These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

Noctis needs a bigger hold

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Wanda Fayne
#21 - 2017-05-20 20:17:34 UTC
Brigadine Ferathine wrote:
This has strayed so far away from the original post ISD please save us.


And move it to the appropriate forum
Player Features and Ideas Discussion

You know better than to post this in GD.

"your comments just confirms this whole idea is totally pathetic" -Lan Wang-

  • - "hub humping station gamey neutral logi warspam wankery" -Ralph King-Griffin-
ISD Bubblemoon
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#22 - 2017-05-20 21:29:14 UTC
Moved to Player Features and Ideas Discussion

ISD Bubblemoon

Lieutenant

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department
Shallanna Yassavi
qwertz corp
#23 - 2017-05-20 22:34:30 UTC
mkint wrote:
Bjorn Tyrson wrote:

The only place I ever see the noctis get used is HS level 4s and even there it only barely justifies it's price tag. So clearly the ship is in need of some sort of rebalancing.

That's not a point of balance. Cost of highsec PVE (along with certain other parts of the game) is not an investment, it's a barrier to entry. A noctis could cost a billion isk, and as long as it makes you 1 extra isk per second, it will pay for itself over a long enough timeline given that risk of loss is essentially zero.

Should the noctis be rebalanced? Everything is worth consideration, but the answer is probably no, it does not. There might be room for a destroyer sized version that is more along the lines of existing salvage dessies (e.g. dessie sized cargo and mobility, 8 highs, bonus to salvaging but not tractors.) But the noctis itself is probably fine.

The usual suspects in hisec have ganked Noctis before. Noctis would be ganked more often if they cost 1B because shiny killmails and tears.

A signature :o
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#24 - 2017-05-21 02:10:45 UTC
Bjorn Tyrson wrote:
Sobaan Tali wrote:
Yes they visually look the same, yet the Porpoise and the Noctis serve two entirely different roles, so that answers the question about hold sizes and why one has way more than the other. As for questioning whether the Noctis has enough at all for it's job, it has plenty. A Noctis with a typical load-out can sweep several L4's worth before hitting max cargo. Many missions don't even match the Noctis' stock cargo cap.

The irony is the OP claiming the use of a dessy fitted to loot and salvage would be better in his mind. Thats exactly what the Noctis was introduced to replace: loot-dessies and slavage 'canes. And it does that just fine.


And yet. Salvage dessies are still widely considered to be the better and safer option. So clearly the noctis has failed in its intended purpose.

Personally my issue isn't with the cargo bay size itself. Rather the balance between cargo, align time, and tank. A salvage cane has more tank, better align time, and if fit for cargo a comparable hold. A salvage dessie might have less tank, but aligns much faster and costs a fraction as much.

The only place I ever see the noctis get used is HS level 4s and even there it only barely justifies it's price tag. So clearly the ship is in need of some sort of rebalancing.

I heard that MTUs made the Noctis useless. They have better reach and are automatically collecting and looting wrecks. If you need a battleship to do the site, you are probably able to take the loot that worth something, and salvage the wrecks with drones.
If something on the Noctis needs a buff then it's not the cargo hold, but the tractor beam and probably the defense.

By the way am I the only one who can see the "Primae" sticker on both the Noctis and the Porpoise?

If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it!

But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
grgjegb gergerg
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#25 - 2017-05-21 02:27:13 UTC
Dior Ambraelle wrote:
By the way am I the only one who can see the "Primae" sticker on both the Noctis and the Porpoise?


Haha. Yeah, I noticed that recently.

If the MTU was smaller, and could auto-salvage, you could just drop one or a few in each room, and a bookmark, and grab large amounts with a fast hauler, pretty much completely obsoleting the Noctis.

Maybe if the Noctis had convenience? Like a combination tractor-salvager hislot that only works on Noctis hulls. Target 8 wrecks, suck them in, and they automatically pull apart wrecks when they get close?

I never run into Noctis cargo problems, though, idk what the OP is talking about.
mkint
#26 - 2017-05-21 02:31:33 UTC
Dior Ambraelle wrote:
Bjorn Tyrson wrote:
Sobaan Tali wrote:
Yes they visually look the same, yet the Porpoise and the Noctis serve two entirely different roles, so that answers the question about hold sizes and why one has way more than the other. As for questioning whether the Noctis has enough at all for it's job, it has plenty. A Noctis with a typical load-out can sweep several L4's worth before hitting max cargo. Many missions don't even match the Noctis' stock cargo cap.

