These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Viceorvirtue
The Hatchery
#401 - 2013-06-20 16:56:24 UTC
Incase my last post was buried under the cascade of cries for mammoths, I'll ask again.

Why is the bestower the only cargo focused t1 industrial that has to sarcifice either a rigslot or a lowslot in order to tank a tornado? The iteronV and mammoth both have 5 mids allowing for just enough defense if properly fitted (single em hardner and 4 mses) with the badgermk2 getting even more tank. All without having to sacrifice any cargo capacity.

Quick math of ehp vs emp (before the haulers actual base hp is taken into question):
1 em hardner and 3 mses: ~6,300ehp
1 em hardner and 4 mses: ~8,400ehp
1em hardner and 5 mses: ~10,500ehp

A tornado does about 11,000k volley with t2 1400mm, maxed skills and a wrecking shot within optimal range, however with the extended distance you spawn from gate prevents you from always being in optimal range, as well as the fact that you will only get a wrecking shot one in a blue moon, the volley is normally between 7-9k in my expierence.

This means that the 'non tanky, cargo focused' industrials dont actually have to worry about dying assuming they put tank in their midslots and dont have to sacrifice any cargo capacity to do so. The exception to this is the bestower, which will die unless you sacrifice cargo capacity for extra tank.

I feel that to actually balance this out and give people more of a reason to use the 'tanky, quick aligning' versions of the t1 haulers, the 'cargo focused' industrials should be limited to 4midslots while the 'tanky' versions should have atleast 5. This would also allow DSTs to stay semi relavant as being able to haul more than the 'tanky' t1 haulers while being able to tank a nado volley.

Most of the people I end up killing fit nothing to their midslots anyway but I am still curious as to why the 'cargo focused' haulers have so many midslots allowing them to outclass DSTs in terms of efficiency.
Silivar Karkun
Doomheim
#402 - 2013-06-20 17:00:05 UTC
Silivar Karkun wrote:
gonna put the concept of the 3 roles for industrials like this:

speed industrial: +5% cargo, agility and maximum velocity per lvl

tank industrial: +5% cargo and tank per lvl (be it shield or armor)

cargo industrial (AKA mini freighter): +10% cargo per lvl

of course this means that at racial industrial V you have one ship with 25% more cargo than the other 2, working as intended. while some ships would reach out the mark of 40k m3 they still wouldnt get close to what other industrial ships have, for example the orca, which can get almos 200k m3 fully cargoed.

now, what happens with the DST and the Blockade Runners?, the Blockade Runner would come after the speed industrial, adding the double of bonus (+10% cargo, agility and max velocity per lvl), same for the DST in relation with the tank industrial (+10% cargo and tank per lvl, armor or shield)

now, there's still a ship left, but the 3rd industrial role is intended to converge into freighters.

but we have 2 races which use only 2 industrials (Caldari and Amarr), while Gallente use 5. instead of leaving 4 ships useless, the idea is to put the art department into creating 2 aditional industrials, one for Amarr and one for Caldari, this giving it same ground as Minmatar, and use the Iteron I, III and V as the dedicated gallente industrials (maybe with Iteron II and IV as mid ground between each role)

the configuration would be then:

Amarr:

-Speed Hauler -> Sigil

-Tank Hauler -> Bestower

-Mini Freighter -> new hull required

Caldari:

-Speed Hauler -> Badger

-Tank Hauler -> Badger Mk II

-Minifreighter -> Badger Mk III (new hull required)

Minmatar:

-Speed Hauler -> Wreathe

-Tank Hauler -> Hoarder

-Mini Freighter -> Mammoth (they would still have the Mastodon as the DST of course, same bonus applied but it would need a change in its attributes in that case for leaving it in ground with what would be a T2 Hoarder)

Gallente:

-Speed Hauler -> Iteron

-midgrown between speed and tank -> Iteron II

-Tank Hauler -> Iteron III

-mid ground between tank and cargo -> Iteron IV

-Mini Freighter -> Iteron V

this looks better than what its planned right now, and doesnt leave industrial ships out of the equation... now in order to implement this i suggest that youd leave this rebalance to the winter expansion instead of shoving it for Odyssey 1.1, which is too soon BTW..


