These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#881 - 2013-06-25 21:41:13 UTC
Someone here mentioned removing the huge cargo bay from the Orca.

This idea, though world shaking as far as highsec mining goes, has some merit. No one ship should provide so much of both utility, tank, and sheer cargo space that it literally invalidates an entire ship class for every race.

I would NOT argue, however, that ORE should get it's own T1 hauler with the leftover cargo bay taken from the Orca. The goal here is to make T1 haulers more attractive, not necessitate their removal entirely. Recall that the advent of serious functionality to ORE mining barges was the nail in the coffin for the "mining" frigates and cruisers from the racial line. This means that no one will bother to train up their respective races when there is one simple cross racial option to cater to their needs.

As an aside, I will say that if an ORE ship is made to make up for the loss of the cargo hold of the Orca, it should be a capital ship, a freighter. And it should have an ore bay too, to make it unique among freighters, but much less regular cargo hold space than other freighters. Just an idea.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Marsan
#882 - 2013-06-25 21:43:30 UTC
There is not any need for 3 different Orcas. All that needs to happen is the Ore hold, and cargo needs to be added to the fleet hanger. As you can store fitted ships in the fleet hold. The only downside is you would not be able to haul the largest ships like BS, but honestly even if you put all the additional hauling space into the maintenance bay I doubt you'd be able fit most BS. A raven for example is near 500k m3.

What I'd propose is the following:

1) Hauling Orca
-Most of Cargo hold and all of Ore hold space moved to fleet hanger for ~100-150K space. (I assume that Pilot skill would effect this.)
- Add weapon turrets, launchers, and high solts
- Boost Drone bay
- Remove ability fit command modules


2) Mining Orca
- Most of Cargo hold moved to Ore hold for ~100-1500K space. (I assume that Pilot skill would effect this.)
- Add another highs slot for command modules.

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

Deirdre Anethoel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#883 - 2013-06-25 21:56:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Deirdre Anethoel
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Someone here mentioned removing the huge cargo bay from the Orca.

This idea, though world shaking as far as highsec mining goes, has some merit. No one ship should provide so much of both utility, tank, and sheer cargo space that it literally invalidates an entire ship class for every race.

I would NOT argue, however, that ORE should get it's own T1 hauler with the leftover cargo bay taken from the Orca. The goal here is to make T1 haulers more attractive, not necessitate their removal entirely. Recall that the advent of serious functionality to ORE mining barges was the nail in the coffin for the "mining" frigates and cruisers from the racial line. This means that no one will bother to train up their respective races when there is one simple cross racial option to cater to their needs.

As an aside, I will say that if an ORE ship is made to make up for the loss of the cargo hold of the Orca, it should be a capital ship, a freighter. And it should have an ore bay too, to make it unique among freighters, but much less regular cargo hold space than other freighters. Just an idea.


The fact is you can't just remove the cargo bay from the orca and say people will go to T1 haulers. It's not the same scale of operations. At all. Between the cargo bay and the corp hangar, the orca can carry massive amounts of things. Less than a freighters, but it's a good middle ground between T1 haulers and freighters.

We need to have a "small capital" for hauling, easier to train and buy than a freighter, but a lot slower and bigger than T1 industrials. Or get way bigger T1 industrials. You need something to carry amounts between 100 and 300 m3 without having to jump in a freighter.

Right now, the orca have this functionnality. Plus a lot of utility in mining ops. I think it's too much for one ship, and should split in two. But the role of medium-large size hauler must remain. Orcas exist, but people still fly in T1 haulers. I don't think it would hurt their usage too much, especially if we give them special bays.

Quote:
There is not any need for 3 different Orcas. All that needs to happen is the Ore hold, and cargo needs to be added to the fleet hanger. As you can store fitted ships in the fleet hold. The only downside is you would not be able to haul the largest ships like BS, but honestly even if you put all the additional hauling space into the maintenance bay I doubt you'd be able fit most BS. A raven for example is near 500k m3.

