These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Berluth Luthian
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#141 - 2013-06-19 16:30:21 UTC
Marcel Devereux wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
To the above concerns - I can see that you are able to make a list of "best" by capacity, but in reality the difference between capability between Amarr and Gallente is tiny.

Gallente max capacity (t1 rigs): 38433m3
Amarr max capacity (t1 rigs): 39201m3

There is 2% difference. If you feel compelled to cross train because technically Amarr is at the top now, I think that's okay. The old gap looked like this:

Gallente: 38433m3
Minmatar: 28259m3

In the old scenario, 26.5% difference actually was enough that you were basically compelled to train one race.

I prefer the new version


I have no idea what game you play, but this is a game played by min/maxers. It could be a difference of 1m3 and people will just train the one with the larger cargo capacity.

Another thing you are not considering is new players coming in the game. All the older ones now will just coach them on training the one with the largest hold. Racial flavor and the subtle balances between these ships means nothing to new players. Cargo capacity is king.


Wouldn't minmaxers also realize that align time or speed differences would mean less time traveling, which can result in more hauled? Increased speed/agility effectively increases your capacity carrying rate.
Ersahi Kir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#142 - 2013-06-19 16:31:49 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
actually, i'm not even sure i care, i own an orca which is still better than every single t1 industrial in every single way that matters.


I think the speedy/tanky industrials may find some general use for people moving small amounts of stuff, but the "cargo" haulers are indeed completely trumped by the orca. Being able to move 75k+ m3 of stuff in a ship with 200k+ ehp beats the hell out of hauling up to 38k m3 of stuff with some crappy ehp number. With MWD trick they're about the same in align time as well.

The cargo haulers are pretty sad. I may pick up an agile hauler though.

Still want to know why the CPU is so outrageously high on these ships.
Eeio
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#143 - 2013-06-19 16:32:41 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Let us know what you think!


I think you need to explain some more why you are degrading the Mammoth and making the Hoarder top dog?

And how will this affect T2 industrials? It seems a bit problematic unless you turn the T2 mammoth into a T2 Hoarder as well.
Taleden
North Wind Local no. 612
#144 - 2013-06-19 16:32:43 UTC
Maximus Andendare wrote:
Firstly, there should have been three (3) categories for Industrials: the Tanky one, the Fast one, and the Large Cargo one.

The tanky ones would have been: Sigil Mark II, Badger Mark II, Hoarder and Iteron Mark III.
The Sigil Mark II could have just been a Sigil with a slightly different color scheme, since that's not terribly difficult to implement and it's been done before.

The fast ones should have been Sigil Mark I, Badger Mark I, Wreathe, Iteron Mark I.

Lastly, the large cargo ones would have been Bestower, Badger Mark III, Mammoth, and Iteron Mark V.
The Badger Mark III would have been a reskin of the Bustard hull (since it has another cargo box) in T1 skins.


I think he's on the right track here. With a scheme like this:

  • Only 2 ships become "extra" instead of 4 -- less awkwardness.
  • The Mammoth gets to remain the high-capacity Minmatar hauler that it always was, but the art dept gets to keep their precious Hoarder as a first-class ship as well.
  • Only two reskins are required for Sigil and Badger variants.
  • No new hulls need to be created; if you really don't like the duplication of the Sigil model you can always go back and upgrade one of them down the road, but that's not a priority.
  • All races get one hauler that focuses on one of the three attributes.
  • For each attribute, the ships that focus on it can still differ in their balance of the other two. For example the Minmatar and Gallente high-capacity ships can have medium agility and low tank, while the Amarr and Caldari high-capacity ships have low agility and medium tank. Likewise the Minmatar and Amarr high-tank ships can have medium agility and low tank, while the Caldari and Gallente high-tank ships have low agility and medium tank.
Maximus Andendare
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#145 - 2013-06-19 16:37:22 UTC
Berluth Luthian wrote:
Wouldn't minmaxers also realize that align time or speed differences would mean less time traveling, which can result in more hauled? Increased speed/agility effectively increases your capacity carrying rate.
Probably not. It's the same reason that so many people train for a Charon and never realize that it takes A LOT to fill it up and it moves like an iceberg. For most hauling needs, the Fenrir or even Providence are WAY faster, which, over time, means that more m3 is going to be delivered than what the iceberg can deliver, based on travel time alone.

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

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

Joseph Adamamada
Perkone
Caldari State
#146 - 2013-06-19 16:41:52 UTC
Maximus Andendare wrote:
Joseph Adamamada wrote:
Base cargo seems to be wrong. Shouldn't it be 5625m3?
(My PI Mammoth is T1 rigged/T2 exp and hauls 27129m3)

IB4 CCP secretly nerfs the Mammoth
This is intentional. Rise stated that the "other" hulls would fall in the middle of the intended haulers with the proposed changes. The Hoarder is the big boy for Minmatar after these changes, as much as that idea sucks.


