These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Daniel Plain
Doomheim
#901 - 2013-06-26 11:16:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Daniel Plain
CCP Rise wrote:
To me this seems reasonable, as long as it doesn't obligate people people to cross train for very basic needs.

you mean train industrial III for all four races? come on, that would take like one day or so....

edit: also, just to make sure it gets through: beware of power creep. think about what would be better for EVE: making hauling easier or harder. then balance accordingly.

I should buy an Ishtar.

Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#902 - 2013-06-26 11:29:53 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
For people focused on homoginization: The problem here is that we don't have a complex purpose that we are lazily fulfilling by having every ship do it the same way, what we have is a very simple purpose and far too many ships meant to fulfill it. I think the division between the 2 roles outlined here is functional, and adds a bit of depth to a relatively straight forward job, but what many of you are asking for is basically new jobs. As some have mentioned above, adding entirely new purposes to t1 industrials, or subdividing the current one adds a lot of complexity and doesn't even approach the issue of balance within the class we already have and use.

We talked about specialized bays and other unique purposes, but ultimately decided that, for now, it was important to make sure that pilots from races other than Gallente weren't compelled to cross train for an Iteron 5, and also that there was at least one reasonable alternative within your race depending on what purpose you had in mind. We want to improve on industry in general, but that is a much bigger proposition and I don't think t1 industrials is the right starting point.




While you're at it:


Del Ity1 replace by Ity 2, Del Ity3 replace by Ity4 leave Ity 5: this makes 3 versions of the ship and probably the most used ones, too many options with in the same race kills those options that have no more specificity than a bit more cargo.

Either give them a lot more ehp, really a lot, or align/speed. A simple catalyst goes through an Ity 5 Ehp like butter unless it's a bait Ity 5.
Give them EHP or align/warp+warp speed and because I like complicated stuff: why don't you add a 4rth rig slot and 2 more high slots? Blink

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne

Deirdre Anethoel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#903 - 2013-06-26 11:32:11 UTC
Daniel Plain wrote:
edit: also, just to make sure it gets through: beware of power creep. think about what would be better for EVE: making hauling easier or harder. then balance accordingly.


This would be fitting in a freigther or orca balance, or even more in a JF balance.
But it's not that relevant for T1 industrials, since they're more oriented towards small and non-game changing operations.
Even if you add 50% cargo to T1 indus, serious hauling will still be done in orca/freighter/JF. And nerfing them would only make life harder for new players.
But I agree thinking like that is a good thing in general, and could come in handy for the balance of more powerful hauling ships.

Remember, this is a ship rebalance, not a global hauling balance process, though! I don't think Rise has the power to choose if hauling should be easier or harder. I believe the best line of action is to split the hauling balance away from the ship rebalance, have the ships be balanced around what is possible currently (current ittyV as a max cargo for example), then maybe have a reflexion about hauling as a whole later, outside of ship rebalance.
Daniel Plain
Doomheim
#904 - 2013-06-26 11:41:13 UTC
Deirdre Anethoel wrote:
Daniel Plain wrote:
edit: also, just to make sure it gets through: beware of power creep. think about what would be better for EVE: making hauling easier or harder. then balance accordingly.


This would be fitting in a freigther or orca balance, or even more in a JF balance.
But it's not that relevant for T1 industrials, since they're more oriented towards small and non-game changing operations.
Even if you add 50% cargo to T1 indus, serious hauling will still be done in orca/freighter/JF. And nerfing them would only make life harder for new players.
But I agree thinking like that is a good thing in general, and could come in handy for the balance of more powerful hauling ships.

Remember, this is a ship rebalance, not a global hauling balance process, though! I don't think Rise has the power to choose if hauling should be easier or harder. I believe the best line of action is to split the hauling balance away from the ship rebalance, have the ships be balanced around what is possible currently (current ittyV as a max cargo for example), then maybe have a reflexion about hauling as a whole later, outside of ship rebalance.

the fact of the matter is that a significant amount of stuff is being hauled in t1 ships. i can name you any amount of common use cases where a t1 hauler is the preferred means of transport. let's for example say we limited the maximum cargo to below 30k m3, suddenly you cannot haul three packaged cruisers (+ fittings and ammo) in one trip. would this be a good or a bad thing?

I should buy an Ishtar.

Caitlyn Tufy
Perkone
Caldari State
#905 - 2013-06-26 11:53:30 UTC
Deirdre Anethoel wrote:
serious hauling will still be done in orca/freighter/JF.


The very fact that an industrial command ship is used as a hauler instead of high volume T1 or even T2 industrial ships is a big problem. I don't mind having Orca be a sort of "mobile base" that people are sometimes using it for, but it definitely shouldn't be a stepping stone between T1 industrials and freighters, especially since it has a completely separate skillset. To make a comparison, it would be as if people would be using battleships to mine more effectively than with Retrievers / Covetors.
Phoenix Jones
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#906 - 2013-06-26 12:44:30 UTC
CCP Riseis on the job. Will hold comment till the info is out.