What I'd propose is the following:

1) Hauling Orca
-Most of Cargo hold and all of Ore hold space moved to fleet hanger for ~100-150K space. (I assume that Pilot skill would effect this.)
- Add weapon turrets, launchers, and high solts
- Boost Drone bay
- Remove ability fit command modules


2) Mining Orca
- Most of Cargo hold moved to Ore hold for ~100-1500K space. (I assume that Pilot skill would effect this.)
- Add another highs slot for command modules.


I disagree. We need 3 orca. One for fleet hangar, one for regular cargo and one for mining.
With the changes you are proposing, we loose the orca as a cargo hauler between T1 indus and freighters for carrying things other than ships. You can do with two if you let the hauling orca have cargo hold + fleet hangar, and the mining orca have ore old + fleet hangar. It's logical for the mining orca to have some sort of fleet hangar for barges.
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
#884 - 2013-06-25 21:56:51 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Hey guys

I spent most of the weekend going over feedback and talking about this issue with a lot of different folks (CSM, Devs, and random folks from the community via stream chats or private convos), and I want to touch base with you about where I'm at.

First, I want to dispel any ideas about the level of investment in this project by myself or anyone else here. Like any other part of the game, we want this to be as good as it can be. The rebalance in the OP was not the result of some lazy afternoon where we dismissively decided what to do. It was the result of a fairly lengthy process of negotiating within the balance team about what industrial balance should really consist of. We started with fairly lofty ideas and slowly backed into a more conservative solution, both because of concerns about equality relating to the extra industrials and also because of knowing that more high level industry work was coming down the pipe that could impact our needs in the near future. Moral of the story: we care about this a lot, and want to do it right.

So, whats the plan? Although I am a bit nervous about backlash coming from the other direction, I want to take your feedback and try to do something that makes you guys more excited. As far as I can tell, there's a few common concerns/desires that you're hoping for with these ships:

  • Make them all useful
  • Make them as different from each other as possible
  • Add new function/purpose where possible

  • Most of these could be said in different ways, but essentially it seems that in-so-far as balance allows, you want more niche applications, more character, and more differentiation. To me this seems reasonable, as long as it doesn't obligate people people to cross train for very basic needs. So, here's what we're looking at doing to address these points:

  • 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.
  • More separation between the two basic hauler types - I want to achieve this through several means including giving the faster haulers better warp time (up to 6au/tick instead of 4.5au/tick), taking a mid slot away from the cargo focused versions to highlight the tank on the others (this will partly be counter-acted by giving back the second high to the cargo versions), along with other small changes to make some of the tankier haulers stand out a bit more.
  • More quirkiness overall - I won't go into specifics right now, and it won't be anything extremely drastic, but I want to try and get each ship within a role set apart from the others as much as possible to avoid any feeling of homogenization (though I still feel that the very simplistic hauling system doesn't provide a lot of room for variation that wouldn't severely handicap some ships).

  • I'll post again within the next couple days with details, but until then I hope this will do. Finally, I want to say that I really appreciate all the feedback that was given in a polite and constructive manner, both from the CSM and the community as a whole. I hope this change will help to build some faith in our ability to take that feedback into account and make good adjustments for you guys. (I also hope it doesn't make you feel like any time you make a 30 page thread I'll do whatever you say =)

    See you soon in the OP with more details
    Fly safe


    Dear Rise, this level of community acknowledgement is definitely the way to go, I will be the first to admit that I have been heavily critical of you and fozzie in the Battleship re-balancing that took place recently. If we had this level of feedback at the time which addressed our concerns in the way that you have in your last few posts I think I would have been less critical and more supportive of the future vision you guys have for our beloved ships.

    Anyhow I think it's good that you are addressing concerns about the homogenization of eve and I love the idea of specialized roles for T1 Industrials, though to be fair I'm not bothered about cross training into other races for a specific ability after the T1 industrials only need a level 3 skill to get the main benefits out of them so not a lot of training time is required.

    Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction...