I know. It's just damned inconvenient to have to switch a handful of haulers, doling out ~80M ISK for new rigs and move slowass haulers around in Delve to their PI systems :effort:.

I want satisfaction if my optimal hauler is nerfed.
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#147 - 2013-06-19 16:42:40 UTC
Pirokobo wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
I'm kind of surprised so few of you like the Hoarder though, its pretty hilarious looking.


The Gila may have guristas digital camo, and be the dual wielding pve god of drones and missiles, but it still looks like a shop class welding accident.


If you don't like moas you are bad.
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#148 - 2013-06-19 16:43:47 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:


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




"Some" HP????

You cut the base tank in half.

Many players used this ship as the defacto cheap belt-mining hauling ship (orca was obviously better, but that means your bonuses disappears when it warps off and docks with a load).

Now, the ganker catalysts will just have to look at it and poof.
Plus, many people fitted two tractors in the highs, but you deemed that too many.

Brilliant, just brilliant.

Gankers throughout high sec are rejoicing, deeming you their new messiah.
Kennesaw Breach
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc.
Illusion of Solitude
#149 - 2013-06-19 16:43:50 UTC
Berluth Luthian wrote:
Marcel Devereux wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
To the above concerns - I can see that you are able to make a list of "best" by capacity, but in reality the difference between capability between Amarr and Gallente is tiny.

Gallente max capacity (t1 rigs): 38433m3
Amarr max capacity (t1 rigs): 39201m3

There is 2% difference. If you feel compelled to cross train because technically Amarr is at the top now, I think that's okay. The old gap looked like this:

Gallente: 38433m3
Minmatar: 28259m3

In the old scenario, 26.5% difference actually was enough that you were basically compelled to train one race.

I prefer the new version


I have no idea what game you play, but this is a game played by min/maxers. It could be a difference of 1m3 and people will just train the one with the larger cargo capacity.

Another thing you are not considering is new players coming in the game. All the older ones now will just coach them on training the one with the largest hold. Racial flavor and the subtle balances between these ships means nothing to new players. Cargo capacity is king.


Wouldn't minmaxers also realize that align time or speed differences would mean less time traveling, which can result in more hauled? Increased speed/agility effectively increases your capacity carrying rate.


Speaking as a minmaxer, speed differences mean squat. If you're slowboating, or tanking, in your t1 hauler, you are doing it wrong. Or you're AFK, in which case you don't care anyway. Agility is a slight difference, but Minmatar were always king there anyway, hence the reason people used to CHOOSE to train for the minmatar freighter line.

I just really don't see how making these changes lets people make better race-picking decisions than they were able to make before.
Aeril Malkyre
Knights of the Ouroboros
#150 - 2013-06-19 16:51:51 UTC
In for 'Save the Mammoth.' I'm not sure why Art would like the Hoarder better. It looks like a flailing turtle.

I implore you guys to use the Hoarder as your weird third ship. Wreathe and Mammoth should maintain their place as forerunners of the T2 industrials (that you'd better be looking at later). Wreathe-class is fast and agile with small cargo, Mammoth-class is burly and slow with all the cargo. I really really don't want to have to abandon my trusty Mammoth Auroch for a Hoarder.

I'd still encourage you guys to think of a third role, and slot the Hoarder, the Itty Mark whatever, and a couple of Amarr/Caldari reskins (for now, new models somewhere down the line) to it. A tiny ore compressor ala Rorqual? Something unique.
CCP Rise
C C P
C C P Alliance
#151 - 2013-06-19 16:59:02 UTC
Quote:
Gankers throughout high sec are rejoicing, deeming you their new messiah.


I wish they would come post in the thread to raise my spirits a bit.

But yes, lowering the base hp on the Iteron V is obviously intentional. Now you actually have to make a decision between more safety versus the old version via the Iteron, or more cargo with increased vulnerability on the Iteron V (or somewhere inbetween using one of the otherss).

@ccp_rise

Lydia Schmidt
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#152 - 2013-06-19 17:00:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Lydia Schmidt
Aren't you essentially screwing over the "shield tanking" races by giving them fewer low slots in exchange for mid slots? Are you giving them enough fittings to actually put something useful in those mids? The last time I tried "tanking" a mammoth, I had trouble getting anything larger than a medium shield extender (generally considered a frigate sized module) to fit. Besides, it seems that most of the EHP of the new tankier industrials will be in hull and hull tanking mods are also low slot modules.

Let's be honest, aside from an MWD for the MWD+cloak trick, midslots on an industrial is about as useful as nipples on a man.

Edit
PS: I support the motion to keep the mammoth as one of the primary minnie industrials.
Sigras
Conglomo
#153 - 2013-06-19 17:02:12 UTC
why is the iteron 1 basically straight better than the badger mk1?

it has more cargo capacity, is more agile, is faster and has more EHP . . . that doesnt seem quite right.
Phoenix Jones
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#154 - 2013-06-19 17:05:40 UTC
It's all about m3. If I can haul in 1 load what it would take me three loads to do, I've saved a hour or possibly two. Alignment, warp speed, agility.... I can carry more than the other ship. I have saved hours upon hours of time.

