These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Maximus Andendare
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#761 - 2013-06-24 18:44:15 UTC
Gypsio III wrote:
I think large haulers are a fundamentally bad idea. Rapid movement of large volumes of goods results in the development of One Big Hub at the cost of smaller sub-hubs, which not only hinders new players from competing in market trading and industry as easily because this single hub is more easily dominated by fewer players, but also results in the depopulation of outlying highsec areas and the migration of players into a single region, with unfortunate consequences for hamsters and cumulative greater dependence on the single hub.

Obviously doing this overnight would cause economic chaos, so some sort of system of gradually reducing cargohold size would be necessary. Also, none of this will happen. Lol
Giving more space to T1 industrials doesn't change this. It doesn't kill smaller trade hubs. People have always transported large volumes; they just trained an Itty V. The new (old) proposed Bestower only grew to within 2% of the Itty V, making it the largest--but the idea of a large T1 is nothing new.

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

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

Motoi Yamato
Riiizses Riiizs
#762 - 2013-06-24 18:45:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Motoi Yamato
i dont know if its an improvement or someone suggested it already, but what about these special purpose bays coming to play in every ship like:

bay for items-for restocking in low sec maybe? or building components, or just a ship which one can carry small frigates into lowsec? - make lowsec more habitable for newbies?

bay for ore- i know i know, we got the ubernice ore bay on the mining ships, BUT hear me just out, what about a hauler with ore hold? like a special minimini orca without the boosts for very small mining corps? it would be nice i think

and the last one- this is a trickie one, what about a specialized ore hold just for the refined ore? whats the difference between ore and refined ore you may ask... well... i dont know, maybe because if you salvage parts, you get more from one ore then the other, and you want to sell it elsewhere?

as the iteron 1-2-3-4-5 question... its ok if the gallenteans have more ind. ships... its just the race i think, their society
i think itwould be nicer to have different ships and give ppl the motivation to X train

amarr- armor tanked
gallente - the choice
caldari- shield tank
minmatar- duct tape i mean speed

i dont have any problem with races being substantially different, i like that
Maximus Andendare
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#763 - 2013-06-24 18:47:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Maximus Andendare
Dave Stark wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
Make them all useful


then with the large cargo haulers you need to start again from scratch, because as i pointed out the bestower ***** on everything else for equal or lesser SP at it's primary role.
This is still not true, as the other ships offered competitive advantages in their align time, slot allotment, ehp, etc.

Please stop trying to spin this because you want Caldari to be the largest. That's likely never going to be the case, since Caldari are so low slot unfriendly. The new (old) Badger Mk II had a faster align and a much stronger tank than the Bestower could ever hope to accomplish.

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

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

Phoenix Jones
Small-Arms Fire
#764 - 2013-06-24 18:48:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Phoenix Jones
Daenna Chrysi wrote:
Phoenix Jones wrote:
Tu'yak Marowshay wrote:
Phoenix Jones wrote:
Long as we get something that can move mass amounts (between 100,000 m3 and 200,000 m3), in some-type of configuration (not a freighter, jump freighter, or Orca), that involves either the T1 ships, the Deep Space Transports, or some new transport ship, I'll be happy. i really could care less of the utility, the tank, the "special abilities". Just something that can handle the movement of a mass bulk order where a Orca or Freighter can't do, in a ship that doesn't cost a billion isk.

I could have recovered the 4 hours of moving crap I just did, because that was in no way, shape, or form, fun or enjoyable.


Surely you're joking. - yes?


Lord I wish. It is what it is, and what it is (industrials currently) is terrible. There is a massive void inbetween Indy (50,000 m3) and freighter (900,000 m3), that needs to be addressed with something besides the orca.



counting the orca, rorqual and jump freighters, the void is not that big. Altough I wish there was a cheaper alternative for the jump freighter.


The void is huge.. but lets put some numbers on it, sorted by "Amount it can Haul".


  • T1 Industrials

  • T1 Industrial, averages roughly 30 to 39,000 m3 (most people fit them for Max cargo unless for some odd specialty reason). Price, roughly 5 million isk (ship hull, rigs, expanders, some defense).


