These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Nicola Arman
Deep Maw Salvage
#621 - 2013-06-22 22:44:40 UTC
Alara IonStorm
#622 - 2013-06-22 22:45:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Alara IonStorm
Kobea Thris wrote:
Out of curiosity, would it be so bad to give Industrials the grid and armor/shields/structure of t1 cruisers, along with more turret and launcher slots? They still wouldn't have any combat bonuses but they could be fit to fight if their owner chose to do so. I'm thinking it might be kind of fun to have a ship like the Galaxy from the original Privateer.

I have that thought in a Thread I made a while back.

Thoughts on a Proposal for the Tiericide of the Industrial Ship Class.

Basically the idea was to give a role to each Industrial and make the Cargo Expanders less important in their fits. One of which is an Armed Merchant shipfor self defense that doubled as the tank ship too. It has the lowest Cargo and about the attack / defense of a T1 Cruiser with the speed and sig rad of Battlecruisers. So not a ship you would want as your first choice compared to fast cruisers or Heavily Armed Battlecruisers but good for defense of Cargo.


I also wanted their hull price increased to the cost of ships around that size. I still think they should be priced around T1 Cruiser cost.

Basically it worked like this. Base Cargo is expanded to near full and Cargo Expanders relegated to small increases on non Cargo Ships.

T1

1. Small Fast and Agile with fitting for a prop mod. Lowest cargo and tank.
2. Bulk, largest cargo moderate tank, no fitting for prop mod.
3. Defended either by large tank or moderate tank and weapons.

T2

As is.

Freighter

Light Freighter
Normal Freighter
Ship Carrier

Orca

ORE centric. Light Freighter and Ship Carrier taking over its non ORE roles.
iskflakes
#623 - 2013-06-22 22:59:14 UTC
These changes seem very unimaginative.

The iterons 2,3 and 4 could be given specialist roles such as PI, Ore and Fuel haulers.

There is no such thing as racial imbalance. Everybody can fly every race of ship, and these industrials are not more than a few hours away from anybody.

All industrials are still inferior to the orca in terms of tank, utility and cargo capacity. Their only advantage is the low cost, but what happened to cost not being a balancing factor?

-

Silivar Karkun
Doomheim
#624 - 2013-06-22 23:00:42 UTC
Alara IonStorm wrote:
Kobea Thris wrote:
Out of curiosity, would it be so bad to give Industrials the grid and armor/shields/structure of t1 cruisers, along with more turret and launcher slots? They still wouldn't have any combat bonuses but they could be fit to fight if their owner chose to do so. I'm thinking it might be kind of fun to have a ship like the Galaxy from the original Privateer.

I have that thought in a Thread I made a while back.

Thoughts on a Proposal for the Tiericide of the Industrial Ship Class.

Basically the idea was to give a role to each Industrial and make the Cargo Expanders less important in their fits. One of which is an Armed Merchant shipfor self defense that doubled as the tank ship too. It has the lowest Cargo and about the attack / defense of a T1 Cruiser with the speed and sig rad of Battlecruisers. So not a ship you would want as your first choice compared to fast cruisers or Heavily Armed Battlecruisers but good for defense of Cargo.

I also wanted their hull price increased to the cost of ships around that size. I still think they should be priced around T1 Cruiser cost.


pasted a comment made by someone in that thread:

Better System

Standard

- Bulk = Current Industrial Type with slow speed, low Tank and a heavy load.
- Speed = Faster Hauling and hard to catch in Low Sec
- Defended = Harder to Kill by Gank when tanked or kill in small ships

Advanced

- Blockade Runner = Invisisble
- Deep Space Transport =Bulk Hauler that is also Tanked and has Warp Strength.

Capital

- Light Freighter = Larger but not massive loads
- Freighter = Massive Loads

Advance Capital

- Jump Freighter = Middle Ground Cargo with ability to Jump.

More options at lower skill, more options in general, more ships for different roles. That is what Tieracide is. Make ships like these and people will use them 100%, if you don't use the new ones fine you won't really be affected from current Industrials except maybe by the Orca change to make it more ORE Centric but they don't have to do that if it proves unpopular.
Taggs Corhan
Crimson Reavers
#625 - 2013-06-22 23:08:22 UTC
There is tremendous opportunity being missed here.

First, there is no reason to shadow a fleet in anything but a cloaky hauler. One cloaky hauler can carry enough supplies to resupply a 150 ship null sec fleet between engagements.