    Maximus Andendare
    Stimulus
    Rote Kapelle
    #885 - 2013-06-25 22:42:20 UTC
    Little Dragon Khamez wrote:
    though to be fair I'm not bothered about cross training into other races for a specific ability after the T1 industrials only need a level 3 skill to get the main benefits out of them so not a lot of training time is required.
    Objectively speaking, though, nobody should be concerned with cross training since the skill is just 15 mins or so to crosstrain. It's wholly unlike having to cross train for another racial (with its own weapons, tanking style, ewar, etc.).

    I look forward to see what Rise and his team have come up with!

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

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

    Eladaris
    Indefinite.
    #886 - 2013-06-25 22:47:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Eladaris
    Skia Aumer wrote:
    LIYNX wrote:
    Then give them each a specialized bay, ore, gas, ice, PI or salvage (maybe even clones if you ever flesh out the dust eve integration Blink)

    Please stop this specialized bay madness.
    Specialized bay for hauler is like a built-in weapons for combat ships. Boring.


    I have to disagree... strongly. The lack of a specialized bay is the more boring feature. With standard cargo storage your lows pretty much have to be Cargo Expanders. With a bay your lows can be any damn thing you want them to be. Some people will still fit CE's into their lows to eek every last iota of space out of the smaller / regular cargo bay, but you'll start to see more interesting fits than "All CE's in the lows, and the rare DC for flavor".


    //EDIT: With bays we could afford to lose a few low slots, and actually see some variety to our industrials. Even, gasp, an armor tank.
    Kaarous Aldurald
    Black Hydra Consortium.
    #887 - 2013-06-25 23:14:22 UTC
    Quote:
    The fact is you can't just remove the cargo bay from the orca and say people will go to T1 haulers. It's not the same scale of operations. At all. Between the cargo bay and the corp hangar, the orca can carry massive amounts of things. Less than a freighters, but it's a good middle ground between T1 haulers and freighters.

    We need to have a "small capital" for hauling, easier to train and buy than a freighter, but a lot slower and bigger than T1 industrials. Or get way bigger T1 industrials. You need something to carry amounts between 100 and 300 m3 without having to jump in a freighter.

    Right now, the orca have this functionnality. Plus a lot of utility in mining ops. I think it's too much for one ship, and should split in two. But the role of medium-large size hauler must remain. Orcas exist, but people still fly in T1 haulers. I don't think it would hurt their usage too much, especially if we give them special bays.


    It is a good middle ground, yeah, because of it's functionality. It has too much, though.

    Yes, there does need to be a middle ground, but it would be easier to get there without the shadow of the Orca in front of it. Particularly when the Orca boasts a tank that even a freighter, a capital ship, cannot equal.

    And that adds up to the real problem. The Orca is the one stop shop unless you need to move a MASSIVE amount of stuff. In which case, you have to ship up. Otherwise, the Orca is the clear choice. If you have an Orca, then you flat out can just reprocess your T1 haulers, because the Orca is a safer platform to move stuff in.

    "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

    One of ours, ten of theirs.

    Best Meltdown Ever.

    Charles the Miner
    Amarr Empire
    #888 - 2013-06-25 23:32:02 UTC
    Don't start something with industrials, that you are not prepared to follow through with on T2s, freighters and jump freighters.

    Do the simple thing here, don't try to shoehorn something into an old inconsistency in regards to number of industrials in each racial line.
    Deirdre Anethoel
    The Scope
    Gallente Federation
    #889 - 2013-06-25 23:33:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Deirdre Anethoel
    Eladaris wrote:
    Skia Aumer wrote:
    LIYNX wrote:
    Then give them each a specialized bay, ore, gas, ice, PI or salvage (maybe even clones if you ever flesh out the dust eve integration Blink)

    Please stop this specialized bay madness.
    Specialized bay for hauler is like a built-in weapons for combat ships. Boring.


    I have to disagree... strongly. The lack of a specialized bay is the more boring feature. With standard cargo storage your lows pretty much have to be Cargo Expanders. With a bay your lows can be any damn thing you want them to be. Some people will still fit CE's into their lows to eek every last iota of space out of the smaller / regular cargo bay, but you'll start to see more interesting fits than "All CE's in the lows, and the rare DC for flavor".


