These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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, Round 2

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ruze
Next Stage Initiative
#721 - 2013-07-11 16:18:38 UTC
This is much, much better.

For the current round of changes, minus numbers others might catch, I give a thumbs up.

For the future POTENTIAL of the industrial profession and possibly a new class and category of ships which fill even more diverse roles? We'll be waiting, however patiently we can manage.

If you're driven to threaten others with harm or violence because of what they do in game, you can't separate fantasy from reality. That "griefer/thief" is probably more sane than you are. How screwed up is that?
Scuzzy Logic
Space Spuds
#722 - 2013-07-11 16:22:11 UTC
Ersahi Kir wrote:
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
Its balanced because it can only do that single task as opposed to the general cargo the other ships get. It is sad that some of you just don't get it. They are single task ships.

If you are fitting a Bestower to try to compete you are doing it wrong. They serve two different roles. If someone wants to be an idiot and train Amarr to V to haul ore. Let em! That is their fault.


Chances are if you're hauling ore that's all you're hauling.
Chances are if you're hauling PI that's all you're hauling.
Chances are if you're hauling refined minerals that's all you're hauling.

There really isn't any opportunity cost by using these three ships, especially when you consider that they're much cheaper to fit (no need to fill out lows with tech II expanders), are good out of the box with no rigs, and haul much larger quantities. Additionally, if the occasion does arise that you need to haul mixed cargo items you can slide into a itty 5 and haul nearly as much as a bestower. This is 'balance'?

Balance would be if they had actual opportunity cost for training galente. If the itty 5 and the itty 1 were both specialized haulers as well that may be balanced because you would lack the generalist haulers the other races get, but you would get to haul specific things. The fact that you get access to the much superior specialized haulers but retain comparable generalist haulers is a lack of balance.

As it stands there is little reason to train a non-galente hauler, but because these ships don't pewpew the devs could give a f-less. Just get orca's, they're better anyway.


This is the most sensical post I heard in the entire thread.

In a related matter, way to go giving the gallente the ore AND the refined mineral bay. Considering minerals are 56% of all cargo by volume in Freighters (according to an Incarna devblog, not that dated) and that ships account for 38%, you're giving them too much. Unless you're planning on making Gallente-T2 into ****-tier haulers, you're forcing players into an obvious TRAIN GALLENTE DERPTARD box.
Ronny Hugo
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#723 - 2013-07-13 00:04:12 UTC
About balance, balance does not mean "exactly the same". The races are supposed to have different strengths and different weaknesses, if they all have the same strengths and weaknesses the we might as well just merge them and be done with races.
Ted Cisse
Lanisters
#724 - 2013-07-13 01:46:37 UTC
Ronny Hugo wrote:
About balance, balance does not mean "exactly the same". The races are supposed to have different strengths and different weaknesses, if they all have the same strengths and weaknesses the we might as well just merge them and be done with races.



Excellent idea :)
Max Therion
Jita Ikami Bank
#725 - 2013-07-14 19:35:53 UTC
Good changes all around - move it forward please, the sooner the better.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#726 - 2013-07-15 05:47:14 UTC
Ronny Hugo wrote:
About balance, balance does not mean "exactly the same". The races are supposed to have different strengths and different weaknesses, if they all have the same strengths and weaknesses the we might as well just merge them and be done with races.

What exactly was your point with this? Keeping in mind the ships we are dealing with, what are you really expecting by way of division across racial lines? Or are you talking about the all ships in game as a whole?
Vayn Baxtor
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#727 - 2013-07-15 14:36:36 UTC
I think there's a bit too much of jumping-the-gun about balance.
We don't really need 4 versions of a ship doing the same industiral-themed job. And in the end, it doesn't really matter if you're skilling for a Noctis or a specific player race. Yes, time is money, but it is just an industrial ship.

What should be focused on is that all get last-tier Indys get an appropiate special-trait/bay whatever.
Now there are the "classic awesome" like hauling tons of m³, PI and stuff. Maybe one should try to be creative and find alternatives that could be cool. It would at least be something to start with. Hell, maybe give the Battle Badger idea more attention ;P.

Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all.