The opportunity being missed here, is the opportunity to give industrial ships an actual ROLE in the game beyond 'moving goods'

Look at modern fleets, they are shadowed and followed by fuel tankers, cargo-frigates etc, all to keep them supplied on their campaigns.

Its been well established, repeatedly, that the choice of tanky but mid cargo vs slow, big cargo and paper tank, is entirely in favor of the latter in highsec. No one, absolutely no one, wants to make multiple trips to do the same job.

Rather than have all ships be materiel movers, why not give industrialists a role in the overreaching aspect of eve? Want a reason to take a hauler into low/null that isn't a cloaky hauler? Give it the ability to repair modules from heat damage, give it the tank to survive a passing glance or even focused glance by combattants while its on the field with the rest of its gang.


You can make the
minmitar/Caldari 'Gang support' wreath and badger with module repair and capability to carry some ammo etc. Doesn't have to have a huge cargo bay either, just 3k or so.

Amarr/Gallente 'gang support' iteron and sigil, capable of restocking drone bays, and repairing drones, again with small cargo holds for general resupply. These would have a large drone bay, but no bandwidth/capability to launch.


Amarr/Caldari/Minmitar/Galente - Materiel mover. Large cargo holds, 40km3 with no capability for expansion, capable of moving fully fit/rigged ships. As a sacrafice, they would not be able to fit secure cans at all.

Amarr/Caldari/Minmitar/Galente - Cargo hauler. Same as your current no-tank, max capacity haulers, only maybe a bit larger.

Amarr/Caldari/Minmitar/Galente - Smuggler Hauler. No matter how 'good' each race may claim to be, they all have use for black ops, or moving someting that one of the other empires views as illegal, or as high value to steal/commondeer. These haulers would have 10k-ish m3 cargo holds fast align time, almost no tank, and a bonus to cargo scanner scan-time duration (scanners targetting it take longer to scan, give the same results) This has the added bonus of making rigs that reduce that scan time more attractive.

This means only one gallente hull is unused, and amarr and caldari need two new hulls. An altered sigil and bestower, and a bustard reskin with an altered (more antinnaes?

A bulet may have your name on it, but shrapnel is addressed 'to whom it may concern'.

A nuke is addressed to 'Current Resident'

Mag's
Azn Empire
#626 - 2013-06-22 23:17:16 UTC
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss?

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Alara IonStorm
#627 - 2013-06-22 23:19:17 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss?

- eight minutes of my life now.
Atlanti IV
Galactic Conglomerate
#628 - 2013-06-23 00:21:20 UTC
Maximus Andendare wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
I think the real problem here is that because we're putting any time into these ships, you guys want them to pop with something new. In the past, their flavor mostly was based on their art along with some quirks like having 5 Gallente indies or battle Badgers. On the whole haulers are just not very exciting compared to a lot of other classes in EVE. I can understand you want something new to make them pop more, but please keep in mind that it was never there to begin with. These ships mostly just carry stuff around for cheap, that's what they do. The purpose of this balance is just to make sure that there is some depth of choice and that each race has access to a cheap ship to carry things around that isn't painfully worse than the Itty 5.

On flavor generally... I think the word is used in so many different ways that I'm not even sure how to answer. I think Fozzie and I are really focused on mechanics that lead to interesting gameplay. I can't speak for him, but I think that "flavor" often emerges as a result of good design, or is intentionally added to lead to interesting play. We both care about it, especially in EVE. On top of that, we don't do anything alone, and there's plenty of people in the department who are extremely concerned about story, history, and aesthetic to make sure that I don't do anything too disruptive. These people played a hugely important part in decisions around the industrials.

I've typed a lot of text walls today =P
Well, if I can counter the bolded statement, it almost sounds as if you're suggesting that because you're putting *some* effort into it, we should just be satisfied with the bone we've been thrown. I couldn't disagree more. You've admitted that the industrial lines have never "popped," and that their purpose is to haul stuff cheaply. Nobody is suggesting otherwise. We (meaning the many posters who've passionately made the various suggestions) are merely advocating that there is room for innovation here, and if you're going to go through the trouble of rebalancing this line--not as some sort of afterthought or half-hearted effort--then you ought to give it the same attention you'd give any other line.

You could have argued that Mining Barges were boring and only served to suck up asteroids at the fastest rate. You could have buffed Barges' respective rock-sucking amounts and left it at that. But you didn't. You innovated on a line that could have used some help, and the results have been fantastic.

