These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

  • Topic is locked indefinitely.

[Odyssey 1.1] Tech 1 Industrials

First post First post
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
#301 - 2013-06-20 06:36:35 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
...I can see the following Industrial roles:

1: tanky
2: fast - This is a lot less useful. As fast can be covered by a different class. A frigate sized courier
3: big
4: Specialist cargo (ore/gas/ice)
5: Fitting service
6: Fleet hangar.

This. Make the Amarr/Caldari the generalist races that cover multiple roles with their two ships, and then the Minnie/Gallente are the overly specialized ones with specific roles and higher bonuses. Sure, the Min/Gal would have the obvious advantage at a those roles, but adaptability in one ship has some significant advantages as well.

I am somewhat disappointed that all the BattleBadgers I have scattered about the map will need to be replaced, but w/e. Not like they haven't paid for themselves multiple times over already.
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#302 - 2013-06-20 07:04:00 UTC  |  Edited by: spacelamp
Phoenix Einherjar wrote:
- "Salvaging Indy" - has extra highs for salvagers but no turret slots. This would be an indeirect buff to the ninja salvaging profession and provide potential hilarity (lolneuts). This ship would also be paper-thin on tank though and no Noctis-style bonuses. Make it a step between a destroyer-salvager and a Noctis.

This is pretty interesting, and would be a nice exposure to risk and hull flexibility. But without direct bonuses how would they make the hull much better than, or as good as, a destroyer?
Andras Grain
Dopamine Appreciation Society
#303 - 2013-06-20 07:27:02 UTC
As a Minmatar industrial pilot, I like the Hoarder. As a Minmatar industrial pilot, I like the Mammoth. From the perspective of a pilot that owns both ships, I could go etiher way with the decision regarding which ship becomes the hybrid.

But I offer a different perspective:

Why make the Iteron V the opposite end of the Iteron? Why not make the iconic Iteron IV the high end cargo ship, and have the V become a hybrid along with the II and III? It certainly has the most exposure with the alternate skins.

Swapping the Hoarder and Mammoth progression due to art is like saying that the Iteron V must be the high cargo ship because of the numeric progression.

So while you are considering the Hoarder and it's position, please also consider the repercussions of making the Iteron IV the cargo ship, and making the V an in-between hybrid. Then please do it, if for only the reason that the Iteron IV looks better.

The Bilderberg Group
#304 - 2013-06-20 07:32:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Moloney
I think you have started to fix problems that are not there again.

Put the old skill requirements back in place. Leave the Indy ships alone.

These are not pvp ships. They only see pvp through themed fleets. There is no reason to balance them. They do provide flavour all ready.
State War Academy
Caldari State
#305 - 2013-06-20 07:36:54 UTC
When they rebalanced destroyers and BCs, they didn't just switch up the roles that each race was famous for. Unlike PvP ships, industrials are not identified by their tank or weapon system. They are almost always evaluated in terms of their agility and cargo space. Not much consideration was ever given to industrials' other attributes because they were basically irrelevant. Most T1 haulers aren't used in any way that really requires anything other than optimal cargo space. Unless you're in losec or hauling something with a high value-to-gankliciousness ratio, you don't really need to worry about maximizing alignment time or using cloak/MWD. The typical balance attributes become more of a factor in transports, but when you get right down to it, it's still agility and cargo space that drive the discussion.

They seem to have balanced the new industrial numbers around core PvP concepts. The racial variants are balanced like what you'd expect for a ship of that race. Except cargo wasn't given a lot of credit as part of the core identity of these ships. Historical attachments aside, I can't think of any logical reason that would explain moving the biggest cargo from the Itty to something else. Or, for that matter, why Minnie ships would lose a significant portion of their cargo space. Actually, why were the industrials' cargo space rebalanced like that? What logic is being applied?

Will the industrial differences in cargo size will be reflected when it comes time to balance the freighters? If they change the Charon, the EVE industrial complex will go absolutely crazy. Freighter 5 is no joke to train.

