These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Dave Stark
#641 - 2013-06-23 05:37:28 UTC
Ranamar wrote:
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...)


i can't say i have done that calculation, but then again i think it's safe to assume it will because the badger's role is to tank and the bestower's is to be big and haul lots of stuff.
Coriele Calec
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#642 - 2013-06-23 07:20:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Coriele Calec
Dave Stark 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.


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.
Since we need a noobhauler, something a brand new player can step out of the tutorial with and get to hauling, then price has to be factor somewhere. There needs to be a cheap T1 hauler to serve as a entry for new players or a low investment way of relocating a loot stash. Price has to be a balancing factor at some point.

There's just absolutely no reason why all T1 industrials have to fit the noobhauler role, and using the Venture as an example, there's no reason why the noobhauler can't have interesting quirks that still gives it a use beyond the noobship role.


(Its also important to note that price is a different type of balancing factor when it comes to hauling than it is in general combat. If I pop into a Caracal instead of a Tengu for a fleet engagement, I've put a very clear ceiling on my maximum loss if I lose that Caracal. Hauling doesn't work that way - if I want to move 10k m^3 worth 500 million then minimizing my potential loses by using a T1 industrial instead of a T2 makes no sense, because the expected loss goes up, not down, when I travel through Niarja in the T1.)
Ranamar
Nobody in Local
Of Sound Mind
#643 - 2013-06-23 08:19:46 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Ranamar wrote:
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...)


i can't say i have done that calculation, but then again i think it's safe to assume it will because the badger's role is to tank and the bestower's is to be big and haul lots of stuff.


I wrote unclearly... I actually meant the Badger Mk. II.

Here's the math, as I see it:
80 grid +25% gets us 100 grid.
MSE II is 23.3 PWG with max skills... let's call it 24 and split the difference with the level 4 PWG cost of 24.8

... actually, the fittings haven't changed from before. I'm going to cheat and compare the current Badger II's tank to the current Bestower's tank, if you fill both of their lows with cargo expanders.

You can't fit MWDs on them, so I went with ABs just to give a bit of get-up-and-go as it is. You can sort of do the MWD trick with an AB, but it doesn't work nearly as well. Then, I filled the Badger II in with 3xinvul and 2xMSE, while the Bestower gets 2xinvul and 1xMSE. These aren't perfect, but I was feeling lazy. If you trade out the AB for a

It turns out that the existing Badger II can tank twice as hard as the existing Bestower... for all of 10k-13k EHP. (which is basically irrelevant, as I understand it) That's ... impressive, if possibly somewhat of a booby prize. Also, the Badger is gaining shields (which is where its resist stacking is), while the rest all have about half its shields.

Okay, I'm sold. Can we make "tanky" the Caldari Industrial "thing" by making even the spacious one able to have half a chance of surviving a suicide gank? It can align like a brick, and I'm likely to complain someday that it's still gimped on cargo, but give the Caldari slow- and less-slow- aligning haulers that force people to bring an extra ship worth of alpha to suicide gank... Minmatar can do align times, Amarr can provide lowslots for flexibility or something, and Gallente can be second best but close at everything. The one problem is, it looks like the Badger II might get overshadowed by the "almost as tanky" Iteron V and, for that matter, the Mammoth. (Running the numbers with cargo rigs, it starts to look like the Badger is the only one that is guaranteed to survive a single Tornado's alpha. That seems like a good break point.)

The basic Badger is an entirely different can of worms, what with its power grid that can fit a MWD or a single LSE and having 80% of attack cruiser shields. The other ones barely match up in tankability, although that could still be 80% of the other races' attack cruiser shields, but I still expect that set to be underused because 20k EHP is still only 2 Tornados.
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
#644 - 2013-06-23 08:28:15 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
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.


How many days to earn 800 million ISK. It varies from pilot to pilot. I say about twenty-eight hours roughly.

If you are going to do justice to the Orca a lot more training than that needs to be done in the 'Leadership' category.

" They're gonna feel pretty stupid when they find out. " Rick. " Find out what ? " Abraham. " They're screwing with the wrong people. " Rick. Season four.   ' The Walking Dead. ' .

Indahmawar Fazmarai
#645 - 2013-06-23 08:30:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Indahmawar Fazmarai


I second that.