quoted for those too lazy to browse it, this should've been a real industrial rebalance (role wise)
Crestor Markham
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#403 - 2013-06-20 17:03:31 UTC
*preemptively gets behind cover*

I for one always liked the hoarder model better than the mammoth. It made me said it was pretty much worthless. mammoth/mastodon are better names though...
Mioelnir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#404 - 2013-06-20 17:17:36 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Will keep listening about the Mammoth. There isn't an enormous amount of them being used so it felt like it wouldn't be too painful of a transition if it was better for visual direction. I'm less concerned about the continuity with the T2 model, but the differences in cost, and the forced transition for people who were using the Mammoth are real issues. Keep feedback coming and I'll poke around on my side some more.

There is even less people flying the hoarder. Maybe apart from very low-sp cyno alts. And the simple reason for that is of course that in a cargo hauler, you simply want cargo size over everything else.
With the new stats, the usage of minmatar industrials won't change. People that have Gallente Indu at 5 will stay with it since the difference is small enough to the Bestower. People skilling fresh will just go Bestower.
You could give it a sandwich as the ship model, and there would still be no reason to skill it over the Bestower.
Maximus Andendare
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#405 - 2013-06-20 17:21:42 UTC
Silivar Karkun wrote:
Silivar Karkun wrote:
gonna put the concept of the 3 roles for industrials like this:

speed industrial: +5% cargo, agility and maximum velocity per lvl

tank industrial: +5% cargo and tank per lvl (be it shield or armor)

cargo industrial (AKA mini freighter): +10% cargo per lvl

of course this means that at racial industrial V you have one ship with 25% more cargo than the other 2, working as intended. while some ships would reach out the mark of 40k m3 they still wouldnt get close to what other industrial ships have, for example the orca, which can get almos 200k m3 fully cargoed.

now, what happens with the DST and the Blockade Runners?, the Blockade Runner would come after the speed industrial, adding the double of bonus (+10% cargo, agility and max velocity per lvl), same for the DST in relation with the tank industrial (+10% cargo and tank per lvl, armor or shield)

now, there's still a ship left, but the 3rd industrial role is intended to converge into freighters.

but we have 2 races which use only 2 industrials (Caldari and Amarr), while Gallente use 5. instead of leaving 4 ships useless, the idea is to put the art department into creating 2 aditional industrials, one for Amarr and one for Caldari, this giving it same ground as Minmatar, and use the Iteron I, III and V as the dedicated gallente industrials (maybe with Iteron II and IV as mid ground between each role)

the configuration would be then:

Amarr:

-Speed Hauler -> Sigil

-Tank Hauler -> Bestower

-Mini Freighter -> new hull required

Caldari:

-Speed Hauler -> Badger

-Tank Hauler -> Badger Mk II

-Minifreighter -> Badger Mk III (new hull required)

Minmatar:

-Speed Hauler -> Wreathe

-Tank Hauler -> Hoarder

-Mini Freighter -> Mammoth (they would still have the Mastodon as the DST of course, same bonus applied but it would need a change in its attributes in that case for leaving it in ground with what would be a T2 Hoarder)

Gallente:

-Speed Hauler -> Iteron

-midgrown between speed and tank -> Iteron II

-Tank Hauler -> Iteron III

-mid ground between tank and cargo -> Iteron IV

-Mini Freighter -> Iteron V

this looks better than what its planned right now, and doesnt leave industrial ships out of the equation... now in order to implement this i suggest that youd leave this rebalance to the winter expansion instead of shoving it for Odyssey 1.1, which is too soon BTW..


quoted for those too lazy to browse it, this should've been a real industrial rebalance (role wise)
This is as nice as when I posted it on page 5 at post #100.

Enter grid and you're already dead, destined to be reborn and fight another day.

>> Play Eve Online FREE! Join today for exclusive bonuses! <<

Dave Stark
#406 - 2013-06-20 17:22:56 UTC
Lokitoki81 wrote:
How did this get to 20 pages ?!

