These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev Blog: Rebalancing and Renaming Industrials

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Infinite Force
#141 - 2013-07-18 15:18:27 UTC
Kusum Fawn wrote:
I just want to put this out there
From the dev Blog
Dev Blog wrote:

You can expect to see all of this on Tranquility for our Odyssey 1.1 release coming up later this summer. Hope you enjoy the changes!

See you in space o/

CCP Rise


why is this not going to sisi for feedback?


Because our feedback is consistantly ignored when it makes sense.

HROLT CEO Live Free; Die Proud

http://tinyurl.com/95zmyzw - The only way to go!
Siresa Talesi
Doomheim
#142 - 2013-07-18 23:45:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Siresa Talesi
Beofryn Sedorak wrote:
Radgette wrote:
god damn those names ><

you do realise noone is gonna call them that right. well maybe some noobs

I'm kind of confused though:

you go through the modules removing the different names saying it's hard for noobs to remember all the new names then you add a bunch of new names to the indy ships :P

Surely the normal "Iteron" should keep it's name as it is the progenitor of the class, a mark 5 with no mark one or reference to it seems strange also I understand changing the names of the ships getting dedicated bays to differenciate but the Itty 1 is just a standard hauler so ye no idea why your renaming it.


Believing that no one will use the new names is an incredibly ignorant claim born obviously out of your general unhappiness with no regard for logic or reason.

Despite having read the OP (Which I have to assume you did because you're aware of the name changes) and still having "No idea why *you're renaming it [them]." Is just more evidence supporting the conclusion that you're just being whiney and immature.


That's pretty severe; I wouldn't call the idea of people not using the new names "ignorant" at all; quite the opposite really. It's human nature to resist change, and history has shown that when we try giving a new name to something old, it takes a long time before it's use is common (if it ever catches on).

For example, back in 2000, in order to try to overcome negative connotations for marketing purposes, the California Prune Board announced that they were officially changing the name "prunes" to "dried plums." The new name was supposed to be more appealing. They spent over $10 million on a campaign to promote this change.

To this day, I don't know anyone who calls them "dried plums." In fact, I have a hard time finding anyone who even remembers that this change took place. This is regardless of the fact that many growers still label their products as "dried plums;" people still just call them prunes, even if the label says differently.

So you can change the name, you can rewrite the labels, but when people see something familiar, they will continue to call it what they have always called it, despite any efforts to enforce a change.
Ruze
Next Stage Initiative
#143 - 2013-07-19 02:31:44 UTC
First and foremost, I like these changes far more than the previous options.

I love that it's not completely 'balanced', and gives a bit more racial flavor.

I don't care much for the name change, but their names aren't much to me one way or another.



Only thing I'd really like to see added to this, is possibly combining some of the ideas from your playerbase into a new class of industrial hauler for ORE which is more unique than your standard parts-movers. Taking some of those ship fitting and jump fuel ideas we keep harping on for smaller-than-orca ships.

Really let the Industrial class begin to flourish.

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?
Beofryn Sedorak
#144 - 2013-07-19 04:51:25 UTC
Siresa Talesi wrote:
Beofryn Sedorak wrote:
Radgette wrote:
god damn those names ><

you do realise noone is gonna call them that right. well maybe some noobs

I'm kind of confused though:

you go through the modules removing the different names saying it's hard for noobs to remember all the new names then you add a bunch of new names to the indy ships :P

Surely the normal "Iteron" should keep it's name as it is the progenitor of the class, a mark 5 with no mark one or reference to it seems strange also I understand changing the names of the ships getting dedicated bays to differenciate but the Itty 1 is just a standard hauler so ye no idea why your renaming it.


Believing that no one will use the new names is an incredibly ignorant claim born obviously out of your general unhappiness with no regard for logic or reason.

Despite having read the OP (Which I have to assume you did because you're aware of the name changes) and still having "No idea why *you're renaming it [them]." Is just more evidence supporting the conclusion that you're just being whiney and immature.


That's pretty severe; I wouldn't call the idea of people not using the new names "ignorant" at all; quite the opposite really. It's human nature to resist change, and history has shown that when we try giving a new name to something old, it takes a long time before it's use is common (if it ever catches on).

For example, back in 2000, in order to try to overcome negative connotations for marketing purposes, the California Prune Board announced that they were officially changing the name "prunes" to "dried plums." The new name was supposed to be more appealing. They spent over $10 million on a campaign to promote this change.