    The man has a point though: combat ships have guns, and industrials could have bays!

    If instead of bland cargo extenders (or in addition), we had bay extenders, that converts a % of your cargo bay into a larger specialized bay, instead of having a ton of dedicated ships, we could have some ships with a nice faction flavor, and spice them up with the bays we need? It could also help keep the bays to ORE while having them on other ships, with ORE being the source of bay modules BPO? This would also solve the problem of fits being standardized on industrials! I think it could be an elegant way to solve the problem.


    Quote:
    It is a good middle ground, yeah, because of it's functionality. It has too much, though.

    Yes, there does need to be a middle ground, but it would be easier to get there without the shadow of the Orca in front of it. Particularly when the Orca boasts a tank that even a freighter, a capital ship, cannot equal.

    And that adds up to the real problem. The Orca is the one stop shop unless you need to move a MASSIVE amount of stuff. In which case, you have to ship up. Otherwise, the Orca is the clear choice. If you have an Orca, then you flat out can just reprocess your T1 haulers, because the Orca is a safer platform to move stuff in.


    Yeah, the orca is way too flexible and powerful. If you had to make a choice between mining command ship (with ore bay) and hauler, with different prerequisites and their own balance (less tank on the hauler than what it does have right now, but more haul/ship hangar/corp hangar since it would not have the ore bay, maybe), we could have something more interesting and balanced. T1 haulers should be a lot quicker than an orca. Cargo specialized T1 haulers may be too slow to compare right now, but this could be easily fixed (bit more agility, bit more warp speed).


    Quote:
    Don't start something with industrials, that you are not prepared to follow through with on T2s, freighters and jump freighters.

    Do the simple thing here, don't try to shoehorn something into an old inconsistency in regards to number of industrials in each racial line.


    I'm on the other side of things: don't be half assed, go for it. It's THE major rework of all ships, one by one. There won't be another one in years. If there is things you can do, you have to do them right now. T2, freighters and ore ships will come, because every ship should be on the sheduele for at least a review. I don't care if you slow down the process a bit to do that right!
    Eladaris
    Indefinite.
    #890 - 2013-06-26 00:04:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Eladaris
    Charles the Miner wrote:
    Don't start something with industrials, that you are not prepared to follow through with on T2s, freighters and jump freighters.

    To be fair, I'm sure they'll hit the T2 haulers / freighters eventually. They'll likely be the LAST thing on the list, but it's a safe bet they'll be touched eventually. Also, it's worth noting that while CCP has been hell-bent on ignoring Capitals (and thus by extension the Orca) in the revision process, I'd argue that the Orca shouldn't necessarily be the ruler against which all other hauler ships be measured.

    Sure, it's a damn fine way to move things from point A to B in utter safety, but you still see a lot of industrial ships that aren't Orca's plying the space lanes of New Eden.

    I'd argue it's not quite the elephant in the room we seem to be trying to make it out to be Lol Sure, it's highly OP, but you don't see one loitering outside every station everywhere.
    Oraac Ensor
    #891 - 2013-06-26 00:57:30 UTC
    Alara IonStorm wrote:
    Finally I think you should release the Badger Mk III Model for a 3rd Caldari Ship and create a new Amarr Industrial. That creates 3 types of Industrials.

    1. Speed
    2. Agility
    3. Use your Imagination
    +1
    Deirdre Anethoel
    The Scope
    Gallente Federation
    #892 - 2013-06-26 01:13:28 UTC
    Oraac Ensor wrote:
    Alara IonStorm wrote:
    Finally I think you should release the Badger Mk III Model for a 3rd Caldari Ship and create a new Amarr Industrial. That creates 3 types of Industrials.

    1. Speed
    2. Agility
    3. Use your Imagination
    +1


    Agreed, you should not stop yourself because you don't have the models right now. Delay it until the art department can work on it maybe, but I don't think limiting our possibilities because we have a given amount of industrials sounds bad.
    Flux Astraeus
    The Scope
    Gallente Federation
    #893 - 2013-06-26 01:22:01 UTC
    Unforgiven Storm wrote:
    DONT TOUCH THE F*CKING Mammoth!

