These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Odyssey 1.1] Tech 1 Industrials

First post First post
Author
Silivar Karkun
Doomheim
#381 - 2013-06-20 15:40:40 UTC
Zaxix wrote:


This rebalance is a cosmetic effort at best. Very little will change, except that my Mammoth will hold much more than it used to. People will continue to select cargo over all other stats and keep their cargo value below whatever the ganking profit threshold is. Most T1s will still be hauling ore. Everyone who is working in losec/nosec will still be using cloaky haulers and anyone who uses a T1 in losec/nosec will simply fit the cargo class hauler for cloak/MWD. These are not PvP ships and they should be approached with a different mindset. Tank/speed is for crashing the gate but it does no good against bumping and if you can't get off teh grid, you're dead.


^also this, simple, the rebalance should've been similar to that of the barges, leaving one industrial with big cargo for high sec and for those who want to risk some money, and the other as cheap versions of the T2 industrials. i mean, T1 versions of the Deep Space Transports and the Blockade Runners, while the other would be a simple industrial with bigger hold than the others but which couldnt survive in low sec or null without proper modifications.
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#382 - 2013-06-20 15:41:11 UTC
What about dedicating some of the misc haulers to an "autopiloting" role.

Small cargo space (maybe just enough for a packaged cruiser+fittings, ammo, drones, which would be like 11-12k), but bonuses to align time, base speed and warp speed.

Callic Veratar
#383 - 2013-06-20 15:47:33 UTC
Very glad the mammoth is back to the biggest.

I still don't like the reliance on cargo expanders and cargo rigs, though. All T1 industrials should be given a flat bulk cargo storage bay that can store anything, in the same manner the mining barges were given ore bays. They should have a small, frigate sized cargo bay used for ammo, cap boosters, repair paste, or whatever other crazy things consumables you might need on an indy. This also leaves room for the tanky industrials to fit either shield or armor. As it stands, if you don't shield tank your industrial, you have no cargo space or no tank, meaning we've got 4 fast shield tanking industrials and 4 bulk shield tanking industrials.

Start the speedy ones off at 16000m3 and the cargo at 33000m3 and give them all +1000m3 of space per level. The mid ground ships (iterons 2-4 and hoarder) can be put between in size at around 22000m3 for now and when 2 new indies can be released make tanky industrials, keeping the cargo the same.

I was thinking about the Iteron 2 and 4, how about giving them no turret slots, a 1000m3 drone bay, and 10Mbit of bandwidth but otherwise having them exactly the same as the Iteron 1 and 3?
Akemi Kiyoura
Perkone
Caldari State
#384 - 2013-06-20 15:50:33 UTC
I'm quoting this because it was just not addressed.

Akemi Kiyoura wrote:
I still think we need something in between the Itty V and an Orca/Freighter in terms of cargo capacity, for all races. The difference in cost between the two hulls, not to mention the training time for the Orca/Freighter compared to an Itty V is borderline irrational.

There needs to be something that has at most 80k m3 of cargo. Why at most? To scale it with the rest of the indy freight hulls.

Aeril Malkyre
Knights of the Ouroboros
#385 - 2013-06-20 15:55:22 UTC
LONG LIVE THE MAMMOTH. Thank you for keeping it as the king Matari hauler.

CCP Rise wrote:
Finally a quick note on "special bays" - We talked about this option quite a bit here at the office, and also with the CSM. While it does sound fun to add some new purpose (and new depth as a result) to haulers, there were simply too many problems to make this option seem worthwhile right now. There are issues with the level of specialization as it relates to t1 vs t2 ships. There were issues about equality of access, this being the case especially if we gave special bays to only the extra Iterons and the extra Minmatar ship, but also being the case if we gave one special bay to each race. What do we say to the Amarr Ice miner who has to cross train to Gallente? The idea has value, but with new industry work coming down the pipe, we would rather wait a while than assign a problematic role now.
The bolded part is all you really had to say. Pretty much everyone in this thread was concerned that you were broad stroking this overhaul and flying off into the night, never to touch industry ships again.

If you can keep racial flavor and even out the number of ships on offer for each race, you'll be worlds ahead. I know that will require assets which you're loathe to give up, but haulers are important to the people that haul. Which is a not insignificant portion of your players. Things have to get places, or the economy of EvE would collapse. As you've seen with the reaction over the Mammoth, players have strong feelings about what they haul in, just as they do about what they fight in.