To this day, I don't know anyone who calls them "dried plums." In fact, I have a hard time finding anyone who even remembers that this change took place. This is regardless of the fact that many growers still label their products as "dried plums;" people still just call them prunes, even if the label says differently.

So you can change the name, you can rewrite the labels, but when people see something familiar, they will continue to call it what they have always called it, despite any efforts to enforce a change.


Your rant hinges on the premise of wide usage, where as the discussion is about "no one". Your entire rant is invalid.
Kaillon Huren
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#145 - 2013-07-19 15:45:47 UTC
I have 3 main uses for Industrial haulers;

1) Missions; according to eve survival the largest story line mission for Level 4 is 40k, never seen a T1 hauler carry that in one go.

2) Mining assist; the fact that I see one ship carrying Ore and another carrying minerals, is cruel and laughable, so every new high sec miner has to have 2 hauling ships for one operation, not nice.

3) My most important need, a hauler that can move ships from a high sec trade hub to areas of danger, packaged ships and ammo, modules, no T2 hauler seems capable of that. The cloaked Prowler, 3 frigs at best, the Mastodon, higher capacity but still not safe enough to get through low sec safely.

My corp. and alliance use a collection of Freighters, Jump freighters and carriers to get ships and modules to low sec, an absurd level of skills for a simple task, but they have no alternative.

I would like to be able to carry a reasonable amount of small ships in the cloaked T2 version if possible, short distances from hi-sec to low-sec, otherwise Industrial hauling has no value to me.
Although this hope is more in the area of T2 Industrials, I don't believe this will happen.

Also to a previous poster, who implores us to trust CCP as they have a great record in updates and patches.
I personally have never been privileged to fly a single ship that has been improved by CCP, only nerfed and made less useful or valueable ever.
Rifter nerf, Rupture nerf, Tracking Enhancer nerf (for minmatar ships that shoot in falloff 99% of time) Drake nerf, Hurricane nerf, Typhoon changes, Medium missiles nerfed. The best result as a Minmatar pilot I have EVER experienced in a patch or update, has been "mostly unchanged". EVER. So how about a reduced subscription for Minmatar races as an apology.
Erik Finnegan
Polytechnique Gallenteenne
#146 - 2013-07-19 16:16:29 UTC
The renaming is a win and I like how the new roles are set up. Best possible solution at this point for industrials.
Siresa Talesi
Doomheim
#147 - 2013-07-19 17:27:56 UTC
Beofryn Sedorak wrote:
Siresa Talesi wrote:
Beofryn Sedorak wrote:
Radgette wrote:
god damn those names ><

you do realise noone is gonna call them that right. well maybe some noobs

I'm kind of confused though:

you go through the modules removing the different names saying it's hard for noobs to remember all the new names then you add a bunch of new names to the indy ships :P

Surely the normal "Iteron" should keep it's name as it is the progenitor of the class, a mark 5 with no mark one or reference to it seems strange also I understand changing the names of the ships getting dedicated bays to differenciate but the Itty 1 is just a standard hauler so ye no idea why your renaming it.


Believing that no one will use the new names is an incredibly ignorant claim born obviously out of your general unhappiness with no regard for logic or reason.

Despite having read the OP (Which I have to assume you did because you're aware of the name changes) and still having "No idea why *you're renaming it [them]." Is just more evidence supporting the conclusion that you're just being whiney and immature.


That's pretty severe; I wouldn't call the idea of people not using the new names "ignorant" at all; quite the opposite really. It's human nature to resist change, and history has shown that when we try giving a new name to something old, it takes a long time before it's use is common (if it ever catches on).

For example, back in 2000, in order to try to overcome negative connotations for marketing purposes, the California Prune Board announced that they were officially changing the name "prunes" to "dried plums." The new name was supposed to be more appealing. They spent over $10 million on a campaign to promote this change.

To this day, I don't know anyone who calls them "dried plums." In fact, I have a hard time finding anyone who even remembers that this change took place. This is regardless of the fact that many growers still label their products as "dried plums;" people still just call them prunes, even if the label says differently.

So you can change the name, you can rewrite the labels, but when people see something familiar, they will continue to call it what they have always called it, despite any efforts to enforce a change.


Your rant hinges on the premise of wide usage, where as the discussion is about "no one". Your entire rant is invalid.



