Assembly Hall

What problem would this solve, exactly?

OP, your wrong. Amarr T1 indies have the third (maybe fourth?) smallest max hold size. Beat by Gallente and Minmatar.

I do not understand why is this being proposed, but its an awful idea.

1) It makes industrialist's lives harder - being slower or smaller means more time to move things

2) It makes ganking less profitable, less stuff

3) It makes traders move less volume of cargohold expanders II, one of the entry points in commodity trading

The reality, also, is that even with your suggestion, a max tanked caldari industrial would still be alpha gankable. And if you are taking a regular indy to lowsec you are doing it wrong.

No one wins, everyone loses, in exchange for higher but useless EHP on caldari cargo ships. Yeah, thanks but no thanks.

As an aside,

I think the industrials have very little difference among them, mostly reduced to were you want to take the skill in training (ie if you want to cross train racially or go beyond indy III) and the F/JF endgame (I personally prefer the Gallente blockade runner/dst series because they just look awesome and like the align of the Slowbelisk better than the charon, which often falls for the bumpies in Jita)

So if you dont mind crosstraining or are Amarr and wont go above indy III, Bestower is your boat. If you dont mind crosstraining or are Gallente and will train indy V, you go Iteron road (Mammoth and Itty IV are not that different, and besides, the itty 3 is better than the iteron IV and mammoth in price/performance and m3/hour it can move). If you want a Charon or Rhea you go caldari and eat small hold on the low end (or crosstrain Amarr or Gallente to indy 3 as a fallback)

The only race screwed over in reality is the Minmatar, I really don't understand why anyone trains Minmatar indy.

This. Also the Min ships tend to have better agility IIRC. The Min Freighters, for instance, align faster, use less jump fuel, and have a shorter cap recharge time than the other races'. If those last few m3 of space don't matter as much to you (since you're rarely 100% loaded anyways), getting there faster can be nice.

It not even a goon thing, Minmatar freighters are commonly used because of their speed. the faster base align time can really cut a bunch of time off your trip.

Not by skills and price. The only thing holding Amarr industrials back is lack of a higher skill industrial, but they have the biggest transports so there's still long term benefit to training Amarr industrial. Try reading before posting next time, I actually addressed this in the original post.


I don't understand why anyone trains anything but Minmatar. It's nice perhaps to throw Amarr Industrial 1 into the training queue just to get the Bestower early on, but if you plan on putting any SP into it, the Wreathe beats the Badger and Iteron Mark II in overall hauling speed easily, and the Hoarder can haul as much as a Badger Mark II, Sigil, or Iteron Mark III. And it won't be long before you get that beast Mammoth. The only reason to train any other industrial path is if you plan to get the Iteron Mark V, or if you're going for transports or freighters. No, I disagree. I think Amarr and Caldari have royally screwed industrial options, while Gallente and Minmatar have a vastly superior set.


Howabout this: make cruiser cargoholds approx. 600m3, battlecruisers 800m3, and battleships about 1500m3. Lots more space for ammo, loot, capacitor booster charges, anchorable bubbles. With a significant difference between cargohold sizes in different size combat ships, it adds a lot more tactical options.
For instance, why is it fair for a capacitor booster battleship to only carry 50% more charges than a capacitor booster destroyer, when the battleship uses a much larger booster? It is possible for a destroyer to tank the same heavy damage income for a longer period of time, simply because its smaller size allows it to avoid most of the damage, and it can run its capacitor or ancillary shield booster for many more cycles before running short on charges.
Another tactical consideration would be the size of an anchorable interdiction bubble. The sizes on them could be changed along with cargohold sizes, as a matter of fact. But there could be a clear distinction: frigates can only carry small bubbles, cruisers can't carry above medium. With cargohold sizes all so similar, there's not so much difference in who's able to carry what bubble.
And lastly, what about bringing extra ammo to a fight? Battleships can't last as long in a fight because they can only fill their cargohold with a few hours of ammo. Destroyers, on the other hand, can hold literally days worth of ammo. I think it would be nice if battleships could carry enough ammo for a nice long POS bash or whatever else you do with a battleship, maybe a long trip away from a supply run, and also have enough room left over to carry some loot, a small or medium bubble, and maybe even some medium ammo for the buddies guarding you in their battlecruisers. It would make battleships more than just a slow battlecruiser with more hit points.

You might be asking, why can't we just do that now? I'll show you: Imagine an armageddon with all 8 low slots filled with tech II cargo expanders, and 3 tech I cargo rigs. With a base cargohold size of 1500m3 and no stacking penalty, that ship could hold 15,931.85m3. That's as much as a medium industrial, but it is far more durable and can fire weapons. Sure, it's slower to align and has a much higher cost, but it just has too many tactical options at its disposal--drone bay, XL shield boosters/extenders, turrets, neuts, energy transfers--in short, it's not an industrial and it shouldn't be able to fill that role particularly well.

But with a base cargohold of 1500m3 and a stacking penalty on the cargo mods, it wouldn't reach much over 3000m3. In fact the increase per cargohold expander could even be increased, to make the max boost more like 150% rather than 110%ish, but that's all for the testing department to figure out, not me.

Do you even play EVE? Do you know the differences between an industrial and a battleship, or even how much industrials carry? Because if you did, you wouldn't be saying that.

So how long did it take you to degenerate into unbased ad homonim attacks? Mature.

1500 is pretty close to indie base cargo sizes. People already use battleships as mining vessels as alternatives to barges, as they have more tank. So you just up'd the base cargo of a BS from 400-600m3 to 1500 and you don't see any play balancing issues to consider???

Are you one of those hisec twerps who sees imaginary goons in every corner? He provided a valid explanation regarding the abilities of the minmatar ships and you start blabbering on about goons.

Rokhs mine about the same speed as the current Retriever, and will mine less than Retriever when the update comes out. It's already hard enough just to fit 1 minute of mining in the Rokh, I see no reason why it shouldn't be able to fit 3-6 minutes worth. It's not ideal as a mining ship but it works pretty well considering there are currently no tanky miners. But when the new Procurer comes out, I have a feeling it'll mine at about the same speed as the Rokh, while having a MUCH larger ore hold than 1500m3, and it'll have about the same EHP, more perhaps since it's designed to have a mining fit while the Rokh runs out of CPU just putting the lasers on.

tl;dr
At current: Rokh with 1500m3 cargohold would increase a little bit in popularity as a miner, but would still be generally unpopular.

With new barge updates: Rokh with 1500m3 cargohold would be indistinguishable from the current Rokh in mining capabilities, and NOBODY would EVER mine in it for anything other than a joke.

1/3 the cost, 10x the tank, half the mining output. relevance?

It's not like you guys are posting in Assembly Hall or anything, but could you at least TRY to think before you talk?