Also, this comment:

Quote:
You could have:
- a hauler dedicated to cargo
- a hauler dedicated to velocity (very good for autopiloting)
- a hauler dedicated to warp speed (very good to move around active)
- a hauler dedicated to agility (very good for moving stuff in dangerous areas/warping before being scanned)
- a hauler able to fit a cloak and a mwd to use the trick. Probably at the expanse of other stats.
- a hauler dedicated to passive tanking (good if you expect to be scanned and want to be able to carry a bit more without being interesting to gank)
- a hauler dedicated to ore carrying (would help new miners a lot, I think)
- a hauler with a small but noticeable ship hangar (for moving some small ships around or to be used as a very small base for frigates, for example).
- a hauler with a corp hangar (cool to resupply allies on a fight, for example with bombs or cap boosters, no need to drop them inspace anymore).


Not necessarily this array of choices, but that's the spirit. Have four races, four race-specific ways to deal with hauling + 1 racial entry-level noob hauler + 4 Jack-of-all-trades.

Shrinking 12 ship types to 4 fast, 4 big and 4 useless looks like iterating for the sake of iteration.
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#646 - 2013-06-23 09:35:39 UTC
Some of the suggestions so far about increased diversity through giving roles unrelated to hauling are pretty gimmicky and miss the point of the ship class - Battle Haulers are funny and sometimes effective because nobody expects a hauler to be PvP fit and so they blunder into neut/scram range, if you give it ewar or damage bonuses then all you have is a bad combat ship that people know what to expect from.

My main recommendation would be splitting the existing haulers mostly into one of 3 niches, rather than just 2. I'm not sure that speed and EHP need to be merged into 1 hull as is currently the proposal, since there will be times when a player wants to haul quickly and other times when a player wants to haul (relatively) securely, and it reduces niche options for no particular reason.

So give each hull one of three roles: cargospace, EHP, or speed/agility.

Amarr:
Sigil: Excellent EHP, mediocre cargospace, mediocre speed/agility
Bestower: Excellent cargospace, mediocre EHP, medocre speed/agility

Caldari:
Badger Mk1: Excellent speed/agility, mediocre EHP, mediocre cargospace
Badger Mk 2: Excellent cargospace, mediocre EHP, mediocre speed/agility

Now since the Minmatar have 3 hulls this allows them one hull to excel in each of the three roles, so to compensate, each hull has to be below average in one of the other two roles:

Minmatar:
Wreathe: Excellent speed/agility, mediocre EHP, poor cargospace
Hoarder: Excellent EHP, mediocre cargospace, poor speed/agility
Mammoth: Excellent cargospace, mediocre speed/agility, poor EHP

And since Gallente have 5 hulls, we need to follow the same pattern as the Minmatar for three of them. The remaining two are a little awkward, but can be given a compromise dual role at the expense of the third:

Iteron I: Excellent agility, mediocre EHP, poor cargospace
Iteron II: Good agility, good EHP, terrible cargospace
Iteron III: Excellent EHP, mediocre cargospace, poor speed/agility
Iteron IV: Good EHP, Good cargospace, terrible speed/agility
Iteron V: Excellent cargospace, mediocre agility, poor EHP

I'm also unconvinced about some of the slot layouts suggested in this proposal, since they would appear to allow too much flexibility in circumventing the supposed role of these hulls. For example the Badger Mk2, supposedly a cargo option with poor EHP, has 6 midslots to fit a shield buffer into and you have raised the base shield hitpoints too! While it doesn't have the grid to squeeze LSEs into these slots (at least not without using reactor controls or ACR rigs which would compromise the cargo capacity) it is already possible to get a respectable shield buffer from a Badger 2 just from the midslots. If you want these hulls to actually stick in the roles you've designated for them, you need to restrict the slot layouts more.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.

Freelancer117
So you want to be a Hero
#647 - 2013-06-23 10:14:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Freelancer117
thanks for making the battle badger better Cool

but the rest of the ships seem so bland, place use your mighty pie in the sky skills CCP for making less bland stuff.

edit: smart call to listen to the players to make the Mammoth and not he hoarder into the largest Minmatar hauler

Eve online is :

A) mining simulator B) glorified chatroom C) spreadsheets online

D) CCP Games Pay to Win at skill leveling, with instant gratification

http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg

http://bit.ly/1egr4mF

Dave Stark
#648 - 2013-06-23 10:28:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
Ranamar wrote:
rather nice post about the badger's tank and stuff.


granted that the badger mk2 may have the better tank, but if you're needing to move volume how often is it that ~35k m3 of stuff is actually going to be worth enough to gank? if it's a reasonably high value relative to it's m3 then it makes no sense to put it in a t1 industrial instead of a blockade runner, or a freighter, or an orca or something that isn't made out of paper. if i read your post correctly even the "tanky" hauler only gets ~20k ehp? c'mon, barges have that much ehp and are ganked daily just for the fun of it, now imagine if some one actually wanted you dead for the loot and actually put a bit of effort in to it.