Um, ok, not really sure where I was "ranting;" I was just pointing out an example illustrating that changing the names of well-known items doesn't always take right away. I wasn't even commenting on whether I thought the new names are good or not, I just made an observation about human nature, and demonstrated that there is valid reason to assume that at least at first, these new names might not be widely used.

Frankly, I think you need to just calm down a little; in calling people "incredibly ignorant," devoid of "logic or reason," and identifying simple statements as "ranting," you seem to be taking this whole name issue a little too personal than is healthy, and are demonstrating some of the characteristics of which you have accused others.
Antei Thantonne
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#148 - 2013-07-19 18:26:40 UTC
I'm so very impressed by the process that led to this re-balance. It's amazing to look back at the original Round 1 and Round 2 proposals, and see how much they changed in response to CCP staff and players communicating, thinking, and working together. I look forward to seeing more of these expansion/re-balancing monsterthreads in the future!
Estella Osoka
Cranky Bitches Who PMS
#149 - 2013-07-19 19:03:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Estella Osoka
Beofryn Sedorak wrote:
Gogela wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
Lady Zarrina wrote:
I realize these changes need to be done for various reasons. But will tech 1 industrial ever be more than just a floating loot pinata?

I certainly hope so.

Being a super stealthy or hard to kill loot pinata is the role of T2.

Then what would be the motivation to get a blockade runner or DST?

I think these changes are fine and make sense. I still think you need a mini-freighter class... something like a 100k m3 cargo hold retailing for about 100 mil to bridge the gap between standard indys and freighters for hauler types.


It's a pretty decent price gap between 100mil and an Orca, but the Orca fills that role quite well. Perfect skills with rigs and expanders brings the general cargo bay to 90km3, + the fleet hangar 40km3


Orca has a 400k m3 Ship Maintenance Bay also. So actually even more carrying capacity if your smart.
Beofryn Sedorak
#150 - 2013-07-21 03:28:01 UTC
Kaillon Huren wrote:
I have 3 main uses for Industrial haulers;

1) Missions; according to eve survival the largest story line mission for Level 4 is 40k, never seen a T1 hauler carry that in one go.

2) Mining assist; the fact that I see one ship carrying Ore and another carrying minerals, is cruel and laughable, so every new high sec miner has to have 2 hauling ships for one operation, not nice.

3) My most important need, a hauler that can move ships from a high sec trade hub to areas of danger, packaged ships and ammo, modules, no T2 hauler seems capable of that. The cloaked Prowler, 3 frigs at best, the Mastodon, higher capacity but still not safe enough to get through low sec safely.

My corp. and alliance use a collection of Freighters, Jump freighters and carriers to get ships and modules to low sec, an absurd level of skills for a simple task, but they have no alternative.

I would like to be able to carry a reasonable amount of small ships in the cloaked T2 version if possible, short distances from hi-sec to low-sec, otherwise Industrial hauling has no value to me.
Although this hope is more in the area of T2 Industrials, I don't believe this will happen.

Also to a previous poster, who implores us to trust CCP as they have a great record in updates and patches.
I personally have never been privileged to fly a single ship that has been improved by CCP, only nerfed and made less useful or valueable ever.
Rifter nerf, Rupture nerf, Tracking Enhancer nerf (for minmatar ships that shoot in falloff 99% of time) Drake nerf, Hurricane nerf, Typhoon changes, Medium missiles nerfed. The best result as a Minmatar pilot I have EVER experienced in a patch or update, has been "mostly unchanged". EVER. So how about a reduced subscription for Minmatar races as an apology.


1) Currently itty 5 with gallente indy 4 and 2 t2 rigs and 1 t1 rig exceeds 40km3

2) You don't "need" to use the specialized ships to haul ore and minerals, so low level pilots will just use a general purpose hauler like thay've always done.

3) That's part of the balance of EVE, every economy needs "Money sinks" to help alleviate all the currency that gets generated out of thin air to help manage inflation.

4) The fact that you're always on the wrong side of the imbalance when it comes to ships and weapons is your own fault, not CCP's. Please stop whining because you can't have your unfair gameplay anymore.