The irony is the OP claiming the use of a dessy fitted to loot and salvage would be better in his mind. Thats exactly what the Noctis was introduced to replace: loot-dessies and slavage 'canes. And it does that just fine.


And yet. Salvage dessies are still widely considered to be the better and safer option. So clearly the noctis has failed in its intended purpose.

Personally my issue isn't with the cargo bay size itself. Rather the balance between cargo, align time, and tank. A salvage cane has more tank, better align time, and if fit for cargo a comparable hold. A salvage dessie might have less tank, but aligns much faster and costs a fraction as much.

The only place I ever see the noctis get used is HS level 4s and even there it only barely justifies it's price tag. So clearly the ship is in need of some sort of rebalancing.

I heard that MTUs made the Noctis useless. They have better reach and are automatically collecting and looting wrecks. If you need a battleship to do the site, you are probably able to take the loot that worth something, and salvage the wrecks with drones.
If something on the Noctis needs a buff then it's not the cargo hold, but the tractor beam and probably the defense.

By the way am I the only one who can see the "Primae" sticker on both the Noctis and the Porpoise?

There are obviously different mission techniques, but imo, if you are looting and/or salvaging, sure drop a MTU in each room, but you've still got to come back to pick up the MTU. A noctis with 8 bonused salvagers can salvage wrecks almost as fast as it can lock them. No other ship can salvage as fast, whether you use tractors or not.

"I want it" isn't a good enough reason for a rebalance. Prove it needs it. Go sit outside a station at a mission hub, collect the best data you can, ask a CSM member to ask a dev for actual usage statistics. I'm seeing a whole lot of [citation needed] in this thread.

Maxim 6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.
Sir BloodArgon Aulmais
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#27 - 2017-05-21 02:59:54 UTC
Alhira Katserna wrote:
Yes and 3 rig slots in which Medium Cargohold Optimization can fit. Noctis has 4602m³ space with 3 Expanded Cargoholds and 3 rigs.


Brigadine Ferathine wrote:
Xianax wrote:
My Noctis has about 4500 m3 of space. I can run 5-6 level 4 missions and still not be full.

uh what? That is not mathematically possible. It only has 3 low slots for expanders...


If you can't do this basic math, why should you determine how balanced a ship should be?

Also 3 ships to salvage? No. Just no. Drop MTU from the ratting ship. (or several) and come back to cleanup with the noctis.
I used to be in your alliance, I ran those nullsec sites and did it in the above way, sometimes queing up 3 hubs to loot and salvage and I switched ships once.

You need to get gud and stop whining about how the game isnt adapted to suit YOU.
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#28 - 2017-05-21 14:42:03 UTC
-1 to the OP the Noctis needs help but it does not need a larger cargo bay.

mkint wrote:
Should the noctis be rebalanced? Everything is worth consideration, but the answer is probably no, it does not. There might be room for a destroyer sized version that is more along the lines of existing salvage dessies (e.g. dessie sized cargo and mobility, 8 highs, bonus to salvaging but not tractors.) But the noctis itself is probably fine.

Yes it does need a re-balance.

Bringing the align time of the Noctis down into the range of all the other ships in the game with about the same mass would be a really good place to start.

Adding a better senor system would be another, why in the name of all things usable would a designer put a worse than battleship sensor system into a vessel designed specifically to salvage wrecks of all sizes is beyond imagination. Yes I know have to be careful here because someone may want to us a 70 million ISK ship as tackle so we can't go crazy here.

Better bonus to tractor range and speed would be appreciated as well, seems to me that a ship and fittings specifically designed for the salvage role should be able to reach at least the same distance as those on the MTU.
mkint
#29 - 2017-05-21 16:32:13 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:
-1 to the OP the Noctis needs help but it does not need a larger cargo bay.

Yes it does need a re-balance.

[citation needed]
Quote:

Bringing the align time of the Noctis down into the range of all the other ships in the game with about the same mass would be a really good place to start.

Adding a better senor system would be another, why in the name of all things usable would a designer put a worse than battleship sensor system into a vessel designed specifically to salvage wrecks of all sizes is beyond imagination. Yes I know have to be careful here because someone may want to us a 70 million ISK ship as tackle so we can't go crazy here.

