigates to stay in belts longer at the expense of the low slot that otherwise would have housed mining upgrades or survival mods.

In regards to capitals, allowing them to sacrifice tanking or energy mods to give them longer endurance in the field with more fuel or fighters is a fair trade off, as is the potential to increase fleet and ship storage for move operations.

All cargo bays are the sizes they are for game balance reasons. When CCP redid industrials years ago, and then later freighters, they did so with the current cargo expanders in mind when figuring max hold capacity.

Drone bays: Limits drone options.
Fleet Hangars: Limits options for spare modules/ammo for fleets. Besides, most ships with fleet hangars can already carry more than most other ships can possibly carry.
Fuel Bays: Limits number of triage/siege cycles, how many times a capital can jump without a refuel, and how many ships can be bridged.
Ship Maintenance Bays: Limits how many pre-fit ships can be hauled in one go.
Ore Bays: Limits how long a miner can suck at any given time.
Specialist Bays: Those ships were all designed with those specific hold sizes in mind, for their various reasons.
Rawthorm
The Establishment
#5 - 2016-04-10 12:51:06 UTC
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Rawthorm wrote:
Expanded Cargohold modules have been around almost as long as the game and have not really changed. The ships that use them however have gone through many changes and specialized bays have now become common place.

Perhaps it's now time to make these modules script enabled so that we can use these to increase specialist bays. In most cases there shouldn't be any balance issues, however if there are these can be countered by having some scripts give penalties to other areas.

Bays that could benefit from scripted Expanded Cargohold modules:


  • Drone Bay
  • Fleet Hanger
  • Fuel Bay
  • Ship Maintenance Bay
  • Ore Bay
  • Specialist Gallente Iteron Bays (Minerals, PI, ect)


From an industrial standpoint we've always been able to expand cargo before the specialization so why not now? Expanded Ore bays will allow barges and expedition frigates to stay in belts longer at the expense of the low slot that otherwise would have housed mining upgrades or survival mods.

In regards to capitals, allowing them to sacrifice tanking or energy mods to give them longer endurance in the field with more fuel or fighters is a fair trade off, as is the potential to increase fleet and ship storage for move operations.

All cargo bays are the sizes they are for game balance reasons. When CCP redid industrials years ago, and then later freighters, they did so with the current cargo expanders in mind when figuring max hold capacity.

Drone bays: Limits drone options.
Fleet Hangars: Limits options for spare modules/ammo for fleets. Besides, most ships with fleet hangars can already carry more than most other ships can possibly carry.
Fuel Bays: Limits number of triage/siege cycles, how many times a capital can jump without a refuel, and how many ships can be bridged.
Ship Maintenance Bays: Limits how many pre-fit ships can be hauled in one go.
Ore Bays: Limits how long a miner can suck at any given time.
Specialist Bays: Those ships were all designed with those specific hold sizes in mind, for their various reasons.


This doesn't mean that these value have to be set in stone. So long as there are trade off's then changing these should be fine. After all most other stats on ships are balanced against each other, yet can be modified thousands of ways without being game breaking. The bay stats are no different.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#6 - 2016-04-10 13:41:53 UTC
This is exactly what happened to freighters. We told you they'd get nerfed. But did you listen?

I can remember the constant bitching from carebears before they had ore bays as well. You wouldn't believe the tears caused by having to compromise other stats for more capacity. How dare you suggest carebears reduce their capacity and then have to make meaningful choices.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Iain Cariaba
#7 - 2016-04-10 14:39:12 UTC
Rawthorm wrote:
This doesn't mean that these value have to be set in stone. So long as there are trade off's then changing these should be fine. After all most other stats on ships are balanced against each other, yet can be modified thousands of ways without being game breaking. The bay stats are no different.

All ship stats that can be modified by modules, skills, or both, have a set maximum value. CCP designs all stats to have a maximum value once all bonuses have been applied. In order for you to get your suggestion implemented, CCP would have to reduce non-bonused hold capacities to compensate, keeping maximum values in line. This is what they did when they gave freighters fitting options. Do you really want to be forced to use cargo expanders to get the same volume out of those holds as you currently get?
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#8 - 2016-04-10 14:50:34 UTC
My initial reaction is NO because the potential balance issues.

And then I gave it some more thought from the why not this could add more options and well I came back to the same place.
No because potential balance issues.

So I went away and looked at other parts of the forums and came back to look again and well, you guessed it NO. Only this time I base it on the wasted dev time needed to even try to balance this when there are so many other and far more important needs in the game.

And so we end up with a NO, at least in the here and now because there are more important things for the devs to work on.
So we store this one in the bin of it might be nice to have so let's look at when time allows.
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
#9 - 2016-04-10 15:16:18 UTC
Elyia Suze Nagala wrote:
Why not just make a T3 Indy with subsystems? SMH.

It's an idea though.

Inb4 freighter cargo 2 sec align 1m ehp industrials.

NAH

EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
Kiddoomer
The Red Sequence
#10 - 2016-04-10 15:24:04 UTC
meh, as other said the numbers of the specialized are as they are for a good reason.
As for a T3, a hauler with differont propulsion (warp seed, interdiction nullified or mjd able even scrammed) and a hold subsystem which give specialized hold or a general with the same numbers (slightly lower than gallente indy) could be cool.

In the name of Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen : “Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.”
Anhenka
The New Federation
Sigma Grindset
#11 - 2016-04-11 00:14:53 UTC
If the scriptable versions retained the same % value, a Miasmos could haul 167k m3 of Ore.

An Archon could hold 7 million M3 of ships in the SMA.

No.