so what we have, are some haulers that can't match up to the bestower's cargo in a meaningful way except perhaps the iteron V and those will only be flown by people who have already trained gallente industrial V as there's no reason to do so now, and a bunch of "tanky" industrials that are still rather flimsy.

i'm really struggling to find anything in these changes other than "yeah, the bestower is the new king. or, buy an orca"
i wasn't expecting the changes to make industrials super awesome do everything ships, but there isn't even much balance between the ships after the changes. i thought ccp would have learned from what happened with mining barges.


i don't want to be negative about these changes i really don't, and i hope CCP aren't reading my comments as negativity for the sake of negativity but really, the bestower is just the new king of t1 hauling to be honest.
let's look at the facts;

at amarr industrial III the bestower is bigger than the badger mk2 at caldari industrial V, and the mammoth at minmatar industrial IV (that was the appeal of the mammoth, at industrial IV it was a faster train than the itty V and could scoop roughly an entire jetcan making it a good size hauler for minimal SP) and takes less training time than both.

at amarr industrial IV the bestower is bigger than the mammoth at minmatar industrial V for less training time.

finally at amarr industrial V the bestower is bigger than everything.

so really with amarr industrial III you gain access to a freighter, you are only 1.2% smaller than a fully skilled mammoth, and 6.2% smaller than a fully skilled itty V. the bestower is either within an acceptable margin, or just flat out better, than every other t1 industrial of it's role for equal or lesser SP.

i fail to see any reason other than t2 ships, which have yet to be rebalanced, or a fondness for a particular freighter why any one would train any racial industrial skill other than amarr, and there's no real reason to even take that past III
Dave Stark
#649 - 2013-06-23 10:31:14 UTC
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn wrote:
If you are going to do justice to the Orca a lot more training than that needs to be done in the 'Leadership' category.


if you're using your orca as a hauler and nothing else, simply being able to sit in it with industrial command ship I trained is more than adequate.
Lina Miaoke
The Legion of Spoon
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#650 - 2013-06-23 11:12:45 UTC
Are you out of your mind? 8 mid 8 low slot for Iteron, Wreathe, Badger, but 5/7 for Sigil. All that slot is far too many for T1 industrial ship! How could you possibly make T2 variant better than this? 8 High slot as well? Just seem overkill for those ship.

And aren't they backward of blockade runner ships?
Small quick but fragile and cloaky.
Large slow beefy and scram resistance

My head hurts trying to understand your logic.
Eladaris
Indefinite.
#651 - 2013-06-23 13:15:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Eladaris
I have to admit, I haven't read the full thread... but if there's one thing I get from Rise's first post it's "wow, this stuff is boring, woe is me for getting shafted with it, let's do a half-hearted job so I can swap the fun stuff again".

Ultimately any time spent on changing the stats for the "middle" haulers will be wasted, because unless there's a RP reason, they'll likely never be used. And from looking at the math, the Tanky one will never see use either, except for that one really cool one for comedy kill-mails.

CCP really needs to add some creativity to the T1 haulers, so they aren't all fit the same way, or aren't all Itty V's. Or, I guess, post this change, the Amarr one.

Take some of the extra ships, add them to the ORE line-up and make them highly specialized hulls, or hey, push the whole thing back a year until the art team can actually spend a bit of time on new haulers so this bit o' tiercide doesn't feel like such a paint-by-numbers boring mess.

For that matter, give the Iteron line-up the specialized tree, and forget the ORE swap. You can fly any of the Itty's with almost no training time spent so it doesn't matter if they're the grand master's of the hauling line-up. Currently there are valid reasons for flying each race's industrial, and this change looks like it's trying to remove that and make them all boring generic ships.

If you're looking to really rock the boat, set the maximum cargo bay size to something reasonable (what you would expect each ship to carry for it's role), and forbid cargo expanders on the T1 industrials. That way the low slots aren't always a full rack of cargo bays / you have something other than the same damn cookie cutter fit for every T1 industrial regardless of race / and you can get creative with the boats without ruining their job (hauling stuff).

T1 indy's should be something beyond simple stepping stones into T2 / Freighters, or just skipping them entirely for an Orca.
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#652 - 2013-06-23 13:27:52 UTC
Cargo expanders really should be stacking penalised.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.

