Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Copy/Paste:

I feel going down the current road is a mistake that just reinforces precedence of bad ship design when it comes to cargo bays. Instead, I would like to see thought given to changing the nature of ship 'cargo bays' when it comes to industrial ship lines, by utilizing a system that's already proven to work - ore bays.

Scrap the notion of industrial class ships relying on low-slot cargo expanders and create a new 'freight bay' that mimics the design of the ore bays. A set size which can only be expanded via ship skills, removes the need for 'fit all expanders' mindsets and balances the armor vs shield crowd in which armor is heavily penalized due to reliance on low slots. You can then start to diversify the ship lines in ways which matter more then just a similar slot layout, or forcing all ships to shield tank to varying degrees. Coupled with this, you could change deep-space transports to have mini-freighter size cargo holds fixing a T2 class which currently doesn't serve much purpose.

Now that you've given industrials and transports back the majority role of hauling cargo, changes can be made to the Orca and Rorqual. Lose the massive cargo bays, increase the size of the ore holds (seriously, 50k in an Orca is a joke in today's EVE) and you've just corrected another somewhat broken section of ships. Of course this would mean an end to the logistics Rorq, something I would probably be savagely beaten for even suggesting by many in the null-sec scene, but there are multiple instances of past history in regards to carrier hauling nerfs which show it was not the end of the world.

So in summary:
T1 industrials and T2 transports gain 'freight bays' with greatly reduced cargo holds (similar to barges now).
Orca and Rorquals have a greatly increased ore bays with corresponding reductions in cargo hold.
Shield vs armor tanked ships no longer have outright winners (shield) and losers (armor).
Cargo expanders still have a role, they're just not the only module that matters on an entire line of ships anymore.

Got to agree, this seems strange.

Badger has 5 low
but the 18588m3 maximum capacity come from just 4 T2 expanders
3700(base) * 1.25 (ship bonus) * 1.15^3 (3 T1 expander rigs) * 1.275^4 (4 T2 expanders) = 18588

the maximum capacity should be 23700 if use all five low with T2 expanders

Rise, please double check is it a typo?

I too am curious about the Art's opinion on the Mammoth. I actually like the look of all three Minmatar haulers (why I fly them instead of currently-superior Gallente spacedildos), including the Hoarder, but I don't understand how the Hoarder is better. Certainly the Mammoth could use some touching-up and updating, but that can really be said of all the minmatar haulers - especially when compared to newly-remodeled Matari ships such as the Stabber and Tempest.

As long as they get redesigned, I'm willing to gamble.

Ugly?

Look at our Domi. Will it get 25 mb drone bandwith soon?

What is next?

CCP this is getting crazy.

That is the most stupid explanation I've ever heard. Since when designers have say about performance?

It is time for someone that know something about the game.. to take over.

Can you please give us a list what designs you dont like?

That would be nice, so we can stop training on "ugly" designs.

I cant believe this.

Is this a joke?

LP

I agree with the decision to sideline the Mammoth, if one of the Minmatar haulers has to be sidelined (Hoarder has a way better design than the Mammoth, and the Wreathe has a special place in my heart due to it being the basis of the awesome looking Prowler).

That doesn't mean all is good. I think you somewhat chickened out on the hauler tiericide. Just two distinct roles? Kinda boring.

I get that the decision comes down to not having the ressources to give Amarr and Caldari another hull, but still...
I hope you'll add more variety at some point in the future.

You're seriously taking ship balancing direction from the art department?

I think these changes are good though perhaps you could step the iterons?
So that itty3 has 2.5% agility and 2.5% speed per level?
This way you have that interesting approach where if you autopilot you want more speed, where as if you are at the helm you want a bit more agility.
And this way hauling can be more tailored thus allowing more choices rather than the current one size fits all.

Everybody is a critic.

Preface: Eve is a beautiful game, and we love the folks who make it beautiful through ship stats and art.

but...

The art department first made the rusty Minmatar ships less rusty and more shiny during V3'ification. Then they took the frill off the Vagabond, and then they toyed with our hearts on the Tempest's wingy-bits. Now they want to change the Minmatar hauler of our hearts because they think it's ugly...

No. No you will not change the role of the Mammoth because the art department said it’s ugly, that's a stupid reason.

Hey art department! Please go do art. We anxiously await the day you have talked about at fanfest when there is a lighting system in Eve that makes the Blood Red of the Carthum Conglomerate or Blood Raider color scheme look like the blood of the Heretics, more so than the burnt copper/poop brown currently displayed on ships like the Ark. We do appreciate your work un-screwing up the Vagabond, but I credit Rixx Javix and his merry band of hat wearing pirates for championing that.

Now... Back to our regularly scheduled arguments about more roles/differentiation between the racial variants of the haulers… It’s not the Gallente/Minmatar’s fault that the Amarr and Caldari only imagined two different types of haulers…. Fix that; don’t dumb down the Gallente/Minmatar ones.

There have been a lot of good suggestions posted so far… Go back to the drawing board. Please spend the appropriate amount of time and do it right. We realize it’s not as exciting has re-balancing HAC’s to you, but it means something to a lot of us folks who use them.