  • T2 Industrials

  • T2 Industrial (the Deep Space Transport), Averages roughly 29 to 35,000 m3 (they fit a little less than a T1, but not much less. Stronger tank (if fitted well). Price, roughly 160 MILLION isk (ship hull, rigs, expanders, some defense).


  • The Orca

  • Orca, Averages roughly 90,000 to 110,000 m3 (if fit for max Hauling, which is generally considered silly and suicidal). This is utilizing its Cargo Hold and its Fleet Hold. Can also haul ships (extra bonus). Price, roughly 750 MILLION isk (ship hull, rigs, expanders, some defense)


  • The Rorqual

  • Rorqual, Averages roughly 120,000m3 of cargohold (though would have no tank). CANNOT use jump gates, has jump drives, relegated to being utilized in lowsec/nullsec/wormholes. Can store ships inside. Price, Roughly 2.5 Billion isk. (ship hull only).


  • Jump Freighter

  • Jump Freighter, 280 to 350,000m3. Massive, Slow, has the ability to Jump into Systems, bypassing lots of stargates. Price.. 6.5 to 7 BILLION isk. (the ship hull). Addition to the substantial skill train to get into it.


  • Freighter

  • Freighter, 750 to 900,000m3, massive slow, has no jump drive, aligns horridly. Generally used for highsec, as it would go boom in low/null. Price. 1.5 BILLION isk. (Ship cost only as there is no modules, but people utilize implants to help it out.


    So if just looking at the T1 industrial and the T2 industrial ships, almost no one will think that the Deep Space Transport is on par, or better, than a T1. I could lose 10 T1 ships, and not even get to 1/2 of the price of losing 1 Deep Space Transport. Is there any real benefit to using a DST vs a T1 ship... virtually none (some would argue that the DST is more gank resistant than the T1, and that a person can use the MWD Cloak warp ability of the DST to get around, but that does not balance out on either the price difference, or the M3 issue).


    Lets put it in Cost order now for clarification.

  • T1 industrial, virtually no skill, cost fitted, bout 5 million
  • T2 industrial, modest training to fly, can haul less than a T1 industrial, cost if fitted. 160 million
  • Orca, Modest training to fly, can haul about 3 to 4 T1 industrials worth of stuff, cost if fitted, 750 million
  • Freighter, Moderate training, can haul the most, cost, 1.5 billion isk.
  • Rorqual, large Training cost, restrictions on what it can hold ship wise, can't use gates, cost, 2.5 billion isk.
  • Jump Freighter, Long train time, can haul double of what the Orca can, Cost is fitted, 7.5 billion.


  • So the T1 is 5 million, the next ship that can haul more than the T1 costs 750 Million, and the DST hauls less than the t1, is the closest ship to the T1, but costs 30 Times the price of it.

    Hopefully that clarifies the "Big Hole" that is there for industrial ships.

    Yaay!!!!

    C Klinchock
    Violence is the Answer
    Wormhole Society
    #765 - 2013-06-24 18:53:05 UTC
    sol Aumer wrote:
    I would like to see an ORE Strategic Industrial With subsystem like expansions so you can customize your industrial ship.
    These subsystems would give the hull all of its ship and skill bonuses.
    This would allow the player to fit bonuses and that would free up module spots for interesting load outs.

    Just my thoughts.



    Not a bad idea. If you want to haul ships you haul ships with it, ore ore, as well as all the subsystems for defence, prop for fast align, velo, warp, nullify.

    sub for cloak, or probes, salv/tractor

    all kinds of stuff could be done here. Even out the T1s and T2s and this new T3 variant functions like an ORE ship skill as opposed to racial.
    Eija-Riitta Veitonen
    Ixian Machines
    #766 - 2013-06-24 18:53:51 UTC
    Taleden wrote:
    Michael Harari wrote:
    CCP Rise wrote:
    (up to 6au/tick instead of 4.5au/tick)


    Because warp speed doesnt affect warp acceleration, i would make the difference even bigger.


    Or, take this opportunity to fix the warp acceleration problem so that warp speed bonuses matter more in general.

    I've always hated how lazily ships warp -- even "fast" ships take 10 seconds to get off grid after they finish aligning, and another 10 seconds after appearing on grid to slowly cost to a stop. It'd be much snazzier if the transitions were more sudden. Imagine how exciting it looks when a fleet comes out of warp in other sci-fi universes, like Star Wars or even Star Trek: ships appear in the distance and close the gap in seconds, and then abruptly drop back to "normal space" speeds. Way cooler looking.