Better bonus to tractor range and speed would be appreciated as well, seems to me that a ship and fittings specifically designed for the salvage role should be able to reach at least the same distance as those on the MTU.

"I want it" is not the same thing as "need".

There are a lot of good reasons to leave it alone, most of which can be classified under the Cobra Effect. Likewise, no one has said yet why it needs a buff. Begging for "I wannit" buffs just sound like toddlers throwing tantrums. From where I sit, I think the noctis and all the salvage-made-easy tools could probably use a bit of a nerf, based on the exact same argument of "I wannit." Shoot, I bet I can come up with better numbers suggesting a nerf would be better than a buff.

Maxim 6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.
Matthias Ancaladron
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#30 - 2017-05-21 19:22:35 UTC
I'm not enjoying the noctis.

Even with stabs its pretty slow.
And 1400m3 of cargo isn't much at all.
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#31 - 2017-05-22 14:19:50 UTC
mkint wrote:
There are a lot of good reasons to leave it alone, most of which can be classified under the Cobra Effect. Likewise, no one has said yet why it needs a buff. Begging for "I wannit" buffs just sound like toddlers throwing tantrums. From where I sit, I think the noctis and all the salvage-made-easy tools could probably use a bit of a nerf, based on the exact same argument of "I wannit." Shoot, I bet I can come up with better numbers suggesting a nerf would be better than a buff.

At the basic level virtually all requests for changes to a game fall into the "I want" category, there are rarely any that are actually needed.

You may be taking things a little to literal, and I was not quite clear enough in my comments. Since few ships are exactly the same mass in order to compare them you have to use a common unit and time to align per 1 million kg of mass is a very good measure for align time.
Bestower 13.5 million kg, 17.78 base align = 1.317 seconds per million kg.
Mammoth 11.5 million kg, 14.51 base align = 1.262 seconds per million kg.
Iteron 13.5 million kg, 16.28 seconds base align = 1.206 seconds per million kg.
Tyra 13 million kg, 17.48 seconds base align = 1.344 seconds per million kg.
Taking these 4 as an average you get 1.282 seconds per million kg.

Noctis 14.64 million kg, 20.3 seconds base align = 1.41 seconds per million kg.
If we apply the average from above base align drops from 20.3 seconds to 18.77 seconds.
Would this small change bringing the Noctis in line with the rest of the T1 industrial ships really be game breaking?
Is it really asking for to much?

Let me turn part of your comments around on you.
What justification is there for it to be this slow to align?
What justification is there for an all skills 5 pilot in a dedicated salvage ship using T2 tractor beams to end up with roughly 30,000 meters less range than the MTU's?

I tend to agree with you in that salvage across the entire game needs some changes, I do not agree with the nerf it all aspect of your posts however, a more balanced approach is called for.
Small decreases to the base range and speed of tractors and small decreases in the range of the MTU's matched up with increases in the bonuses from the Noctis hull as well as a small increase to the bonuses from the salvage skills would change things quite nicely. The small decreases would hardly be noticeable to the solo pilot using an MTU for missions or sites, the small decreases would not be a major affect on the use of the salvage destroyers in more dangerous places like worm holes etc. But when combined with the increases from the skills and the Noctis hull these changes would make teh Noctis the clearly superior choice for most group operations.
mkint
#32 - 2017-05-22 15:01:19 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:
mkint wrote:
There are a lot of good reasons to leave it alone, most of which can be classified under the Cobra Effect. Likewise, no one has said yet why it needs a buff. Begging for "I wannit" buffs just sound like toddlers throwing tantrums. From where I sit, I think the noctis and all the salvage-made-easy tools could probably use a bit of a nerf, based on the exact same argument of "I wannit." Shoot, I bet I can come up with better numbers suggesting a nerf would be better than a buff.

At the basic level virtually all requests for changes to a game fall into the "I want" category, there are rarely any that are actually needed.

You may be taking things a little to literal, and I was not quite clear enough in my comments. Since few ships are exactly the same mass in order to compare them you have to use a common unit and time to align per 1 million kg of mass is a very good measure for align time.
Bestower 13.5 million kg, 17.78 base align = 1.317 seconds per million kg.
Mammoth 11.5 million kg, 14.51 base align = 1.262 seconds per million kg.
Iteron 13.5 million kg, 16.28 seconds base align = 1.206 seconds per million kg.
Tyra 13 million kg, 17.48 seconds base align = 1.344 seconds per million kg.
Taking these 4 as an average you get 1.282 seconds per million kg.