Taggs Corhan
Crimson Reavers
#653 - 2013-06-23 14:44:54 UTC
and everyone is still stuk on the idea that the only ting to do with an industrial ship is haul things with it. . . . I put forth my suggestion on page 32 once again.

Maybe the devs will look at it and have a bit of inspiration.

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

A nuke is addressed to 'Current Resident'

Vartan Sarkisian
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
#654 - 2013-06-23 15:57:56 UTC
A T1 Indy is a T1 indy really, personally they should all be made obsolete and ORE get involved in the indy making business. There would be a small indy type frigate like the Probe for smallish, fast, indyish type ship. Something like the badger/itty/mammoth etc that holds between 25/30k m3 and then something between these and a freighter. and then a specialised version like a blockade runner. there is no point having so many ships doing a role which is more or less the same, scrap the current ones, design something from scratch and put out something else.
Eladaris
Indefinite.
#655 - 2013-06-23 17:06:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Eladaris
CCP Rise wrote:
Quote:
Echoing the comments about flavor, CCP Rise do you have any comment on the boringness of having to shield tank all inustrials


There is so much wrapped up in this comment that I don't even really know where to start.

I think you're assuming that A: you have to tank industrials (you don't), B: you have to max expand industrials (you don't), and C: industrial flavor is derived from its tank(I don't think it is?).


A: There certainly are endless KM's out there that prove point A very well. B: And yet, you seem to spend time balancing them specifically based on max-expanding them. Pity that's the biggest problem with indy's, and why they're so damn boring. Because they're all fit pretty much exactly the same way. That's the biggest issue, each of your new max-tank ships will be fit pretty much exactly the same way. C: And yet, you seem to have a whole line-up of new industrial's for whom the sole flavor seems to be derived from its tank?

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.


"Hey guys, we're spending time on these ships but they're still pretty damn boring" doesn't really sound like a good selling point to me?

CCP Rise wrote:
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.


Funny, there were always reasons to fly each of the races indy's. It wasn't ALL ITTY V's until you guys nuked the entry requirements.

CCP Rise wrote:
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.


Pity the end results of the decisions were so damn boring? There are lots of interesting things that could be done with these ships by simply saying "Hey, we're stripping the existing cargo configs, replacing them with bays. Go scrap all your cargo expanders and rigs and come up with something nifty". It probably wouldn't be so bad if T2 Indy's weren't going to be the last things on the list... but this is the only attention Indy boats are getting for a while.
Kimimaro Yoga
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#656 - 2013-06-23 17:07:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Kimimaro Yoga
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:

Also, this comment:
Quote:
You could have:
- a hauler dedicated to cargo
- a hauler dedicated to velocity (very good for autopiloting)
- a hauler dedicated to warp speed (very good to move around active)
- a hauler dedicated to agility (very good for moving stuff in dangerous areas/warping before being scanned)
- a hauler able to fit a cloak and a mwd to use the trick. Probably at the expanse of other stats.
- a hauler dedicated to passive tanking (good if you expect to be scanned and want to be able to carry a bit more without being interesting to gank)
- a hauler dedicated to ore carrying (would help new miners a lot, I think)
- a hauler with a small but noticeable ship hangar (for moving some small ships around or to be used as a very small base for frigates, for example).
- a hauler with a corp hangar (cool to resupply allies on a fight, for example with bombs or cap boosters, no need to drop them inspace anymore).


Not necessarily this array of choices, but that's the spirit. Have four races, four race-specific ways to deal with hauling + 1 racial entry-level noob hauler + 4 Jack-of-all-trades.

Shrinking 12 ship types to 4 fast, 4 big and 4 useless looks like iterating for the sake of iteration.

I came over here to make this post, got beat to it.
Look, this doesn't have to be *that* complicated. The basic cheap indy is just a hauler with fairly poor stats. They're given away as part of the career tutorials. The nicer one has best cargo space at high SP (itty), best cargo space at low SP (Bestower), best tank (Badger II), or second-best tank and cargo (Mammoth).

Then you make the Hoarder super-agile, make the itty 2 have small cargo but really fast velocity for people autopiloting with cheap fittings, give the itty 3 an oversiezd ore hold, whatever. Give us options and variety. Eve is all about the options.

This bit directed specifically at CCP Rise: I do not think people are demanding "pop". Rather I think this is about having enough variety in the industrials that people who use them for different reasons would want to fly different ships. Consider:
Hauling large loads
Hauling large loads of ore (very low value per m3)
Hauling small expensive things
Hauling ammo and spare fittings to mission hubs for personal use
Hauling mid-sized loads with low SP
Hauling to lowsec before BRs (think PI, small cargo runs)

Ask yourself, for each of these uses, would the new system have a different ship? Or would most of them end up using the same one? If so, the rebalancing has failed.