Special bays should not be racial. Special bays should be by ship type. The Amarr Ice Miner should have an Amarr ship at his disposal with an ore/ice hold, and so should the rest of the races. The racial concerns should be something along the lines of: Amarr with the brickiest armor, Minmatar with the agilest hull, Gallente with the biggest bays, Caldari with the thickest shields. Each should then have a small fast hauler for general goods, a medium more defensible hauler that can move specialized products like ice and ore, and a big but slow hauler with the best defenses and biggest capacity. Three ships for everyone is a smaller asset investment (two new models) than what should really happen: a whole new lineup of industrials that cover a broader range of activities.

Something to bridge the capacity (and cost) gap between industrials and freighters. A smaller mobile fitting/ammo station for gangs of frigates and destroyers. Truly specialized haulers for every broad category of goods (ice/ore/gas/PI/charges/fuel/etc). Small salvage ships, tractor beam bonuses all over the place, survey scanner bonuses, bonuses to nabbing cans in archaeology sites, etc, etc. These could or should probably all be ORE variants. But let's be clear here: there's more to industry than align time and cargo capacity. It should be explored. I hope that's the 'industry work' you're hinting at.
Dark Stryke
Doomheim
#386 - 2013-06-20 15:56:48 UTC
Akemi Kiyoura wrote:
I'm quoting this because it was just not addressed.

Akemi Kiyoura wrote:
I still think we need something in between the Itty V and an Orca/Freighter in terms of cargo capacity, for all races. The difference in cost between the two hulls, not to mention the training time for the Orca/Freighter compared to an Itty V is borderline irrational.

There needs to be something that has at most 80k m3 of cargo. Why at most? To scale it with the rest of the indy freight hulls.


That's a perfect role for the currently lacklustre Deep-space Transports.
Callic Veratar
#387 - 2013-06-20 15:57:19 UTC
Akemi Kiyoura wrote:
I'm quoting this because it was just not addressed.

Akemi Kiyoura wrote:
I still think we need something in between the Itty V and an Orca/Freighter in terms of cargo capacity, for all races. The difference in cost between the two hulls, not to mention the training time for the Orca/Freighter compared to an Itty V is borderline irrational.

There needs to be something that has at most 80k m3 of cargo. Why at most? To scale it with the rest of the indy freight hulls.



Despite such a ship being needed, this is tiericide for existing tech 1 ships in a point release. New hulls seem to be a Spring/Winter 1.0 thing.
Silivar Karkun
Doomheim
#388 - 2013-06-20 16:02:05 UTC
Callic Veratar wrote:
Akemi Kiyoura wrote:
I'm quoting this because it was just not addressed.

Akemi Kiyoura wrote:
I still think we need something in between the Itty V and an Orca/Freighter in terms of cargo capacity, for all races. The difference in cost between the two hulls, not to mention the training time for the Orca/Freighter compared to an Itty V is borderline irrational.

There needs to be something that has at most 80k m3 of cargo. Why at most? To scale it with the rest of the indy freight hulls.



Despite such a ship being needed, this is tiericide for existing tech 1 ships in a point release. New hulls seem to be a Spring/Winter 1.0 thing.


then they should delay the rebalance and once they have those new models plan it right, instead of trying to shove it at the first patch
Tul Breetai
Impromptu Asset Requisition
#389 - 2013-06-20 16:06:21 UTC
Badger gets turret AND launcher??? NERF THE BADGER

There's nothing worse than an EVE player, generally considered to be top of the food chain in the MMO world, that cannot smacktalk with wit and coherency.

Nirnaeth Ornoediad
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#390 - 2013-06-20 16:07:45 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Makes sense, I guess.

It'd be nice to have something like a ore hold, or a fitting service on the others, but it would be limiting for anyone but the gallente.


I mentioned this in a previous post (somewhere) but 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


And we already have:
7: Salvager
8: PI specialist cargo.

I think these are great ideas for the stepchild/miscellaneous hulls. I'm also perfectly fine with the races being imbalanced in some areas. Having one race or another have a specialist ship could have some interesting, if niche, applications.

Fix POSes.  Every player should want one (even if all players can't have one).

Callic Veratar
#391 - 2013-06-20 16:08:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Callic Veratar
Silivar Karkun wrote:
Callic Veratar wrote:
Despite such a ship being needed, this is tiericide for existing tech 1 ships in a point release. New hulls seem to be a Spring/Winter 1.0 thing.


then they should delay the rebalance and once they have those new models plan it right, instead of trying to shove it at the first patch


Delay it until when? Until the art team has enough time to built 2 (or 8) new ships? There's enough space to work with here to put in reasonable upgrades to these ships. The same way they battleships have been done, but we're missing 3 disruption battleships and a caldari combat battleship.