I don't see any reason to have a class focused on tank and speed. Or to split them out into these particular three groups. The truth about hauling is that you're a dead man if you aren't in warp, jumping, or docked. You live at the mercy of EVE. You can up the tank on haulers, but the ganker will always win if the loot can pay his bills. That means the hauler has to honor the value-to-gankliciousness ratio no matter what. If they've got you scrammed, webbed, and bumped, your ship's attributes mean nothing.

If I could redesign the core concept of the hauler, it would be that they are cargo carrying escape and evasion devices. The transports touch on this concept by having cloak/small cargo and warp stab/med cargo. Maybe, bring that concept down to T1 and the 3 tier concept up to T2. You get Warp Stab+3/Large Cargo, Agile-Warb Stab/Med Cargo, Cloaky/Small Cargo and Warp Stab+1/Large Cargo, Agile-Warp Stab+1/Med Cargo, Warp Stab+2/small cargo. Give them a nice skill progression that takes pilots to industrials 5 and into transports. Give them enough tank to crash a gate in an emergency and increase all their warp speeds.

Whatever happens in the end, I hope someone will keep in mind those who have spent many years as haulers of one type or another. Haulers make the rest of EVE possible.



Erin O'Connor
Devil's Own Luck
#306 - 2013-06-20 07:39:18 UTC
Don't change my Mammoth, please!

I don't think the Hoarder is all that ugly, it is actually quite fitting to a cargo hauler role with its looks, but the Mammoth is honestly the best looking T1 indy in the game and I like spinning it.

Your art department needs a slight kick in the behind, I fear, if they think otherwise Twisted

However, I wouldn't mind the following use for the Mammoth model (and the other removed vessels):
Armed Transports.

Imagine something that has about the firepower figure of 100-200 dps and designed around using small guns/launchers/light drones, while maintaining a relatively large cargo hold and have about a cruiser's worth of EHP. Speed will still be firmly in the indy class, though.

The idea is for a ship that can defend itself against small lowsec pirate vessels (think dessies and T1 frigs, with the occasional, mostly failfit, AF thrown in). Certainly, it won't be able to kill them if they want to leave (since it is slow as heck. But it will be able to be rather effectively trap-fit, which is sweet as well) . The point is not to create a PvP pwnmobile, but rather a ship that is a hedgehog: If a single frig/dessy grabs it, the armed transport has the means to be annoying enough to either drive it off or kill it if the pilot is incompetent. Granted, well tanked AFs, multiple enemies and larger hulls will still nuke them, but that's exactly what is supposed to happen. I mean, so far, people are killing indys in lowsec with rookie frigs and ventures for "teh lolz". An armed transport will keep small ship pilots on their toes and perhaps encourage more people to enter lowsec (whether they do it wisely or not is a wholly different matter, but that's the sandbox for you).

tl;dr: I think it will be pretty cool to have armed transports in the game.

P.S: It would be even more cool to add to them another role which ties in with DUST somehow.
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#307 - 2013-06-20 07:41:31 UTC  |  Edited by: spacelamp
One way to give the Amarr ship a smuggling role without making the hull itself too specialized for a T1 ship would be to introduce a smuggling rig, which would of course eat lots of CPU. Of the small haulers, the Amarr could mount the most smuggler rigs, the Minmatar could be the risky agile ship, Gallente and Caldari could have better capacity and slots to mount some racial tank.

As an edit, maybe the T1 rig could hide some regular boosters and other contraband, with the T2 managing to hide the improved boosters.
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#308 - 2013-06-20 07:45:57 UTC  |  Edited by: ROCK MELTER
Changing things for the sake of changing them in Eve is a recipe for disaster. The lore is there and we have had 10 years of using these ships the way they are. Leave things that work alone and concentrate on things that are broken in Eve first. Then second how about putting the features in game that were promised at BETA like the Interbus!