Well done CCP on these changes though!


people got justifiably annoyed when they decide to make the mammoth irrelevant and make us rig a new ship to do the job the mammoth has been doing fine since forever.
Silivar Karkun
Doomheim
#407 - 2013-06-20 17:24:30 UTC
Maximus Andendare wrote:
Silivar Karkun wrote:
Silivar Karkun wrote:
gonna put the concept of the 3 roles for industrials like this:

speed industrial: +5% cargo, agility and maximum velocity per lvl

tank industrial: +5% cargo and tank per lvl (be it shield or armor)

cargo industrial (AKA mini freighter): +10% cargo per lvl

of course this means that at racial industrial V you have one ship with 25% more cargo than the other 2, working as intended. while some ships would reach out the mark of 40k m3 they still wouldnt get close to what other industrial ships have, for example the orca, which can get almos 200k m3 fully cargoed.

now, what happens with the DST and the Blockade Runners?, the Blockade Runner would come after the speed industrial, adding the double of bonus (+10% cargo, agility and max velocity per lvl), same for the DST in relation with the tank industrial (+10% cargo and tank per lvl, armor or shield)

now, there's still a ship left, but the 3rd industrial role is intended to converge into freighters.

but we have 2 races which use only 2 industrials (Caldari and Amarr), while Gallente use 5. instead of leaving 4 ships useless, the idea is to put the art department into creating 2 aditional industrials, one for Amarr and one for Caldari, this giving it same ground as Minmatar, and use the Iteron I, III and V as the dedicated gallente industrials (maybe with Iteron II and IV as mid ground between each role)

the configuration would be then:

Amarr:

-Speed Hauler -> Sigil

-Tank Hauler -> Bestower

-Mini Freighter -> new hull required

Caldari:

-Speed Hauler -> Badger

-Tank Hauler -> Badger Mk II

-Minifreighter -> Badger Mk III (new hull required)

Minmatar:

-Speed Hauler -> Wreathe

-Tank Hauler -> Hoarder

-Mini Freighter -> Mammoth (they would still have the Mastodon as the DST of course, same bonus applied but it would need a change in its attributes in that case for leaving it in ground with what would be a T2 Hoarder)

Gallente:

-Speed Hauler -> Iteron

-midgrown between speed and tank -> Iteron II

-Tank Hauler -> Iteron III

-mid ground between tank and cargo -> Iteron IV

-Mini Freighter -> Iteron V

this looks better than what its planned right now, and doesnt leave industrial ships out of the equation... now in order to implement this i suggest that youd leave this rebalance to the winter expansion instead of shoving it for Odyssey 1.1, which is too soon BTW..


quoted for those too lazy to browse it, this should've been a real industrial rebalance (role wise)
This is as nice as when I posted it on page 5 at post #100.


your idea was good too....
Phoenix Jones
Small-Arms Fire
#408 - 2013-06-20 17:26:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Phoenix Jones
Moving to its own thread

Yaay!!!!

Dark Stryke
Doomheim
#409 - 2013-06-20 17:56:05 UTC
Having a large number of specific holds for specific ships is a balancing nightmare. Again, we don't need five different haulers with five different specialized cargo holds put into the game. It’s enough to just have one ship. People will bring up the Primae for having a specialized PI hold, but it’s a gimmick ship given out as a freebie which no one actually uses.

Again, all we need to bypass the entire problem of “armor tanks being second rate to shield thanks to low slots lost for cargo expanders” is to move the general cargo component off of slots entirely. They did it with barges and overall the changes worked. Re-inventing the wheel is something that will not happen with CCP’s iterative stance on ship balancing, so go with what works, and keep it simple.

Do create a ‘cargo bay’ separate from a normal ship cargo hold
Don’t create 10 different bays to haul 10 different commodity items, we don’t need that complexity.
Taleden
North Wind Local no. 612
#410 - 2013-06-20 18:02:36 UTC
I'm glad to hear the art folks listened to reason, but it sounds like the general consensus in this thread is that the lineup as proposed is still a little too same-ey. There's been a lot of discussion in this thread about why that is and what to do about it, but I think you have two root problems:

The first is cargo expanders. So long as their bonus is so huge and they have no stacking penalty, you have to balance around the assumption that every low slot could be an expander, which in turn means every indy has to be shield tanked. That cuts your options down a lot.