    Actually, even CCP trailers use the faster warp-in and -out times, for example in the dominion trailer. It indeed looks much cooler than the current mechanic we have in eve client.
    Maximus Andendare
    Stimulus
    Rote Kapelle
    #767 - 2013-06-24 18:58:07 UTC
    Eija-Riitta Veitonen wrote:
    Taleden wrote:
    Michael Harari wrote:
    CCP Rise wrote:
    (up to 6au/tick instead of 4.5au/tick)


    Because warp speed doesnt affect warp acceleration, i would make the difference even bigger.


    Or, take this opportunity to fix the warp acceleration problem so that warp speed bonuses matter more in general.

    I've always hated how lazily ships warp -- even "fast" ships take 10 seconds to get off grid after they finish aligning, and another 10 seconds after appearing on grid to slowly cost to a stop. It'd be much snazzier if the transitions were more sudden. Imagine how exciting it looks when a fleet comes out of warp in other sci-fi universes, like Star Wars or even Star Trek: ships appear in the distance and close the gap in seconds, and then abruptly drop back to "normal space" speeds. Way cooler looking.

    Actually, even CCP trailers use the faster warp-in and -out times, for example in the dominion trailer. It indeed looks much cooler than the current mechanic we have in eve client.
    A bit OT, but I'm pretty sure the warp in/out delay is to solve inequalities in loading/lock times. Imagine if your ship were instantly landed on grid and you were still loading the battle. Your opponents would have time to start locking before your grid loaded. Now, if they could solve this problem with their efforts to fight "the loading bar," then perhaps we can get instant landing, which of course, would be WAY cooler than the slow warp in/out effect we have now. I've always thought it was very cool that ships in Star Wars were just -there- or -gone- instantly.

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

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

    Sheldar Vor
    Isenburg Industries Inc
    #768 - 2013-06-24 19:09:53 UTC
    Maybe bonus some of the ships to deal with attacks abit more.

    1 could fit a siege module so if it gets attacks it turtles and waits for friends to turn up and help but it can't move the whole time it's protected.

    1 could fit warfare links or just bonus any escorts as well as having some tank itself.

    1 could destroy everything it's carrying on exploding (saw this mentiioned earlier)

    That's just my 2 cents.
    Cibil McDuff
    Brave Newbies Inc.
    Brave Collective
    #769 - 2013-06-24 19:11:00 UTC
    Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote:
    Cibil McDuff wrote:

    -10% reduction in module m3 per level
    -10% reduction in mineral m3 per level

    So all industrials would have similar potential m3 but then differentiate based on what they are used to carry!

    How does this sound?

    -10% module m3 per level is far superior to mineral m3 if you take into account popular mineral compression method: create t1 modules and refine them at destination. But mineral bonus may still find some use in mining ops.


    Yep, I was just shooting around ideas, you could insert an appropriate % there to make it all worthwhile, glad you liked the idea though!
    Taleden
    North Wind Local no. 612
    #770 - 2013-06-24 19:12:46 UTC
    Maximus Andendare wrote:
    Imagine if your ship were instantly landed on grid and you were still loading the battle. Your opponents would have time to start locking before your grid loaded.

    Similar issues already exist when jumping systems and undocking, and the solution is invulnerability until you take an action or some seconds have passed. I don't see why the same couldn't be applied when dropping out of warp.
    Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
    Republic Military Tax Avoiders
    #771 - 2013-06-24 19:14:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
    Maximus Andendare wrote:
    A bit OT, but I'm pretty sure the warp in/out delay is to solve inequalities in loading/lock times. Imagine if your ship were instantly landed on grid and you were still loading the battle. Your opponents would have time to start locking before your grid loaded. Now, if they could solve this problem with their efforts to fight "the loading bar," then perhaps we can get instant landing, which of course, would be WAY cooler than the slow warp in/out effect we have now. I've always thought it was very cool that ships in Star Wars were just -there- or -gone- instantly.

    Game already preloads grid you are supposed to land the moment warp starts, calculates if there are any bubbles and your new warpout coordinates if your path crosses any. That preload is also the reason why bubbles opened midwarp do not affect ships.