...and while I'm at it I will troll a little and tell you to give me back my ghost training!
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#309 - 2013-06-20 08:04:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Gypsio III
The Hoarder looks terrible, it's just a pile of junk. Okay, that's classic Minmatar, but the Mammoth looks fantastic, it's got a real feel of scale, slowness and modular build about it, just like it really is a lumbering spacehauler that someone's created by jamming bits of ship together.

Mammoth >>>>> Hoarder.
SubStandard Rin
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#310 - 2013-06-20 08:20:37 UTC  |  Edited by: SubStandard Rin
First off I don't ike the changes
they are making 8 ships practicaly 2 ships ... I am sorry but I think you should rethink this.

It would be better if the races had a racial characteristics within a 10% limit from each other.

Mimatar 10% faster align speed (more agile)
Galente 10% more cargo

Secondly on your sugestion i have a question why your using the Hoarder for Mimatar not Mammoth why do you intend to use the old Tier2 model for Mimatar instead of the Tier3 model (Mammoth).

First, something kind of simple: why the Hoarder instead of the Mammoth? This basically comes down to art direction. At earlier stages in this rebalance we considered both removing some ships from the game, and also adding more. Part of that discussion led to art asking that we use the Hoarder rather than the Mammoth as one of the primary Minmatar industrials.

basicly your saying it ART departments fault. well then please tell me why the DST Mastodont is based on the Mammoths hull and not the Hoarders hull. it makes no sense.

Thirdly :
I wouldn't mind of you instead made the Industrial ships for different roles.


* Fast Aligning , high warp speed transport with low cargo room (basicly a T1 version of the Blockade runner)
* Giant hauler , slow transport should be able to transport cargo in the range of 40-45km3 no tank what so ever
* Tanky hauler, crgo hauler with enough ehp to withstand a single attacker (think procurer)

* Ore idustrials for hauling Ore / Ice huge ore bay 40-50km3 of ore bay.

I know tnere is an issue with a tanky hauler that a determined attacker still giving the new player access to tanky hauler should cut down the risk for the risk averse in highsec untill they could buy a orca and over tank it.

for T2 haulers i think the DST is in a bad place and i would want to give it a jumpdrive instead so we get a mini Jumpfreigher that gives it a uniqe role.

well this is my two cents worth of opinion.
#311 - 2013-06-20 08:28:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Enilonee

And if that won't happen I'll go all Don Quixote and try making it the least used ship in EVE. P


Regarding "There is no time/we could do more useful things":

Everyone is grateful for the rebalancing efforts and you did a great job, but:

No. You couldn't.

You spent so many months on combat focused Ships (of which there are many classes).
One would think you'd owe the industry backbone of EVE at least half as much.
Even though I don't do industry, everything else just wouldn't seem fair.
Instead be glad that there aren't as many industry related Ships and do this rebalancing properly the first time.
And while there are very different approaches to fighting, hauling does come down to not exploding while having as much cargo as possible - without specialized Industrials it will boil down to 2-3 FOTM ships again. Looking at the numbers i'd say Sigil + Itty V and maybe Bestower.

Do not put the industry focused players off with some half assed rebalancing.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#312 - 2013-06-20 08:53:20 UTC
Just jumping in favor of BOTH the Hoarder and the Mammoth. The Hoarder was one of my very first ships, and I have a fondness for them.

And the Mammoth, well, if it gets some more love, it would be a good step, because as of right now it's out in the cold. Granted, space is cold, etc, etc, but I meant more like exclusion.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Luscius Uta
#313 - 2013-06-20 08:53:45 UTC
The so called tanky Industrials are hardly going to be tanky as they could be ganked almost as easily as non-tanky ones (especially if you put few Expanded Cargoholds on them, as most of their HP increase will add to structure). They might be a good choice for running distribution missions and for quick trips to trade hubs, so the only real advantage they'll have over cargo-focused Industrials will be their agility. I say make their tank more like Procurer's but cripple their cargo capacity a bit more.