Now recruiting: http://dogfacedesign.com/index.php/Recruiting-Posters/recruiting-poster-patr3

Gris X
Scions of Karishal
#657 - 2013-06-23 17:12:57 UTC
Just read about the upcoming changes discussed here... if the haulers could still retain some personalities of their race, that would be a possible differentiation without affecting ehp or any dps...
Caldari hauler with ECM bonuses
Minmatar hauler with stasis bonuses
Amar hauler with energy neutralizes bonuses
Gallente hauler with non fighting drone bays and bandwidth


Ranamar
Nobody in Local
Of Sound Mind
#658 - 2013-06-23 18:12:47 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Ranamar wrote:
rather nice post about the badger's tank and stuff.


granted that the badger mk2 may have the better tank, but if you're needing to move volume how often is it that ~35k m3 of stuff is actually going to be worth enough to gank? if it's a reasonably high value relative to it's m3 then it makes no sense to put it in a t1 industrial instead of a blockade runner, or a freighter, or an orca or something that isn't made out of paper. if i read your post correctly even the "tanky" hauler only gets ~20k ehp? c'mon, barges have that much ehp and are ganked daily just for the fun of it, now imagine if some one actually wanted you dead for the loot and actually put a bit of effort in to it.

[-snip-]

i'm really struggling to find anything in these changes other than "yeah, the bestower is the new king. or, buy an orca"
i wasn't expecting the changes to make industrials super awesome do everything ships, but there isn't even much balance between the ships after the changes. i thought ccp would have learned from what happened with mining barges.

[-more about cargo holds-]


The one high-value, high-volume good that comes to mind is PI products. They can get upwards of 75M ISK per 10k m^3. It's possible that capital parts qualify also, but I have no experience with those and I suspect most of the people making those are savvy and SP-ful enough that they have already trained Orcas.

Anyway, the problem, more so than "the Bestower is the new king" (because I think I might trade that 2% cargo space for the 50% more EHP of an Itty 5 that might at least stop a destroyer... or just trade it for align time on the Bestower) is that the Orca, with 60k hold at skill level and the ability to fit a MWD for accelerated aligning just completely obsoletes all of these ships. Sure, the orca costs about as much as 6 Blockade Runners (at least when I got my BR on my alt...) but it also carries the hold of them, at once, and it has more EHP than the 6 of them put together.

It's possible that the answer should be something to do with T2, but, the Orca really is still the premier highsec hauler, eve with a third of its potential cargo capacity being in the form of an ore bay.
Katsuo Nuruodo
Suddenly Dreadnoughts
#659 - 2013-06-23 18:15:39 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Not wanting to use the leftover 4 haulers is quite a bit different from not knowing what to do with the primary ones.


But, it does seem that you don't know what to do with the primary ones. You're putting 8 ships into 2 roles. Eve isn't about giving all the races practically identical ships, its about giving them different ships that are all viable in their own roles.

You've said before that industrials don't do anything special now, why should they after the rebalance? But that's the thing, there were differences between the race's industrial ships before. With Gallente, you could get the biggest capacity at the cost of the longest training time. With caldari you had a smaller cargo hold, but pvp potential. With minmatar, you had a large cargohold with less training time than gallante. And amarr gave you a fairly large cargohold with even less training time than minmatar.

Now, I realize that you're doing tiericide, getting rid of training time for better ships, but that doesn't mean you should just remove the differences, you should replace the tier differences with some other notable difference. A reason to choose one race's industrials over another. People chose certain industrials because of their differences before. Now it seems you want to give everything to everybody regardless of what choice they make. That's not what EVE is about.

Honestly, I think you'd be better off taking the time to do this industrial rebalance right, rather than change the ships now, then change them again in a little while.

I agree completely with the article posted here: http://themittani.com/features/industrial-homogenization-vs-meaningful-choices?page=0%2C0
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#660 - 2013-06-23 18:21:29 UTC
Gris X wrote:
Just read about the upcoming changes discussed here... if the haulers could still retain some personalities of their race, that would be a possible differentiation without affecting ehp or any dps...
Caldari hauler with ECM bonuses
Minmatar hauler with stasis bonuses
Amar hauler with energy neutralizes bonuses
Gallente hauler with non fighting drone bays and bandwidth


Thanks for the "make haulers into stupid gimmick ships because LOL WE DID A BATTLE BADGER ROAM ONCE ROFL" suggestion there.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.