Meyah Star
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#728 - 2013-07-15 15:58:30 UTC
Little Question about Iteron Mark II

Is mineral bay for REFINED or NOT REFINED ( or both ) ?
SencneS
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#729 - 2013-07-15 16:22:45 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
HOARDER - Ammo bay (This includes anything in the 'charge' group - bombs/cap charges/etc)

Cargo (capacity / Ammo/Charge Bay Capacity): 500(-4600) / 41000
Unpacked Volume: Increased to 400,000


Interesting how the unpack volume changed to 400K, just enough to squeeze into an Orca's Ship Maintenance bay.

However, why even bother increasing its volume? Lets assume for a second that you have Null corps hauling charges from Jita to Null via Carrier for mineral compression...
Thanatos - 1,000,000 m3 ship maintenance bay.

So you can only carry two Hoarders - for a total of 82,000 m3 of ammo.
Or
You can carry three Bestowers - for a total of 117,603 m3 of ammo.

You could use one Hoarder and two Bestowers - Total capacity 119,402 m3.
But lets face it, that 1800 m3 in exchange for training two empire industrial is hardly worth the time or effort.

Instead the Unpack Volume needs to be increased to just 250,001 m3 - So you can't fit four of them in a carrier, but still out-classes Bestower to carry charges..

Increasing to 400,000 is just a death-blow.
Ersahi Kir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#730 - 2013-07-15 19:22:40 UTC
SencneS wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
HOARDER - Ammo bay (This includes anything in the 'charge' group - bombs/cap charges/etc)

Cargo (capacity / Ammo/Charge Bay Capacity): 500(-4600) / 41000
Unpacked Volume: Increased to 400,000


Interesting how the unpack volume changed to 400K, just enough to squeeze into an Orca's Ship Maintenance bay.

However, why even bother increasing its volume? Lets assume for a second that you have Null corps hauling charges from Jita to Null via Carrier for mineral compression...
Thanatos - 1,000,000 m3 ship maintenance bay.

So you can only carry two Hoarders - for a total of 82,000 m3 of ammo.
Or
You can carry three Bestowers - for a total of 117,603 m3 of ammo.

You could use one Hoarder and two Bestowers - Total capacity 119,402 m3.
But lets face it, that 1800 m3 in exchange for training two empire industrial is hardly worth the time or effort.

Instead the Unpack Volume needs to be increased to just 250,001 m3 - So you can't fit four of them in a carrier, but still out-classes Bestower to carry charges..

Increasing to 400,000 is just a death-blow.


Or, you know, fix industry so that importing large quantities of minerals from high sec isn't as necessary.

Whichever makes more sense.
SencneS
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#731 - 2013-07-15 21:00:54 UTC
Ersahi Kir wrote:
Or, you know, fix industry so that importing large quantities of minerals from high sec isn't as necessary.

Whichever makes more sense.


Of cause! That makes more sense, but this is CCP we're talking about :)

If it doesn't have a complex path that requires five spreadsheets to track, and work out what is optimal, or the most difficult complex system devised for the simplest requirement, then it just isn't EVE! Shocked
Ronny Hugo
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#732 - 2013-07-15 21:48:39 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Ronny Hugo wrote:
About balance, balance does not mean "exactly the same". The races are supposed to have different strengths and different weaknesses, if they all have the same strengths and weaknesses the we might as well just merge them and be done with races.

What exactly was your point with this? Keeping in mind the ships we are dealing with, what are you really expecting by way of division across racial lines? Or are you talking about the all ships in game as a whole?


I don't know. I didn't have your questions or concerns in mind when I wrote that.
I was only concerned with this problem: What do you do if you have two virtually identical pictures, and have to photoshop them both to make them better? There comes a point when they are so alike you delete one and only improve the other, then copy it. If we continue to make ships the same instead of more distinct we will reach that point. Caldari ships should have zero armor, lots of shield, and the same goes for amarr, but then it is zero shield, and lots of armor. Amarr should have zero shield resistance and a more balanced armor resistance, Caldari should have no armor resistance but a more balanced shield resistance. And so on.
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#733 - 2013-07-16 05:29:11 UTC
(I apologize if this suggestion has already been made previously)

With the increased use of "specialty" bays, Expanded Cargohold modules and Cargohold Optimization rigs should be updated to expand the new bays, as well as the standard cargohold.