It's the same treatment we're asking for here, because, look, we all get that Industrials won't be even on the list after these changes are made. So give them a proper balance now, and have them pop. Give them the Mining Barge treatment where one can actually tank something (~50k ehp) to stop mindless ganks, make one really fast for afk, low-value hauls and make one enormously capable of carrying goods for the high sec bold or for those that live safely deep in the back reaches of space.

The "flavor" of the lines--at least as I understand it, since there isn't "traditional" flavor by optimal range or tracking, etc.--is how slick it can do its job. Is it engaging to have a ship that has a huge cargo bay? Is it satisfying to fly that boat when I need to pick up my daily haul? Does it feel good knowing that when I undock my Hoarder it'll actually survive the random ganking dessie? It can.

If you don't take the opportunity to innovate now, then it'll still be just a matter of who holds the most and train that--look how this has worked out historically: The Itty V carried the most, and it was trained into the most for haulers. The Covetor/Hulk sucked rocks the most, thus it was skilled into the most for this. In fact, in every instance where a ship did "the most," it was trained into and flown extensively until tiericide came along (Hurricane?). With the proposed changes, admittedly you're looking for viable choices, so as not to have them all marginalized, but it almost sounds like you don't want competitive choices. As players we like competitive choices and decision making. Adding flavor to the industrial line gives that--true choice with pros and cons to each.

CCP Rise wrote:
Maybe it could/should be, but again, I don't think this rebalance is the place to start, which is why we decided to hold off on anything drastic until we get a better sense for where industry in general is heading.
I'm sorry, but I'm not content with holding off on the future promises when the issues facing Industrial rebalance can be addressed today. Besides, it's not worth being complacent today, since this is THE chance we'll get to innovate. Obviously, we haven't seen behind the candelabra and know what future industrial changes are coming. All we can speak to is what we know the Industrial line can--and should become now and not some future balancing period.

Lastly, just to address the point that T1 Industrials are effectively replacing DSTs' role as a "large" high sec hauler, I'd like to say that DSTs are horrendously broken at the current time. They perform poorly as tanky haulers, considering that their cargo bay is smaller than a blockade runner when properly--read: as intended--tanked, and they're far too slow to align when fully fitted for cargo for high sec duty. The Orca--the world's premier mining support ship--does their job better in spades, having an enormous hold AND a ridiculous tank. Certainly, the changes to T1 Industrials' cargo room is warranted (with other changes, to be sure) and their impact on a broken T2 line should never be considered. If that were the case, T1 cruisers would never have ended up so well if Fozzie and his team were worried they'd marginalize proper T2 ships (Deimos says hello).


^^^ This right here
Xer Jin
XER'S LONE SOLOS CLUB
#629 - 2013-06-23 00:58:22 UTC
Dr Ted Kaper
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#630 - 2013-06-23 02:10:05 UTC
If you have not read the mittani yet there was a good suggestion about this topic...
Dr Ted Kaper
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#631 - 2013-06-23 02:10:50 UTC
Xer Jin wrote:
http://themittani.com/features/industrial-homogenization-vs-meaningful-choices?page=0%2C0

There it is was wondering who was gonna say it
Maximus Andendare
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#632 - 2013-06-23 02:31:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Maximus Andendare
I didn't want to be another one of the posters to link to the TMC article, since I've already made my feelings known and offered suggestions in this thread here, but it's a fantastic summation of the issues facing the Industrial rebalance, and CCP if you haven't--but I'm reasonably sure you have--take a moment to read through it.

And then step back from that ledge, my friend.

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

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

Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#633 - 2013-06-23 02:59:09 UTC
Would someone please tell me the need for the badger 2 to have more CPU than a titan? Even though I find it immensely hilarious, I still fail to see the practical application of this.
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#634 - 2013-06-23 03:24:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Alvatore DiMarco
Catherine Laartii wrote:
Would someone please tell me the need for the badger 2 to have more CPU than a titan? Even though I find it immensely hilarious, I still fail to see the practical application of this.


For the Winter Expansion, they're releasing an Industrial Doomsday Device. Just don't tell anyone, okay?
Behnid Arcani
The Lucky Rogers
#635 - 2013-06-23 03:57:03 UTC
Tobias Hareka wrote:
Behnid Arcani wrote:
Very disappointing. Why don't you play with the warp speeds? Seems like an obvious way to make variations. Some zip across space but carry little


Those are called Blockade Runners (T2, transport ship).

Quote:
some tank better than an orca, but don't carry as much and fly slow.