But there's an easy fix: remove cargo expanders. Or at least forbid their use on industrials, and/or restore their stacking penalty. Keep the cargo rigs, since that makes more sense anyway -- unless you're flying Dr. Who's Tardis, enlarging a ship's cargo bay isn't like plugging in a turret, it's a permanent structural change to the ship.

The second problem is that you've given yourselves only two "knobs" to turn: cargo capacity vs speed/tank. Two points only define a line, so now all 12 ships have to be somewhere on that same cargo-speed/tank spectrum which is boring.

Another easy fix: just split up your speed/tank knob into two separate features. Now you have three points which define a plane, which has exponentially more possible variation than a line.
Arnulf Ogunkoya
Clan Ogunkoya
Electus Matari
#411 - 2013-06-20 18:44:02 UTC
In response to Taleden's ideas about cargo expanders.

How about keeping the expansion as it is now, but making the hold specialised for a particular type of cargo depending on the expander used?

Also, how about a low slot module to convert part of the cargo bay into a drone bay for setting up Q ships? Possibly a use for all that extra CPU?

Regards, Arnulf Ogunkoya.

Ersahi Kir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#412 - 2013-06-20 19:09:42 UTC
I'm a little disappointed now because my amarr alt finished training amarr industrial 5 a couple months ago, and now it's the new hotness.

I don't want to be a spaceship hipster who says they were flying bestowers before it was cool.

GDI CCP!
Spugg Galdon
Last Rites.
Villore Accords
#413 - 2013-06-20 19:12:53 UTC
Rise,

My problem with your proposal is that it seems very limited. You've picked only two roles when there is clearly room for more.

Diversity is the spice of life after all and I'm sure it wouldn't be that much of an effort to turn a few of the haulers into slightly different models to fill the gaps. I would even be happy to wait until the art assets are in place before this ship balance pass happens.

My proposal would be that each race has 5 industrials. These would be:

1) Fast with small hold and little tank
2) fast with very small hold little tank and some kind of smuggler bonus
3) Heavy tank with moderate cargo hold but slow
4) Massive cargo hold with light tank and slow
5) specialist with moderate tank and slow

I would see it looking like this:

Amarr:

Sigil: 5% bonus to agility, +1AU's/ second max warp velocity per level (small cargo limited tank)
Sigil MkII: 5% bonus to agility, 10% reduction in chance to be caught with contraband per level (very small cargo limited tank)
Bestower: 4% armour resists 5% cargo hold (moderate cargo poor agility)
Bestower MkII: 10% cargo hold (double bonus) [Massive cargo light tank]
A New Ship: 4% armour resists, 5% Ore/Ice/Gas hold (can fit Mining Foreman Links)

Caldari:

Badger: 5% bonus to agility, +1AU's/ second max warp velocity per level (small cargo limited tank)
Badger MkII: 5% bonus to agility, 10% reduction in chance to be caught with contraband per level (very small cargo limited tank)
Badger MkIII: 4% shield resists 5% cargo hold (moderate cargo poor agility)
Badger MkIV: 10% cargo hold (double bonus) [Massive cargo light tank]
Badger MkV: 4% shield resists, 5% Ore/Ice/Gas hold (can fit Mining Foreman Links)

Gallente:

Iteron MkI: 5% bonus to agility, +1AU's/ second max warp velocity per level (small cargo limited tank)
Iteron MkII: 5% bonus to agility, 10% reduction in chance to be caught with contraband per level (very small cargo limited tank)
Iteron MkIII: 10% Structure HP, 5% cargo hold (moderate cargo poor agility)
Iteron MkIV: 7.5% armour repair amount, 5% Ore/Ice/Gas hold (can fit Mining Foreman Links)
Iteron MkV: 10% cargo hold (double bonus) [Massive cargo light tank]

Minmatar:

Wreathe: 5% bonus to agility, +1AU's/ second max warp velocity per level (small cargo limited tank)
Wreathe MkII: 5% bonus to agility, 10% reduction in chance to be caught with contraband per level (very small cargo limited tank)
Hoarder: 10% reduction in signature radius, 5% cargo hold (moderate cargo poor agility)
Hoarder MkII: 7.5% Shield Boost amount, 5% Ore/Ice/Gas hold (can fit Mining Foreman Links)
Mammoth: 10% cargo hold (double bonus) [Massive cargo light tank]

That is my industry ship dream above. Balance slots and fitting your own way but that's what I'd love to see.
Unforgiven Storm
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#414 - 2013-06-20 19:28:49 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Hey guys

(...)