Noctis 14.64 million kg, 20.3 seconds base align = 1.41 seconds per million kg.
If we apply the average from above base align drops from 20.3 seconds to 18.77 seconds.
Would this small change bringing the Noctis in line with the rest of the T1 industrial ships really be game breaking?
Is it really asking for to much?

Let me turn part of your comments around on you.
What justification is there for it to be this slow to align?
What justification is there for an all skills 5 pilot in a dedicated salvage ship using T2 tractor beams to end up with roughly 30,000 meters less range than the MTU's?

I tend to agree with you in that salvage across the entire game needs some changes, I do not agree with the nerf it all aspect of your posts however, a more balanced approach is called for.
Small decreases to the base range and speed of tractors and small decreases in the range of the MTU's matched up with increases in the bonuses from the Noctis hull as well as a small increase to the bonuses from the salvage skills would change things quite nicely. The small decreases would hardly be noticeable to the solo pilot using an MTU for missions or sites, the small decreases would not be a major affect on the use of the salvage destroyers in more dangerous places like worm holes etc. But when combined with the increases from the skills and the Noctis hull these changes would make teh Noctis the clearly superior choice for most group operations.

You're kinda missing my point. A noctis isn't in competition with an iteron. Making those kinds of comparisons are nonsense. A noctis only competes with other salvage boats, ships that can fill the same role. The word balance literally forces pushing in competing directions; a ship is meant to be balanced against its competition. To justify any buffs, you'd have to demonstrate that the noctis is failing in its role. If it is failing in its role, that failure would be reflected in the economics of it. What are the usage rates of the noctis compared to its closest competition? Is it really failing? What is the target usage rate of the different options? That's the data that would determine if it's worth even considering buffing the noctis, data which hasn't been presented here. All that's been presented here is the "I wannit" argument.

Even if all that suggests a buff could be justified, what about unintended consequences? In EVE your income isn't based on how well your ship performs, it's based on how well you perform against your own competition... a buff to the noctis won't be a buff to your income, but it will be a nerf to the income of e.g. marauders. Unintended consequences are all but guaranteed. So no data presented demonstrating it needs a change, risk of unintended consequences saying it should not be changed. It looks like it's better off left alone.

Maxim 6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.
Brigadine Ferathine
Presumed Dead Enterprises
Against ALL Authorities.
#33 - 2017-05-22 17:21:46 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:
-1 to the OP the Noctis needs help but it does not need a larger cargo bay.

mkint wrote:
Should the noctis be rebalanced? Everything is worth consideration, but the answer is probably no, it does not. There might be room for a destroyer sized version that is more along the lines of existing salvage dessies (e.g. dessie sized cargo and mobility, 8 highs, bonus to salvaging but not tractors.) But the noctis itself is probably fine.

Yes it does need a re-balance.

Bringing the align time of the Noctis down into the range of all the other ships in the game with about the same mass would be a really good place to start.

Adding a better senor system would be another, why in the name of all things usable would a designer put a worse than battleship sensor system into a vessel designed specifically to salvage wrecks of all sizes is beyond imagination. Yes I know have to be careful here because someone may want to us a 70 million ISK ship as tackle so we can't go crazy here.

Better bonus to tractor range and speed would be appreciated as well, seems to me that a ship and fittings specifically designed for the salvage role should be able to reach at least the same distance as those on the MTU.

I am willing to compromise for all of these. Maybe a +2 core stability base like the mining frigates?
Amarisen Gream
The.Kin.of.Jupiter
#34 - 2017-05-22 20:57:39 UTC
The noctis could use a balance pass.
I don't think it needs so much a bonus to cargo size (expanded do that just fine).
the issue is trying to find the right balance.
The noctis is a heavy ship with crappy tank, crappy cargo bay and some out dated bonuses. It really needs a destroyer sized baby brother that would takes the current spot and then be pushed up on its own in to a grander spot (watching the cargo size, don't wanna have it step on to many toes). Look at giving it multiple bays. Maybe a deployable bay that could store 10k in deployables.