Who knows, escorts might actually become a reality.

Yaay!!!!

Arrendis
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#907 - 2013-06-26 14:40:47 UTC
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:

Del Ity1 replace by Ity 2, Del Ity3 replace by Ity4 leave Ity 5: this makes 3 versions of the ship and probably the most used ones


If you want to keep the 'most used' versions of the Iteron line, you keep the Iteron III and V. The Itty IV is, even now, an atrocious ship. At max skill, it gets 20,687m3 - about 1,400m3 over the III - if you put full expanders and cargo rigs in. Then you get the Iteron V, which right now at Gallente Industrial I starts off (same full-expander/T1 rig build) at 33,000m3.

Before the Odyssey changes, Gallente haulers at low skill had a reason to use the Iteron III - it was big enough, and you didn't have to do the 'long' skill trainings for IV and V. Now? There's only 1 Iteron worth using. If the changes coming help to change this somehow, awesome. But I'm willing to bet 90% of hi-sec haulers are going to stick with 'what gives me the most space?' and just rely on never ever autopiloting around to keep them alive.

It doesn't matter what kind of tank you put onto it, in the long run - anyone in hi-sec who's using autopilot is asking to get webbed down to the point of not making the gate, and alpha'd by tornados. If you're not using autopilot, you'll live. Tackling on the in-gate is already more trouble than it's worth, and all you need to prevent it is a web-buddy in fleet with you.
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#908 - 2013-06-26 15:05:34 UTC
This thread is obsolete and could stand to be ignored in favor of the new thread.
Taleden
North Wind Local no. 612
#909 - 2013-06-26 15:16:14 UTC
This thread should be locked; see here for round 2: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=252819
Deirdre Anethoel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#910 - 2013-06-26 16:10:26 UTC
Caitlyn Tufy wrote:
Deirdre Anethoel wrote:
serious hauling will still be done in orca/freighter/JF.


The very fact that an industrial command ship is used as a hauler instead of high volume T1 or even T2 industrial ships is a big problem. I don't mind having Orca be a sort of "mobile base" that people are sometimes using it for, but it definitely shouldn't be a stepping stone between T1 industrials and freighters, especially since it has a completely separate skillset. To make a comparison, it would be as if people would be using battleships to mine more effectively than with Retrievers / Covetors.


I agree with you. But if that's the case, we need something in between freighters and industrials that isn't a mining command ship.
Callic Veratar
#911 - 2013-06-26 17:19:04 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Hexatron Ormand wrote:
I come across questions from newbies that we take on, if there are any ships between those t1 industrials.. and freighters.

Often people look for ways to transport "medium sized" heaps of goods (compared to a freighter volume), that may also be faster than a freighter. I heard this is many channels by now, the question if there is somthing "bigger than a t1, but smaller than a freighter"

So i think there is some sort of demand for ships that can take on 100k - 200k m³

Even though i think that those t1 ships are for sure too "small" to take on such a load. So no clue if it would be possible to "resize" any of them to look bigger and take on such a role? Even though i bet it would look awkward. May really be better for some future plans if new ships are introduced.

Just throwing it out there for some additional ideas or thoughts.


DSTs are the natural choice for this role.


I'm not certain that using T2 ships for a fairly reasonable role is the right option. I think a new branch of ships should be introduced that fits the mid-range. How about 'Tankers' that require Spaceship Command IV and Industrial III.

The Transport Ship definitely need to be fixed up but taking on an entire new role that could be better served by a new class of ship doesn't seem to fit.

The Blockade Runners use covert ops stuff and align quickly. How about giving the DST a decent tank, +2 WCS, and interdiction nullification? Make them all Blockade Runners, but they use different approaches to it.
Vartan Sarkisian
Nobody in Local
Of Sound Mind
#912 - 2013-06-26 21:55:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Vartan Sarkisian
Posted to other link listed above
TheSmokingHertog
Julia's Interstellar Trade Emperium
#913 - 2013-06-26 22:16:05 UTC
Dear Forum Mods, please lock this thread.

NEW link all; https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=252819&find=unread

"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 =-

Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#914 - 2013-06-26 22:57:54 UTC
Caitlyn Tufy wrote:
The very fact that an industrial command ship is used as a hauler instead of high volume T1 or even T2 industrial ships is a big problem. I don't mind having Orca be a sort of "mobile base" that people are sometimes using it for, but it definitely shouldn't be a stepping stone between T1 industrials and freighters …


I agree wholeheartedly. There should be an ORE industrial that specialises in moving ores, compressed ores, and refined products such as minerals and ice products, ideally replacing the Orca as the "bigger than an industrial, smaller than a freighter" hauler.