Finally a quick note on "special bays" (...) 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 solution is simple, they must be removed from the current races they belong and given to the Interbus. A new skill book is necessary » Interbus Industrial.

Later when there is time and effort the CCP Art Department changes the hulls. For now just change the skins with some new colors to reflect the new owners.

Unforgiven Storm for CSM 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13. (If I don't get in in the next 5 years I will quit trying) :-)

darmwand
Repo.
#415 - 2013-06-20 19:35:13 UTC  |  Edited by: darmwand
After some more thinking I'm wondering whether it wouldn't make more sense to embrace the differences between the ships rather than try to get rid of them. I.e. at the moment there are about a dozen different t1 industrials - why not make each of them unique?

Thanks to the new skill requirements it only takes a few minutes to train for any t1 industrial and even a non-industrialist like myself can think of lots of different ways in which the hulls could be specialized. Obvious things like cargo bay size, agility, (warp) speed come to mind, but maybe it would make sense to do completely different things, eg. have an industrial with +1 warp core strength (basically a mini DST)? Maybe an AFK ship that warps 1km closer to the jump gate per level? A mini freighter that's dead slow to align but has a massive hull? An anti-tackle industrial for, say, low-sec PI that comes with a bonus on ECM, a small drone bay and enough high slots to fit a bunch of neuts? Maybe a hull with a bonus on sig radius when fitting a shield buffer? A mini blockade runner that can't be scanned (but also can't warp with a cloak)?

Now sure, personally I like my Industrials slow and defenseless, ideally sitting at 0 on a customs office, but it would be a shame to waste all those hulls by making them all basically the same and not knowing what to use the other hulls for.

Or of course you could focus on re-painting the Navy Comet. Just saying...

Edit: Ah, and if you really think the different racial industrial skills put some people at a disadvantage, remove them. Make all the t1 industrials use a generic "ORE Industrial" skill, similar to mining barges which all look like Gallente ships. Maybe the empires have made a treaty to standardize industrial ship controls?

"The pen is mightier than the sword if the sword is very short, and the pen is very sharp."

Zaxix
State War Academy
Caldari State
#416 - 2013-06-20 20:08:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Zaxix
Perhaps the solution is go back and look at the basic concept of "roles" within the hauler class. The ones proposed are more suited to PvP concepts than hauling ones. Looking back through some of the replies in the thread (sorry I just don't have time to read them all) I see some pretty interesting ideas.

How about classifying them on their actual hauling role?

Rock/Ice Hauler -- along the lines of the mining ships, minimal cargo room, big ore bay; basic fitting attributes

Long Haul -- med cargo hold; focus on escape/evasion, so warp core stab/agility; excellent fitting attributes; this would be the T1 DST (give T2 DST more evasive/warp stab in later balancing)

Smuggler -- small cargo hold, best agility, unscannable hold, increased warp speed; good fitting attributes; this is the T1 BR

This way the pilot decides what he wants based on what type of hauling it's used for. There is every reason to use more than one, rather than just the "big hauler" with cloak/mwd. The unscannable trait incentivizes its use for high value items or drugs. The ore bay gives the average, most common hauler what he actually needs and nothing he doesn't. The long hauler gets true escape and evasion, but can't hide what he's doing. As a bonus, you can extend the special bay concept for your promotions and unique ship purposes. PI haulers (a la the much maligned primae), trading goods haulers, PLEX haulers :P, whatever.

You can still do all the other types of balancing, but the focus here is on the cargo, which is the primary job of any hauler.

I'd still like to hear the logic behind the cargo bay changes. There has to be something that it's based on. Also, still curious about how this all affects freighters.

edit: there is also another way to think about the rock hauler. Think of how cool it would be to have a venture/rock hauler fleet for losec/nosec/WH. Give it similar stats and purpose.