"The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger All of his fury and rage. He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels" - The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1

#NPCLivesMatter #Freetheboobs
Brigadine Ferathine
Presumed Dead Enterprises
Against ALL Authorities.
#35 - 2017-05-23 04:34:19 UTC
Amarisen Gream wrote:
The noctis could use a balance pass.
I don't think it needs so much a bonus to cargo size (expanded do that just fine).
the issue is trying to find the right balance.
The noctis is a heavy ship with crappy tank, crappy cargo bay and some out dated bonuses. It really needs a destroyer sized baby brother that would takes the current spot and then be pushed up on its own in to a grander spot (watching the cargo size, don't wanna have it step on to many toes). Look at giving it multiple bays. Maybe a deployable bay that could store 10k in deployables.


I like the deployable bay idea.
Old Pervert
Perkone
Caldari State
#36 - 2017-05-23 20:27:32 UTC
Dotaros Kolar wrote:
Mara Pahrdi wrote:
I support this. Imagine the wailing when a Noctis with a 20k cargohold full of loot and salvage blows up. And it's all the fault of the nasty gankers attacking defenseless and innocent ships.


It's not?

The gankers should not be allowed to live their strange hobby in high sec.....so they have to be punished.....i do not see why this is to discuss,this opinion has no alternative....

Just leave non pvp people alone...it's not THAT hard....


Actually, it kind of IS hard. It's hard not shooting people who have problems with PVP in a PVP-centric game. I've never suicide ganked anyone, nor have I been ganked (it's like I tank my ship and don't fly with enough cargo to be worthwhile...) but if that day ever comes, more power to them for reminding me to follow the unwritten rules.

If you want to go play a game where pvp is consensual, go play WoW. You can fly around on a PVE server day and night mining, farming, and doing whatever it is they do on carebear servers.
grgjegb gergerg
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#37 - 2017-05-24 04:28:02 UTC
Brigadine Ferathine wrote:
Amarisen Gream wrote:
The noctis could use a balance pass.
I don't think it needs so much a bonus to cargo size (expanded do that just fine).
the issue is trying to find the right balance.
The noctis is a heavy ship with crappy tank, crappy cargo bay and some out dated bonuses. It really needs a destroyer sized baby brother that would takes the current spot and then be pushed up on its own in to a grander spot (watching the cargo size, don't wanna have it step on to many toes). Look at giving it multiple bays. Maybe a deployable bay that could store 10k in deployables.


I like the deployable bay idea.

Interesting. Provides a ship for... warp bubbles? If you need a lot of depots or other deployables? Future-added deployables? Provides utility, but the Noctis really does kind of underwhelm me for taking into any type of risky situation.

I feel that "the salvager" isn't a big enough role for a ship as expensive as a Noctis. Having some sort of other non-combat use would be nice.
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#38 - 2017-05-24 14:49:59 UTC
mkint wrote:
You're kinda missing my point. A noctis isn't in competition with an iteron. Making those kinds of comparisons are nonsense.

You are right they are not in competition with each other. However since there are no other dedicated salvage ships in the game and CCP classifies the Noctis as a T1 industrial ship the most obvious place to look for clues to performance is the rest of the T1 industrial ships in the game.

I guess we could use the Porpoise since it shares a hull. If we applied the 0.97 seconds per million kg of the Porpoise to the Noctis and it's 14.64 million kg mass we end up with an align time of 14.2 seconds. My self and most of the other Noctis pilots would love that but you would likely have an apocalyptic fit over it so perhaps that is not a good idea.

mkint wrote:
A noctis only competes with other salvage boats, ships that can fill the same role.

OK lets look at the catalyst then since it is commonly used in the salvage role.
1.55 million kg mass, 5.93 seconds align giving it a 3.83 seconds per million kg.
Applied to the Noctis that would give it an align time of more 56 seconds. And yet with a 55 second align time even the 150 million kg Orca would align faster so it is hard to justify that 56 second base align time.
Or we could use the Orca's time to align per 1 million kg of 0.37 seconds and apply that to the Noctis and end up with an align time of 5.4 seconds.

mkint wrote:
The word balance literally forces pushing in competing directions; a ship is meant to be balanced against its competition. snipped a bunch of stuff here read it above.

Solo pilots seem to favor the MTU and salvage destroyer because they are faster and less expensive. Even for those that use a Noctis as salvage ship there is very little difference in overall salvage speed because the cycle time advantage of the Noctis is essentially nullified by it's slow lock times.