    That is best looking industrial of them all.


    Can't reiterate this quote enough.
    Someone suggested earlier sacking the art team for even thinking such a thing, and if they take anything over the Mammoth then I'd tend to agree, sack those muppets.
    The Mammoth should stay KING.
    Dont get me started about those ugly space dildo's. How hey don't snap in half when Alligning I'll never know?
    Get the art team on the Itty's instead.
    Bienator II
    madmen of the skies
    #894 - 2013-06-26 03:28:46 UTC
    500% range bonused ECM burst badger

    how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value

    Skia Aumer
    Sebiestor Tribe
    Minmatar Republic
    #895 - 2013-06-26 04:14:04 UTC
    Eladaris wrote:
    Skia Aumer wrote:
    LIYNX wrote:
    Then give them each a specialized bay, ore, gas, ice, PI or salvage (maybe even clones if you ever flesh out the dust eve integration Blink)

    Please stop this specialized bay madness.
    Specialized bay for hauler is like a built-in weapons for combat ships. Boring.


    I have to disagree... strongly. The lack of a specialized bay is the more boring feature. With standard cargo storage your lows pretty much have to be Cargo Expanders. With a bay your lows can be any damn thing you want them to be. Some people will still fit CE's into their lows to eek every last iota of space out of the smaller / regular cargo bay, but you'll start to see more interesting fits than "All CE's in the lows, and the rare DC for flavor".


    //EDIT: With bays we could afford to lose a few low slots, and actually see some variety to our industrials. Even, gasp, an armor tank.

    You should be advocating for stacking penalty for CEs.
    Skia Aumer
    Sebiestor Tribe
    Minmatar Republic
    #896 - 2013-06-26 04:34:05 UTC
    Dave Stark wrote:
    Maximus Andendare wrote:
    "It's primary role," as you're funny to point out, takes into account MANY factors,

    nope.

    it's ability to be a large cargo hauler is defined by it's large cargo, and that's it. there are no complexities to "how much can i haul?" other than "how big is my cargo?"

    Indeed, the cargo hold is an important factor. But at what skill level? I know many people that trained for Mammoth only because it was good at skill = 4. But that's not all. I, personally, trained minmatar indy to 3 only, because the cargo was enough. Yes, there can be enough cargo, I guarantee it. And as long as max. velocity bonus was irrelevant - I didnt have any incentive to skill up further.

    Another important factor for hauler is its speed. That includes align time, warp speed and max. velocity. You cannot underestimate any of those. Also the ability to jump or use blops bridge for advanced haulers.

    Tank is important for autopiloting.

    Mass is extremely important for wormholes. If only there were a freighter (T2, T3, whatever) to fit into C2 or C3! I'm glad it never happens though, cause it would be game-breaking.

    Appeal of exterior is a factor. My other alt can fly Itty5, but than trained amarr indy 5 only to fly Providence.
    Deacon Abox
    Black Eagle5
    Villore Accords
    #897 - 2013-06-26 04:38:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Deacon Abox
    Hey maybe you guys can create a combat ship out of these. Who knows, it could top the killboards. I mean great job on rebalancing. Same old perma mwd shield missile kiting/sniping **** still king. Only now it's a stupid tech I cruiser or destroyer Ugh Caracals and Talwars

    GG balancing team

    CCP, there are off buttons for ship explosions, missile effects, turret effects, etc. "Immersion" does not seem to be harmed by those. So, [u]please[/u] give us a persisting off button for the jump gate and autoscan visuals.

    Reppyk
    The Black Shell
    #898 - 2013-06-26 04:50:48 UTC
    I want a badger Mark VII that can only haul keres hulls. AttentionAttentionAttentionQuestionIdeaArrowQuestionQuestionAttention

    I AM SPACE CAPTAIN REPPYK. BEWARE.

    Proud co-admin of frugu.net, a French fansite about EVE !