There is no shoving here, this is a fairly deliberate process that's been followed. It is a bit rough at the moment, in my opinion, but that's the point of the forum thread. To refine it. Nobody is arguing the numbers (except a few Iteron V fans) we're arguing diversity and functionality. If the basis of the industrial diversity and functionality is defined, it can make the difference between "we'd like two new industrial ships so we can rebalance the line" and "this is the ship we need to get out as soon as possible, when can you have that model done?".
David Kir
Dominionist Commonwealth of Confederated States
Violent Harmony
#392 - 2013-06-20 16:13:53 UTC
Tul Breetai wrote:
Badger gets turret AND launcher??? NERF THE BADGER


Ha!
Battlebadger FTW!

Friends are like cows: if you eat them, they die.

Callic Veratar
#393 - 2013-06-20 16:13:57 UTC
Nirnaeth Ornoediad wrote:
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Makes sense, I guess.

It'd be nice to have something like a ore hold, or a fitting service on the others, but it would be limiting for anyone but the gallente.


I mentioned this in a previous post (somewhere) but 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


And we already have:
7: Salvager
8: PI specialist cargo.

I think these are great ideas for the stepchild/miscellaneous hulls. I'm also perfectly fine with the races being imbalanced in some areas. Having one race or another have a specialist ship could have some interesting, if niche, applications.


Somewhat of a different topic, but I'd kinda prefer to leave the industrials as haulers and split up the orca into several slightly cheaper ships:

- A specialist mining support vessel, the kind that sits in a belt with mining links
- A specialist fleet support vessel, one that can roam with a group with combat links and fitting service
- A industrial carrier that can has a significant fleet hangar and can move a bunch of fitted battleships (2.5M m3 or so)
Zifrian
FAYN Industries
Dark Side of the Eclipse
#394 - 2013-06-20 16:16:42 UTC
Dark Stryke wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:


Finally a quick note on "special bays" - We talked about this option quite a bit here at the office, and also with the CSM. While it does sound fun to add some new purpose (and new depth as a result) to haulers, there were simply too many problems to make this option seem worthwhile right now. There are issues with the level of specialization as it relates to t1 vs t2 ships. There were issues about equality of access, this being the case especially if we gave special bays to only the extra Iterons and the extra Minmatar ship, but also being the case if we gave one special bay to each race. What do we say to the Amarr Ice miner who has to cross train to Gallente? The idea has value, but with new industry work coming down the pipe, we would rather wait a while than assign a problematic role now.


Why not just stick with the one bay, 'freight bay'. We don't need 'x special PI bay, or fuel bay, or whatever', just a strait freight bay that is identical to the current cargo bays.

I can't believe it is such a difficult thing as you've already installed it on five different classes of ship hulls as ore holds (mining frigate, barges, exhumers, indy command and cap indy command). The groundwork already exists in other areas, it gets around the eternal balancing problem with shield vs armor lines regarding cargo expanders, it's just an all around easier fix then juggling stats and slots around endlessly.

For t1, I second this. I would like more diversity in t2s but for t1, yeah...just make a freight bay that is all the same size like barges and ore. That way you get away from the one fit for all problem you seem to want to address. Plus, you can use different rig and mod combinations that will match the racial themes. Ie, lots of lows = armor tanking gallente, more mids for shield Caldari. By sticking to the 'you get this much cargo with rigs and expanders' thinking, you are limiting the ships severely from the start. For instance, one of the best things with the barge changes was that you don't have to default to two cargo rigs first when fitting them.

Maximze your Industry Potential! - Download EVE Isk per Hour!

Import CCP's SDE - EVE SDE Database Builder

David Kir
Dominionist Commonwealth of Confederated States
Violent Harmony
#395 - 2013-06-20 16:19:17 UTC  |  Edited by: David Kir
CCP Fozzie wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:

I want to add to this : CCP Fozzie wanted to troll you guys by leaving the Hoarder, shows how far forum likes get you I guess.


Troll is a harsh word. Some specific posters were posting so badly about this that it made me have a strong desire to do the opposite of what they asked for. The rest of you were reasonable though so I was willing to look past the haters.


We don't trust no filthy PL scum!

Nah, JK.
Keep up the good work, the community is really looking forward to the T" re-balance.

Friends are like cows: if you eat them, they die.

Silivar Karkun
Doomheim
#396 - 2013-06-20 16:32:42 UTC
Callic Veratar wrote:
Silivar Karkun wrote:
Callic Veratar wrote:
Despite such a ship being needed, this is tiericide for existing tech 1 ships in a point release. New hulls seem to be a Spring/Winter 1.0 thing.


then they should delay the rebalance and once they have those new models plan it right, instead of trying to shove it at the first patch


Delay it until when? Until the art team has enough time to built 2 (or 8) new ships? There's enough space to work with here to put in reasonable upgrades to these ships. The same way they battleships have been done, but we're missing 3 disruption battleships and a caldari combat battleship.