    Opinions are like assholes. Everybody got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks.

    Placcar
    Carebearly Legal
    #772 - 2013-06-24 19:18:16 UTC
    Phoenix Jones wrote:
    Long as we get something that can move mass amounts (between 100,000 m3 and 200,000 m3), in some-type of configuration (not a freighter, jump freighter, or Orca), that involves either the T1 ships, the Deep Space Transports, or some new transport ship, I'll be happy. i really could care less of the utility, the tank, the "special abilities". Just something that can handle the movement of a mass bulk order where a Orca or Freighter can't do, in a ship that doesn't cost a billion isk.

    I could have recovered the 4 hours of moving crap I just did, because that was in no way, shape, or form, fun or enjoyable.


    How about teleporters that move cargo without any risk at all?


    Oh, wait, EVE is supposed to be hard, never mind.
    Omnathious Deninard
    University of Caille
    Gallente Federation
    #773 - 2013-06-24 19:22:01 UTC
    CCP Rise wrote:
    Jowen Datloran wrote:
    Thank you for listening to the feedback, Rise. Much appreciated.
    CCP Rise wrote:

  • Special purpose bays - This will be for Hoarder, Iteron Mark II, III, and IV. We wanted to do this originally, but held back because of concerns about racial inequality. Based on feedback I'm now hoping you guys will be fine with this inequality, as long as it isn't so favored towards Gallente that no one would ever train another race for hauling.

  • This is as much an issue as people having to train Caldari ship skills if they want to fly a powerful ECM or missile boat.


    People keep saying this but it is simply not true. It would be if there was a counterpart for the other races. If you don't want to train missiles, its okay because you can train lasers. In this case, there is no option for Caldari or Amarr to counter balance, even if it was a different bay.

    The other races will need to be compensated in a different way.
    Gallente will get 5 different haulers. Their tanky/agile and cargo hauler should set the minimum standard
    Minmatar will get 3 different haulers. There tanky/agile and cargo hauler should be slightly better than gallente's.
    Caldari will have the basic haulers, but should have the best tanky/agile haulers for both varations.
    Amarr will have the basic haulers, but should have the biggest cargo of both varations.

    If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.

    Radgette
    EVE Irn Bru Distribution
    #774 - 2013-06-24 19:37:30 UTC
    How about this for a wild idea :p

    Interbus use the gallente shuttle and gallente catalyst skins on models in the game already.

    You have been saying for god knows how many years you would eventually add Interbus stations so that the current Interbus agents would be useful for something and ofcourse this would add the all Important Interbus "storyline" agents for faction standing.

    So you take the 3 Iterons that don't really fit with the new rebalancing you throw an Interbus skin on them (Which as T'amber/Cerbus has shown us isn't all that difficult. ) and make them require Interbus industrial skill.

    Add them to the new Interbus LP store and voila you can make them as specialised as you want.

    get Falcon to write up some nice RP fluff similar to when Interbus took over the customs offices and voila new Industrials that are cool and different.

    Obviously this is probably more work than a point release, but hey it could be good for the next expansion :P

    Marsan
    #775 - 2013-06-24 19:41:12 UTC
    Honestly how many Eve players actually fly a single race's ships? Training all Indy's up to 3 is very quick. I think I did it my 2nd month back when you could have only one thing in your training queue. One of the things I always tell newer wspace folks is to train up all the Indys so if you need to borrow a hauler you can borrow one. Thankfully they don't need to train up to 4-5 for the mark 4-5s any more.

    Sure we the RP crowd will whine a bit, but honestly most of the the RP folks I know are using Mark 4-5s right now any way.

    Former forum cheerleader CCP, now just a grumpy small portion of the community.

    Manfred Hideous
    Royal Amarr Institute
    Amarr Empire
    #776 - 2013-06-24 19:48:09 UTC
    Steve Ronuken wrote:
    Malcanis wrote:
    Steve Ronuken wrote:
    Can we drop a lowslot from all of them and give them a hardwired damage control II?


    It's a core principle of EVE that people should be allowed to make bad choices.



    I know, I know.

    Sometimes I just wish we could force people to fit ships in a less than insane fashion though... Like the guy complaining about his mammoth with 1.2 billion in it being popped.

    But you can't code round stupid.