It would also be nice if there was another Industrial command ship that was able to run more warfare links, provide a decent sized fleet hangar, have a bonus to tractor range, but no other benefits of the Orca. I'd also like to see an ORE covops with a bonus to survey scanner range in place of any weapon system. And I'd like to see ore sites moved back into the exploration system.

But none of that is really related to rebalancing existing T1 industrials.
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
#915 - 2013-06-27 02:28:38 UTC
Beware the power creep.

The Tears Must Flow

Rune Scorpio
Torgue
#916 - 2013-06-27 10:45:16 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Quote:
Oh h*ll no, itty 4 is one of the best indus there is. Also you are removing over 1k hp from the itty 5, how is that going to give it 50% more base hp compared to the old?


The iteron 5 loses some hp, but the new Iteron has around 50% more hp than the former Iteron 5.

T2 haulers of course will get rebalance as well, but likely not until after some more pressing T2 classes (let me get done with this so we can do HACs =)

Quote:
Sorry, what do you mean by unfair? There are already a lot of things, like the resist VS repbonus thingie, that's also unfair in most of the cases.


As you say, its resist vs repair. In the case of Indies, it would have had to be: resist vs nothing because Caldari/Amarr have no ship. This would have been the only case in the whole game of one race having access to a role that wasn't balanced in some way for the other races with another ship.

Will keep listening about the Mammoth. There isn't an enormous amount of them being used so it felt like it wouldn't be too painful of a transition if it was better for visual direction. I'm less concerned about the continuity with the T2 model, but the differences in cost, and the forced transition for people who were using the Mammoth are real issues. Keep feedback coming and I'll poke around on my side some more.



Dont care what happens to industrials at this point just take away all their highslots so they cant do the MWD + cloak trick and pretend and dodge the training time for t2 industrials.
Makes alot of guys I know complain not just me. Though I seem to be the only one tgat uses the forums of my community xD
Maximus Tyberius
Free People United Inc.
#917 - 2013-06-28 01:37:23 UTC
Maybe someone already proposed this: but anyway

To minimize the unequalities, just give Caldari and Amarr at least 1 extra industrial...

For caldari this is extremely easy... Reskin the bustard and make it Badger III (as it originally was intended to)

For amarr it is a little more tricky...perhaps adding some container like structures under the Sigil's belly, and reskin and call it Sigil Mk II Other names: Emblem, Chevron, Insignia ..(just sayin)

Some other ideas : Give Non-Gallente races a frigate-sized industrial, as easy as to attach giant secure container horizontally to a rookie ship



So we get:


: Iteron mk I = Cheap and flimsy throwaway industrial, no special ability
: Iteron mk II = agile and tanky
: Iteron Mk III = Special Ability in between (ore hold, gas hold, PI hold)
: Iteron Mk IV = Fast subwarp and Fast warp (6 AU), but VERY reduced cargohold (Itty IV model is too small for its cargo hold!)
: Iteron Mk V = Big Cargo

: Reaper Indy
: Wreathe = agile and tanky
: Hoarder = Special Ability in between (ore hold, gas hold, PI hold)
: Mammoth = Big Cargo

: Ibis Indy
: Badger I = agile and tanky
: Badger II = special ability in between (ore hold, gas hold, PI hold)
: Badger III (reskinned bustard) = Big Cargo

: Imparior Indy (example) http://imageshack.us/a/img547/7484/a6eu.jpg
: Sigil = agile and tanky
: Sigil Mk II = (reskinned sigil) special ability in between (ore hold, gas hold, PI hold)
: Bestower = Big Cargo

Is all right for the bestower to have the biggest hold, cause it looks bigger than the Itty V.. ( I'm one of the guys that trained gallente industrial 5)


Well, there's some crazy Ideas, hope it helps...

Keep the good work!
Erik Finnegan
Polytechnique Gallenteenne
#918 - 2013-06-29 16:17:16 UTC
This looks to be going into the right direction now. Thanks Rise and all the polite community !
Lt Moore
Angel's INC
#919 - 2013-07-02 02:55:41 UTC
I think i would like to see the T1 Indy ships be purpose built. PI, Ore , and avg size bay leading to the T2 s being Cov Ops, version and Tanky with some kind of point defense ability. Leading to a T3 Modular version of them where you can add hangar bays and such.
I like the idea of the subsystems and i think they should carry it in to all ship classes 1 basic hull with variations on fits/models.
boernl
het verbond
Villore Accords
#920 - 2013-07-17 17:49:21 UTC
well the idear of rebalancing te indies is simply dumb

why not just keep 1 industrial in the game give it extra tank

i sure as hell hope that the industrial with ore mineral and gas purposes has a larger bay than the mackinaw otherwise it has bin obsolete even before it will be patched

and than you get the so beloved petitions from me even mroe