    Dave Stark
    #899 - 2013-06-26 05:23:31 UTC
    Skia Aumer wrote:
    Dave Stark wrote:
    Maximus Andendare wrote:
    "It's primary role," as you're funny to point out, takes into account MANY factors,

    nope.

    it's ability to be a large cargo hauler is defined by it's large cargo, and that's it. there are no complexities to "how much can i haul?" other than "how big is my cargo?"

    Indeed, the cargo hold is an important factor. But at what skill level? I know many people that trained for Mammoth only because it was good at skill = 4. But that's not all. I, personally, trained minmatar indy to 3 only, because the cargo was enough. Yes, there can be enough cargo, I guarantee it. And as long as max. velocity bonus was irrelevant - I didnt have any incentive to skill up further.

    Another important factor for hauler is its speed. That includes align time, warp speed and max. velocity. You cannot underestimate any of those. Also the ability to jump or use blops bridge for advanced haulers.

    Tank is important for autopiloting.

    Mass is extremely important for wormholes. If only there were a freighter (T2, T3, whatever) to fit into C2 or C3! I'm glad it never happens though, cause it would be game-breaking.

    Appeal of exterior is a factor. My other alt can fly Itty5, but than trained amarr indy 5 only to fly Providence.


    look at the cargo of ships now, vs pre change, most of the other ships can fit over 20k which is usually "enough". as for skill levels, i pointed out that the bestower is better than everything at equal skill levels, and better even with less SP in some cases, eg amarr industrial 3 gives the bestower more cargo space than a badger mkII at caldari industrial V. so regardless of "skill level" the bestower is king, unlike previously when the bestower was only king at skill level I or II (i forget which) then the mammoth was king at IV, then the god of them all the itty V at skill level V.

    i agree, secondary stats are things you can't underestimate, but as i pointed out pages ago they mean nothing if you don't have the cargo capacity to do it all in 1 trip. so when you have a gap of over 10% eg between the bestower and badger, that is likely to happen and makes any sort of meaningful choice about secondary stats irrelevant because "bigger cargo so i only have to make 1 trip" is going to mean you pick a bestower.

    don't get me wrong on the whole i think rise, fozzie, etc are all doing a great job on the rebalance but when it comes to non-combat focused ships they seem to have trouble making it work. the barge/exhumer thing didn't work (but it was the first set of ships they tried to rebalance so i won't hold that against them, especially since fozzie said he wants to go back to them at some point) and i don't really see this working out with regards to the large cargo capacity haulers. the amarr ship being better at lower skill levels than comparable ships just doesn't seem balanced to me.
    Eladaris
    Indefinite.
    #900 - 2013-06-26 11:15:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Eladaris
    Dave Stark wrote:
    don't get me wrong on the whole i think rise, fozzie, etc are all doing a great job on the rebalance but when it comes to non-combat focused ships they seem to have trouble making it work. the barge/exhumer thing didn't work (but it was the first set of ships they tried to rebalance so i won't hold that against them, especially since fozzie said he wants to go back to them at some point) and i don't really see this working out with regards to the large cargo capacity haulers. the amarr ship being better at lower skill levels than comparable ships just doesn't seem balanced to me.

    Although, as you yourself pointed out in this post the Amarr has always been the victor at low training levels. I always used to suggest folks train their alts to Amarr Indy II for high-sec war time purposes, casual hauling, etc. Because at those level it was the best.

    And today I'd argue the Itty V is the best.

    I think we may be confusing two separate issues. Previously the Itty V was balanced based on it's skill requirement, which no longer exists. The Amarr Indy @ IV being better than any other racial Indy @ V isn't a problem either... people will fly other things. I think it's sloppy, but it's more or less what we have today with our current ALL THE ITTY V's!

    Skia Aumer wrote:
    You should be advocating for stacking penalty for CEs.

    I think it's another way to get to the same destination, but stacking penalized CE's harm other things. Turning your BlOps into a silly freighter, turning a frigate into a L2 distribution mission boat, and other silly edge cases. I'd rather there be at least a few industrials that don't need to fill their low's with CE's... even if it was only a few.