There is no shoving here, this is a fairly deliberate process that's been followed. It is a bit rough at the moment, in my opinion, but that's the point of the forum thread. To refine it. Nobody is arguing the numbers (except a few Iteron V fans) we're arguing diversity and functionality. If the basis of the industrial diversity and functionality is defined, it can make the difference between "we'd like two new industrial ships so we can rebalance the line" and "this is the ship we need to get out as soon as possible, when can you have that model done?".


no, leaving 4 hulls without proper use isnt balance, this isnt like in the case of the battleships where we had 3 hulls in each race, we have a more important problem here.

using the minmatar as example would've been better than using the caldari and amarr lines, saying that because the art department would have to invent aditional ships (two in this case) is bullshit.

like i proposed it in page 19 of this thread, it would have been better to have 3 industrial roles with 3 ships in each race, with the exception of the Gallente with 2 in between roles.

the bonus of agility and velocity for the current concept just doesnt function, better to have a ship designed for speed, another for tank and another for maximum cargo.. think it like a mini freighter and T1 versions of blockade runners and deep space transports, now that's a real balance.

Lokitoki81
SniggWaffe
WAFFLES.
#397 - 2013-06-20 16:35:31 UTC
How did this get to 20 pages ?!

Well done CCP on these changes though!
Reika Wylde
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#398 - 2013-06-20 16:36:36 UTC
One of the many things I've enjoyed about EvE in the years that I've played is the diversity.

What I see here is a flattening of the diversity for no reason other than we can.

In the past, the haulers had a pretty clear advantage. Agility, Capacity, things like that. You wanted to align faster? Minmatar. You wanted to hold a drop can? Gallente.

The Badger Mk 2 was the easiest to get into, stuff like that.

Now? I don't see the point in this 'balancing'. If anything, this should be where we could have the most diversity.
Silivar Karkun
Doomheim
#399 - 2013-06-20 16:52:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Silivar Karkun
Reika Wylde wrote:
One of the many things I've enjoyed about EvE in the years that I've played is the diversity.

What I see here is a flattening of the diversity for no reason other than we can.

In the past, the haulers had a pretty clear advantage. Agility, Capacity, things like that. You wanted to align faster? Minmatar. You wanted to hold a drop can? Gallente.

The Badger Mk 2 was the easiest to get into, stuff like that.

Now? I don't see the point in this 'balancing'. If anything, this should be where we could have the most diversity.


one thing is having diversity of roles and other is diversity due to race, that's the difference, each empire should have ships with the same roles as the others, and each empire ships would have their own racial traits, be it amarr having the more tankier, gallente the most cargoed, minmatar the fastest and caldari de better equiped in terms of slots. this can be done, but we must have same roles in every empire, that is ships with good armor, other with good speed and another with good cargo. but with the racial traits added to that.

the industrial line is broken cause two empires use only 2 ships, while another one use 5 ships. the only race that seems balanced in terms of industrial ships is the Minmatar Republic, the other races need to be reorganized, specially if we have T2 versions with what could've been the aditional roles. that's the problem, we have to give the same roles the T2 have to the T1 line, at least in this case.

just look at exhumers and barges, its the same.
Kennesaw Breach
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc.
Illusion of Solitude
#400 - 2013-06-20 16:54:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Kennesaw Breach
CCP Rise wrote:

On "it wasn't broke, why change it" - I can understand that in a way it didn't feel broken, maybe because there isn't a lot of direct competition between them, but it really was. Tiering has just as many problems here as it does in combat ships. By removing tiers we're adding more legitimate choices for a certain job, which means more interesting gameplay.

Some people have said things like, you've changed a class with X ships into a class with only 2 ships (or some equivalent) - To me this is really hard to understand. The part that makes sense is that by changing the skill requirements(which is happening for all t1 ships in the game as part of tiericide), you went from a choice of ship based on how much you wanted to train, to just choosing the biggest cargo from day 1. This part is not negotiable as it comes from the overall tiericide effort. With that being the case, this balance work changes a class that had one option, to a class that hopefully has at least 8, based on racial preference and purpose.


I'm still trying to wrap my head around why you think taking away any reason for a new player to ever train Gallente Industrials is a good thing. If they're not able to hold the most as a t1, not able to hold the most as a t2, not able to hold the most as a freighter, and don't have a meaningful highslot layout, then why would anyone choose to train them, going forward?

I mean, maybe I'm crazy here, but I kinda judge haulers on their ability to, you know... haul.