    BUT HIS MAMMOTH WAS TANKED!!! HOW COME HIS TANKED INDY CAN BE GANKED BY A SINGLE TORNADO?


    --- That the guy you mean? I loved that rant.
    Dave Stark
    #777 - 2013-06-24 20:00:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
    Maximus Andendare wrote:
    Dave Stark wrote:
    CCP Rise wrote:
    Make them all useful


    then with the large cargo haulers you need to start again from scratch, because as i pointed out the bestower ***** on everything else for equal or lesser SP at it's primary role.
    This is still not true, as the other ships offered competitive advantages in their align time, slot allotment, ehp, etc.

    Please stop trying to spin this because you want Caldari to be the largest. That's likely never going to be the case, since Caldari are so low slot unfriendly. The new (old) Badger Mk II had a faster align and a much stronger tank than the Bestower could ever hope to accomplish.


    which bit of "at it's primary role" did you totally ignore? all of it.

    i don't want caldari to be the largest at all. i actually couldn't give a **** which is the largest. i own an orca. i'm just pointing out that these changes don't actually address the issue.

    considering you didn't read my post, or understand the point i was making... i don't really know what to say to you.
    Tyberius Franklin
    Federal Navy Academy
    Gallente Federation
    #778 - 2013-06-24 20:00:57 UTC
    Steve Ronuken wrote:

    I've said it on my blog, but I'll stick it here too:

    Give the Caldari and the Amarr the biggest general purpose bays, and the best of the other function.

    Give the Minmatar the next biggest general purpose bay.

    Give the Gallente the smallest general purpose bay, to make up for having the most flexible ship range.

    My asbestos suit is ready for the flames.

    Really that would just be a penalty to the Gallente and to a lesser extent the Minmatar. To be honest I'd rather not be relegated to 5 mediocre industrial ships, all of which failing to compete directly with competitors just because a few now even more lackluster in-between's.
    Steve Ronuken
    Fuzzwork Enterprises
    Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
    #779 - 2013-06-24 20:21:27 UTC
    Tyberius Franklin wrote:
    Steve Ronuken wrote:

    I've said it on my blog, but I'll stick it here too:

    Give the Caldari and the Amarr the biggest general purpose bays, and the best of the other function.

    Give the Minmatar the next biggest general purpose bay.

    Give the Gallente the smallest general purpose bay, to make up for having the most flexible ship range.

    My asbestos suit is ready for the flames.

    Really that would just be a penalty to the Gallente and to a lesser extent the Minmatar. To be honest I'd rather not be relegated to 5 mediocre industrial ships, all of which failing to compete directly with competitors just because a few now even more lackluster in-between's.



    Is a ship with a 50,000 m3 ore bay mediocre?

    The Gallente and Minmatar would pay for their better specialist ships by having worse general purpose ships.

    Woo! CSM XI!

    Fuzzwork Enterprises

    Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

    DemoniKa Curbstomper
    Demonika Heavy Industrial Corporation
    #780 - 2013-06-24 20:26:29 UTC
    At least for T1 since the Iteron Mark V requires WAY more training it should be better - I'm fine with it being worse or the same if it takes level 4 training to drive. Likewise, I see very little reason to train any T2 for normal use. There is ONE worthwhile cloak T2 hauler... all the rest are crap. Deep space is 100% junk.

    None of these can tank, have speed, or any other value. They just have medium sized cargo holds. 40km3 isn't enough to hold anything fitted out. If It can't haul one fitted battleship with some ammo around they're all pretty worthless. Which means you either own a freighter or you fly every ship you own to every place you need to go. This wastes a ton of time and makes the whole game suck in general.

    None of these really have tanks. Even the most expensive ones... 1.2 bil worth of dead meat or more. There isn't even a way to fit one, but if there were all of these would be better -- at least you'd have more of a chance.

    Want better?

    1) More speed. They don't fit armor or guns. In real life these would be faster ships than say a battleship.

    2) Agility is an issue.

    3) If any of these could hold 100-200kmk3 they'd be useful past the "I'm a newbie with a ton of brick-a-brack" phase.


    Removing the high slot turret on the indies screws all industrial characters who are often given missions to mine small amounts or kill some small threat. Just being able to put a gun there, a tractor, or a mining laser makes everything easier.