Speaking about T2 Industrials, one of their problems is that their bonuses to shiled boosting and armor repair amount are useless in most situations. I would replace them with something that can actually help you escape from a nasty situation, like bonus to ECM Burst strength. Also, now when Blockade Runners can fit Covert Cynos, they should all have 2 high slots.

Workarounds are not bugfixes.

Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#314 - 2013-06-20 09:11:17 UTC
Why is the hoarder the "cargo" variant? The mammoth visually looks like it has a much larger cargo hold.

This is really the only mistake I see with these changes atm.

Capt Retard
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#315 - 2013-06-20 09:43:10 UTC
Sigh - so my T2 rigged Mammoth (yes - insane I know, but it ships mostly on icefield duty) is now fkd! I have to get a Hoarder - I like this design, but I dont like that I now have a truly redundant setup.

If the plan is to 'switch' these ships then can you repackage Mammoths with rigs coming off for the change, or better (and less contentious), swtich all 'in hangar' mammoths to hoarder models and vice versa, maintaining their rig types.

Muad 'dib
The Nine Nine
#316 - 2013-06-20 09:56:59 UTC
Whats with all the CPU bub?

Cant remember the last time i saw a garbage truck with a better CPU than a fighter jet ;)

Fozzie are you leaving it like this cus of some super sekret mega cpu whore of a module thats going to enable haulers to use microjump drives or something spectacular?


the rumour has been started, make it happen Fozzie.

Cosmic signature detected. . . . I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.

Janna Windforce
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#317 - 2013-06-20 09:57:32 UTC
Is it just me or did Caldari's take the short stick in this? None of their haulers shines :( Badger should get tad better align time I think.
SubStandard Rin
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#318 - 2013-06-20 09:58:24 UTC
Karsa Egivand wrote:
Callic Veratar wrote:
Karsa Egivand wrote:
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).

Everyone's allowed to be wrong every once in a while.

Matter of taste and I seem to be in the minority.

Then again, maybe most people only chime up when their opinion is trodden on, maybe all the Hoarder lovers are simply too content to post. P

no the Horder is more uggly then the Mammoth
the mammoth also the T1 version of the T2 Mastodont (DST)

there is no T2 version of the Horder ... so please are you going to mess with our Blueprints and our T2 ships also Art department.

Instead of listening to the advice of the artdepartment in this matter i would want the Ship rebalance team to decide then I would (if i was responsible for Ship rebalance) ask art department to make two new ships
one for Caldari and one for Amarr that way we get 3 types of ships for all races.

then i would decide bonuses for the four races.
Tanky / Fast align / more cargo room / etc.
the racial deviations should be max 10% so example if we make Mimatar to be faster aligntime then they get 10% faster align time.

after this i would create some specialized ships for diferent needs that could arise.

A# tanky hauler (think procurer) with warpstabs (check DST comment below)
b# fast nimble low size hauler with faster warpspeed.
c# high capacity hauler
d# specialized hauler Ice / Ore / PI /
e# combat hauler ( High EHP, good aligntime, cargobay that can only hold charges (Ammo Cap charges etc)

spread the types A,B,C,E around the four races so that we get a good mix showing of the diffent kinds of doctrine.
D should be added to new / revamped ORE ships.

with this said i think the DST needs a overhaul also and im sugestion you give it a jumpdrive so it could be used as a cheap JF with all its pro/con. that would realy make it a specialized ship.

John B'dlam
Forkhaul Logistics Ltd.
#319 - 2013-06-20 10:01:48 UTC
Capt ****** wrote:
or better (and less contentious), swtich all 'in hangar' mammoths to hoarder models and vice versa, maintaining their rig types.

Less contentious? Switch my masterful Mammoths with horrible Hoarders? Even nerfed, they can have my Mammoths if they pry them from my cold, dead hands.
Duriel Walker
NPC Tax Evasion Corp
#320 - 2013-06-20 10:13:50 UTC
Please reverse the Mammoth/Hoarder decision.
The mammoth is much more iconic as the hoarder which I hereby nominate for ugliest minmatar ship.