M3

Yaay!!!!

Sigras
Conglomo
#155 - 2013-06-19 17:06:57 UTC
Lydia Schmidt wrote:
Aren't you essentially screwing over the "shield tanking" races by giving them fewer low slots in exchange for mid slots? Are you giving them enough fittings to actually put something useful in those mids? The last time I tried "tanking" a mammoth, I had trouble getting anything larger than a medium shield extender (generally considered a frigate sized module) to fit. Besides, it seems that most of the EHP of the new tankier industrials will be in hull and hull tanking mods are also low slot modules.

Let's be honest, aside from an MWD for the MWD+cloak trick, midslots on an industrial is about as useful as nipples on a man.

Edit
PS: I support the motion to keep the mammoth as one of the primary minnie industrials.

actually ive seen several industrials tanked with ECM, you just have to be creative.

also if you notice, the shield ships with less lows also have a higher base cargo so they lose less (percentage wise) by putting on a single DCU than a ship with a smaller cargo hold and more lows.
Dumas Athos
World Curling Team
#156 - 2013-06-19 17:11:38 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
I'll try to get a meeting tomorrow with Art and see if we can reach an agreement about the Mammoth. I'm kind of surprised so few of you like the Hoarder though, its pretty hilarious looking.

Look for a post with final word sometime tomorrow.


Well, the mammoth is supposed to be big, like a mammoth. :)
Aquila Sagitta
Blue-Fire
Great Blue Balls of Fire
#157 - 2013-06-19 17:17:04 UTC
Would like to see more contrast in the haulers between speedy haulers and cargo haulers tbh. Make the speedy ones more like blockade runners imo faster/less cargo/more tank
Wyndeigo
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#158 - 2013-06-19 17:24:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Wyndeigo
How about some new makeover eyecandy? Personally I have always liked the mammoth but, the actual model needs some love as it looks too low poly with poor texture mapping compared to it's counterparts.

Will we see some new facelifts for our haulers? Can't wait to see what happens with my orcas.

o7

p.s. also, do we have an estimate on delivery of the new changes to TQ?
Lydia Schmidt
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#159 - 2013-06-19 17:24:52 UTC
Sigras wrote:
actually ive seen several industrials tanked with ECM, you just have to be creative.


The problem with ECM is:

  • you're always limited to responding to an aggressive act (at least in high sec). With a high alpha ship like a tornado, you may never get to respond.
  • it's chance based, you may never get a successful cycle off
  • ECM bursts is a REALLY bad idea on the Jita undock


Sigras wrote:
also if you notice, the shield ships with less lows also have a higher base cargo so they lose less (percentage wise) by putting on a single DCU than a ship with a smaller cargo hold and more lows.

I did notice. I was merely remarking upon the relative value of low slots over mid slots on an industrial.
Ersahi Kir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#160 - 2013-06-19 17:30:05 UTC
Lydia Schmidt wrote:
Aren't you essentially screwing over the "shield tanking" races by giving them fewer low slots in exchange for mid slots? Are you giving them enough fittings to actually put something useful in those mids? The last time I tried "tanking" a mammoth, I had trouble getting anything larger than a medium shield extender (generally considered a frigate sized module) to fit. Besides, it seems that most of the EHP of the new tankier industrials will be in hull and hull tanking mods are also low slot modules.

Let's be honest, aside from an MWD for the MWD+cloak trick, midslots on an industrial is about as useful as nipples on a man.

Edit
PS: I support the motion to keep the mammoth as one of the primary minnie industrials.


I actually disagree with you on this, I think the shield ships have a pretty good advantage. Armor ships and cargo hauling don't mix because of cargo expanders being in low slots and getting rid of structure combined with astronomic rigs lowering armor. Fitting armor plates also increases mass, ruining your align time.

Using extra mids for shield tanking has no opportunity cost, and if a armor tanker uses just a single low for tank they're going to be worse off in every way compared to a shield tanker.

For an example take the bestower. Take just one low for a simple buffer armor tank and you're sub 31k m3...and your tank still stucks. May as well use those mids for shield tanking, but your building up your tank from 160 base shields (seriously 160? Half a frigate?). And you only have 4 mids total. If you pick a prop mod you get 3 slots for tank, enough for 2 extenders and a hardener.

For a badger II you're at least starting at 630 hp, and you have 6 total mid slots for tank. Shave off 1 for prop mod if you need it, 2 medium extenders, and 3 hardeners for a much better tank. And for that you're only losing 3k m3 of space.

So while there are some trade offs to be made, having extra lows isn't once of them. The fact that the badger II is within 10% max cargo even though it has 2 less lows pretty much means they gave the badger a good shake of the stick when it came to base stats. Plus the badger is going to be by far the tankiest max cargo hauler.