Bokononist

 

Abla Tive
#417 - 2013-06-20 20:09:22 UTC
If you are in a hole and want to get out, first stop digging.

Don't do the T1 industrial changes, then update Industry and mining and
then find out one of your basic components (generic small scale hauling) is now borked.

Why waste all this opportunity by making cookie cutter ships?
Zaxix
State War Academy
Caldari State
#418 - 2013-06-20 20:10:04 UTC
Abla Tive wrote:
If you are in a hole and want to get out, first stop digging.

Don't do the T1 industrial changes, then update Industry and mining and
then find out one of your basic components (generic small scale hauling) is now borked.

Why waste all this opportunity by making cookie cutter ships?

Interesting point

Bokononist

 

Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#419 - 2013-06-20 20:24:57 UTC
Spugg Galdon wrote:
Rise,

My problem with your proposal is that it seems very limited. You've picked only two roles when there is clearly room for more.

Diversity is the spice of life after all and I'm sure it wouldn't be that much of an effort to turn a few of the haulers into slightly different models to fill the gaps. I would even be happy to wait until the art assets are in place before this ship balance pass happens.

My proposal would be that each race has 5 industrials. These would be:

1) Fast with small hold and little tank
2) fast with very small hold little tank and some kind of smuggler bonus
3) Heavy tank with moderate cargo hold but slow
4) Massive cargo hold with light tank and slow
5) specialist with moderate tank and slow

I would see it looking like this:

Amarr:

Sigil: 5% bonus to agility, +1AU's/ second max warp velocity per level (small cargo limited tank)
Sigil MkII: 5% bonus to agility, 10% reduction in chance to be caught with contraband per level (very small cargo limited tank)
Bestower: 4% armour resists 5% cargo hold (moderate cargo poor agility)
Bestower MkII: 10% cargo hold (double bonus) [Massive cargo light tank]
A New Ship: 4% armour resists, 5% Ore/Ice/Gas hold (can fit Mining Foreman Links)

Caldari:

Badger: 5% bonus to agility, +1AU's/ second max warp velocity per level (small cargo limited tank)
Badger MkII: 5% bonus to agility, 10% reduction in chance to be caught with contraband per level (very small cargo limited tank)
Badger MkIII: 4% shield resists 5% cargo hold (moderate cargo poor agility)
Badger MkIV: 10% cargo hold (double bonus) [Massive cargo light tank]
Badger MkV: 4% shield resists, 5% Ore/Ice/Gas hold (can fit Mining Foreman Links)

Gallente:

Iteron MkI: 5% bonus to agility, +1AU's/ second max warp velocity per level (small cargo limited tank)
Iteron MkII: 5% bonus to agility, 10% reduction in chance to be caught with contraband per level (very small cargo limited tank)
Iteron MkIII: 10% Structure HP, 5% cargo hold (moderate cargo poor agility)
Iteron MkIV: 7.5% armour repair amount, 5% Ore/Ice/Gas hold (can fit Mining Foreman Links)
Iteron MkV: 10% cargo hold (double bonus) [Massive cargo light tank]

Minmatar:

Wreathe: 5% bonus to agility, +1AU's/ second max warp velocity per level (small cargo limited tank)
Wreathe MkII: 5% bonus to agility, 10% reduction in chance to be caught with contraband per level (very small cargo limited tank)
Hoarder: 10% reduction in signature radius, 5% cargo hold (moderate cargo poor agility)
Hoarder MkII: 7.5% Shield Boost amount, 5% Ore/Ice/Gas hold (can fit Mining Foreman Links)
Mammoth: 10% cargo hold (double bonus) [Massive cargo light tank]

That is my industry ship dream above. Balance slots and fitting your own way but that's what I'd love to see.

Your suggestion makes too much sense and would actually require small effort rather than quick number tweaks Twisted
Spugg Galdon
Last Rites.
Villore Accords
#420 - 2013-06-20 20:39:34 UTC
Johnson Oramara wrote:
Spugg Galdon wrote:
Rise,
Stuff I said

Your suggestion makes too much sense and would actually require small effort rather than quick number tweaks Twisted


Then hit the bloody "like" button!