In all of the worm hole groups I have even been in or talked to the destroyers are the preferred salvage ship because quicker to align, have less impact on the mass limits of connections and they are cheaper to boot so in that segment of the game I would say the Noctis is a failure.

Even for mission runners that can use multiple accounts the MTU and destroyer based salvage vessels are preferred because they are significantly cheaper and due to lock time limits on the Noctis the destroyers can be as fast or faster so in this segment of the game the Noctis is at best even with the other options.

For the new players and their small wallet balances the MTU and salvage destroyer is preferred simply due to the costs of purchasing a Noctis hull so in this segment the Noctis is failing as well.

Looking at this and applying your theory of how the Noctis is doing against the other options it is clear that a balance pass is needed. Well I guess they could opt to nerf all of the other options instead but I simply do not see that happening the outcry from the players would be deafening.

mkint wrote:
Even if all that suggests a buff could be justified, what about unintended consequences? In EVE your income isn't based on how well your ship performs, it's based on how well you perform against your own competition... a buff to the noctis won't be a buff to your income, but it will be a nerf to the income of e.g. marauders. Unintended consequences are all but guaranteed. So no data presented demonstrating it needs a change, risk of unintended consequences saying it should not be changed. It looks like it's better off left alone.

OK so lets look at your income versus that of your competitors.
Across all of the other income producing activities in EvE those who take the time to train skills and invest ISK into the best equipment always make more ISK per unit of time. And yet for salvage operations the reverse is true, lower skills and less costly equipment will yield greater ISK per unit of time in the vast majority of cases how and why is this good? What justification is there for this?

Your concern for the income of the Marauder pilots of new Eden is touching but misplaced.
First players who choose to fly Marauders because ISK do so because of the unique single ship possibilities the Marauders offer, drop MTU and salvage out WHILE you are killing things. Pick up MTU leave useless crap behind and then wash, rinse and repeat until mission or site is complete. Since these players never use a salvage ship anyway they will not be affected by any changes to the Noctis. If they are then so be it they can change their play style and use a Noctis to min / max their ISK making abilities, either way I do not think you would hear them complain. Those Marauder pilots that choose to drop MTU, bookmark location, wash, rinse and repeat until mission or site is complete, then fly back and re-ship to salvage out would reap the benefits from the changes to the Noctis so they are not a factor in this anyway.

There are very few if any unintended consequences that can come out of a Noctis re-balance, since most of the things you consider unintended consequences are in fact the actual goals we want to achieve with a re-balance.
Increased income for those who salvage - check part of the goals.
Making the Noctis a more lucrative option for all salvage situations - check part of the plan
Make the MTU a less viable option - check part of the plan.
Make the salvage destroyers a less attractive option - check part of the plan.
Putting more salvage on the market driving some prices down - check part of the plan.
Putting more ISK into the pockets of those willing to train skills and buy the best equipment - check part of the plan.
Reducing the income of those who are not willing to train skills or buy equipment - check part of the plan.
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#39 - 2017-05-24 20:00:06 UTC
I had an idea about making medium and large tractor beams that didn't go anywhere unfortunately. This way we would have tractor beams for each hull size, and bonused ships could actually become better than MTUs.

Though the origin of the idea was that small tractor beams look incredibly dumb on large ships...

If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it!

But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
Brigadine Ferathine
Presumed Dead Enterprises
Against ALL Authorities.
#40 - 2017-05-24 22:48:13 UTC
grgjegb gergerg wrote:
Brigadine Ferathine wrote:
Amarisen Gream wrote:
The noctis could use a balance pass.
I don't think it needs so much a bonus to cargo size (expanded do that just fine).
the issue is trying to find the right balance.
The noctis is a heavy ship with crappy tank, crappy cargo bay and some out dated bonuses. It really needs a destroyer sized baby brother that would takes the current spot and then be pushed up on its own in to a grander spot (watching the cargo size, don't wanna have it step on to many toes). Look at giving it multiple bays. Maybe a deployable bay that could store 10k in deployables.


I like the deployable bay idea.

Interesting. Provides a ship for... warp bubbles? If you need a lot of depots or other deployables? Future-added deployables? Provides utility, but the Noctis really does kind of underwhelm me for taking into any type of risky situation.

I feel that "the salvager" isn't a big enough role for a ship as expensive as a Noctis. Having some sort of other non-combat use would be nice.

Maybe it could remotely unanchor bubbles and tractor them in?
Previous page12