So, pretty much like current deep space transports (T2, transport ship) but a lot more EHP? What you're asking here is T1 ship with more than 300k EHP that isn't a capital. No, thank you.

Quote:
Some carry more than an orca, but don't have much tank at all


Already in game. Those are called freighters.


But even zipping across space has many variations. You can play with base speeds, align times, and warp speeds. That's 3 specialties right there. You could even give an Indy an afterburner, or MWD bonus. There's more than one answer here.

Tanking better doesn't just come down to EHP. Lower sig radii, active boosting, and maybe even speed tanking are options. The Millennium Falcon could take a few hits from a Star Destroyer, but it's real advantage was it's speed and slim profile. There's more than one answer here too.

I'll take your point on the freighter though. Since they're around, do we really need an indy to be specialized into having the biggest hold it can? Probably not, so lets give it something else to do.

Making industrials varied also makes life more fun for the ganker. They'll have to change their tactics depending on the hauler they want to catch. Give industrials a tactic beyond cloaking, and you might actually see them in low sec. And low sec needs it's trade lines fixed.
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#636 - 2013-06-23 04:05:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Alvatore DiMarco
I believe the point of an industrial having the biggest hold it can is something along the lines of..

"I need to move a bunch of stuff around but it's not enough to justify the fat slow pig that is a freighter".

or

"I need to move stuff to market but the market's too out-of-the-way for a freighter and it's through four jumps of lowsec besides".
TheSmokingHertog
Julia's Interstellar Trade Emperium
#637 - 2013-06-23 04:37:30 UTC
Due to some tech problems, I did not see this discussion, until featured on the Mittani.

As someone who hauls daily in an iteron V, I really dislike some of the changes to that ship. Really since I still dont like that I put a training time to LVL V gallente industrial for several of my characters. Besides that I use a tracktorbeam II and a salvager II to get some juce on gates while autopiloting. Now I lost 1 such slot, it really makes a difference.

Then, tanking an iteron V is not a must, but protecting a business is. A tanked iteron does survive a lot of ganks, dont underestimate the art of flying valuable stuff in space, a lot, with tank and a uge hold. Changing the align time adds a lot to this risks. And having to crosstrain agains for a 700m^3 advantage, does not sounds great ;).

Specializing holds would have my support, that sounds like a good way to differentiate between the races.

"Dogma is kind of like quantum physics, observing the dogma state will change it." ~ CCP Prism X

"Schrödinger's Missile. I dig it." ~ Makari Aeron

-= "Brain in a Box on Singularity" - April 2015 =-

Dave Stark
#638 - 2013-06-23 05:01:53 UTC
Utremi Fasolasi wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
when was the last time you saw an orca undock? see? specialised bays are fine, if they are of a size to be useful.


Orcas have a much higher skill point investment though than T1 haulers, and are much much much more expensive.


an orca at industrial command ship I is a lower investment than a racial industrial at V, as has been pointed out, and still gives you an orca with far more capability than any t1 industrial.

and again, since when was price a balancing factor? i also don't think "but a t1 industrial is cheap" is a good excuse for it to be good at nothing in comparison to a ship that's primary role isn't hauling.
Dave Stark
#639 - 2013-06-23 05:04:08 UTC
Utremi Fasolasi wrote:
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Utremi Fasolasi wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
when was the last time you saw an orca undock? see? specialised bays are fine, if they are of a size to be useful.


Orcas have a much higher skill point investment though than T1 haulers, and are much much much more expensive.


17 days to sit in an Orca with a full sized Ore bay.

26 days to sit in a fully skilled Itty 5. without the cargo bay boosts and rigs. (call it 27 days to get fully sized that way)


How many days to earn 700-800 million isk, and keep the rule of not flying what you can't afford to lose?


1, there's a wonderful thing called plex.
Ranamar
Nobody in Local
Of Sound Mind
#640 - 2013-06-23 05:28:35 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Ranamar wrote:
You can't make it too dramatic (say, >10% top-to-bottom), though, or we're back to the Iteron V problem.


you mean the very issue that will exist between the bestower and badger mk2 since the bestower will have 11.47% more cargo space than the bestower?
and if you skip amarr industrial V the bestower still has 7% more cargo than the badger and take significantly less training time.


I'll concede I made the number up without considering it closely. I had gotten distracted by the people whining over the fact that the Bestower would now be 2% better than the Iteron V.

Has anyone done a tank analysis to determine if the more capacious Badger can tank 10% better than the Bestower can? (Of course, it might be moot if you can't actually get to the next alpha breakpoint...)