After all, these particular modules/rigs were originally designed to be used primarily by the industrials, and now a good percentage of the updated industrials won't see much advantage from using them.

Note: This change would also placate many hauler (and miners, as well) who fitted Cargohold Optimization rigs to their ships, prior to the addition of these "specialty" bays.
Oraac Ensor
#734 - 2013-07-16 07:02:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Oraac Ensor
As a side issue, why are they still called Industrials?

My understanding is that they were originally intended to be exactly that (i.e. ships capable of running industrial processes, hence the huge CPU) but eventually emerged as something different.

I would like to see them given a type name more appropriate to their purpose, such as Cargoship or Hauler.
B aalzamon
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#735 - 2013-07-16 17:07:01 UTC
I'm not sure if it was mentioned already, but with the ore hauler being able to haul unrefined gas, asteroid, and ice products; will the mineral hauler be able to haul refined ice products too?

It should be allowed to carry anything in the Minerals category AND Ice Products category (stront, ozone, heavy waters, and isotopes) IMHO.

-B aalzamon
B aalzamon
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#736 - 2013-07-16 17:11:58 UTC  |  Edited by: B aalzamon
Sizeof Void wrote:

With the increased use of "specialty" bays, Expanded Cargohold modules and Cargohold Optimization rigs should be updated to expand the new bays, as well as the standard cargohold.
...
Note: This change would also placate many hauler (and miners, as well) who fitted Cargohold Optimization rigs to their ships, prior to the addition of these "specialty" bays.


Yes, because we need to placate hisec carebear haulers. Roll

Do cargo expanders and rigs affect the ore holds on Orcas, Ventures, Mining Barges, or Exhumers? No. Did the mining botters cry foul when CCP gave them massive ore holds and made them throw away their cargo rigs? No. Why? Because they aren't idiots.

-B aalzamon

EDIT: I forgot to mention Commodities holds on Primaes, but since no one uses them for anything, EVER, it doesn't really matter. But they are not effected by cargo rigs either.
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#737 - 2013-07-16 17:16:53 UTC
Oraac Ensor wrote:
As a side issue, why are they still called Industrials?

My understanding is that they were originally intended to be exactly that (i.e. ships capable of running industrial processes, hence the huge CPU) but eventually emerged as something different.

I would like to see them given a type name more appropriate to their purpose, such as Cargoship or Hauler.


The logical name would be logistics, but that's been taken already (as a vestige, though, EVE-logistics ships have large cargo holds).

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!
Vayn Baxtor
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#738 - 2013-07-16 18:24:27 UTC
Dersen Lowery wrote:
Oraac Ensor wrote:
As a side issue, why are they still called Industrials?

My understanding is that they were originally intended to be exactly that (i.e. ships capable of running industrial processes, hence the huge CPU) but eventually emerged as something different.

I would like to see them given a type name more appropriate to their purpose, such as Cargoship or Hauler.


The logical name would be logistics, but that's been taken already (as a vestige, though, EVE-logistics ships have large cargo holds).


There's a whole bunch of misplaced names, if one goes through the list. There would have to be a general cleansweep on those names, but I'm guessing such would go under the "too complicated" tab as usual.

Frigates are actually more of closer related to the term Corvettes.
Destroyers are more of a Frigates.
Cruisers are mix of actual Cruisers and Destroyers.
BCs are fine but one could also put them under the general term of Heavy Cruisers in some way.

As said, it is complicated, there will be much to debate about and it's likely unnecessary as it is just cosmetics.


I'm guessing the "Industrial Ship" is just to signal the primary "civilian" aspect.



Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all.

Djana Libra
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#739 - 2013-07-16 20:07:56 UTC
why not make the special bay ships depending on ore industrial, and just have racial haulers for speed and max cargo.

Oska Rus
Free Ice Cream People
#740 - 2013-07-16 22:37:06 UTC
I think that difference of size of normal max cargo and specialized bays (35-39k vs 42-45k) is too insignificant to make anyone use it. Why not make it actually big like 70k+ or make it affectable by cargoold mods and rigs?