In conclusion: Your rant is very poorly thought out and has a lot of holes. Please spend more time thinking through your comments to help avoid embarrassing situations that reflect poorly on you.
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
#151 - 2013-07-21 10:57:43 UTC
Red Frog Rufen wrote:
hmm.

after all that, any chance we're going to see some capital industrial rework? Pretty please? :)


I presume you refer to Freighters as you associated with Red Frog? You obviously hadn't considered the fact that if CCP 'rebalance' the four Freighter racial variants the end result will be a forty percent increase to the material requirement to build them. We desperately need a rethink on this process before any more ship production lines are borked for the foreseeable future.

Aside from that I don't see a need to 'rebalance' Freighters as there are only four of them and they have different characteristics to choose from now.

" They're gonna feel pretty stupid when they find out. " Rick. " Find out what ? " Abraham. " They're screwing with the wrong people. " Rick. Season four.   ' The Walking Dead. ' .
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
#152 - 2013-07-21 11:02:23 UTC
Regarding renaming the Iteron classes of vessels it seems a little odd to keep the Iteron Mark V name while renaming the three middle sized ones. Would it not be better to ditch the Iteron name entirely and rename the Iteron & Iteron Mark V as well?

" They're gonna feel pretty stupid when they find out. " Rick. " Find out what ? " Abraham. " They're screwing with the wrong people. " Rick. Season four.   ' The Walking Dead. ' .
Ynot Eyob
Nisroc Angels
The Obsidian Front - Reborn
#153 - 2013-07-22 08:23:40 UTC
I just had to:

http://zkillboard.com/detail/32075941/

Industrials today, looking forward to this.

Nisroc - Angel of Freedom Nisroc is known as "The Great Eagle".
Marcuis
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#154 - 2013-07-22 12:16:44 UTC
CCP Falcon wrote:
[quote=CCP Rise]...go do something important like deleting falcons from the game (I kind of agree with you)”.



This is a Stupid remark to have , out of all the Ewar in the game, Jammers are now broken beyond them being used anymore, CCP have nerf and nerf ECM to a point where they are broken from repair...

[URL=http://s284.photobucket.com/user/Zuminor/media/marcsigcopy-13.gif.html][IMG]http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll34/Zuminor/marcsigcopy-13.gif[/IMG][/URL]
Ynot Eyob
Nisroc Angels
The Obsidian Front - Reborn
#155 - 2013-07-22 12:20:16 UTC
Marcuis wrote:
CCP Falcon wrote:
[quote=CCP Rise]...go do something important like deleting falcons from the game (I kind of agree with you)”.



This is a Stupid remark to have , out of all the Ewar in the game, Jammers are now broken beyond them being used anymore, CCP have nerf and nerf ECM to a point where they are broken from repair...


Ummm then you didnt see the standard Scorp Team win alliance tournament last night, due perfect ECM
I dont see ECM being broken, but fixed

Nisroc - Angel of Freedom Nisroc is known as "The Great Eagle".
Robert Parr
Iron Tiger T3 Industries
#156 - 2013-07-23 13:29:25 UTC
Name changes, really?Roll

No offense, but the developers seem to be caught up in creating their own fantasy rather than the utility of the indy class. What a colossal waste of time!! Rebalancing (and that term is used very loosely) of the indy class was questionable to begin with (you said so yourself!!!). You've done nothing meaningful here. My apologies to those who feel differently but, a drone bay for an industrial???????????? WTF over? It's a hauler for God sake...who in their right mind is going to get any use from that?

Sorry but, I'm just flat disgusted with the process...I saw so many good ideas and real opportunity for making an impactful change here and most everything of worth was ignored. Specialized bays (credit where credit is due, there was at least some of this), ship maintenance bay, the ability to haul rigged ships, and perhaps most importantly addressing the grand canyon gulf between indies and freighters (I thought this one would have been first on the list)!!!!!!!!!!! If you could not do any of them then you should have just left well enough alone.

One person's opinion....and tempered with the knowledge that it's easy when your outside the programming to take shots (it's not so much sarcasm as it is intended to be constructive criticism)
Barbar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#157 - 2013-07-23 21:38:06 UTC
This all sounds like " why making this easy when complicated works well too " or was it the other way around.

While you DEV are busy squeezing your brains on this maybe you should have a look at the cargo capacity gap too.

Roughly we go from 40K for the T1 to 1M Charon type. (I leave the bastard Orca out of the equation)

New ships to fill the gap ?? 300 <->-500K capacity would be welcome i imagine?

Cheers

**There are no dumb questions, only intelligent or idiot answers **!!!
Siresa Talesi
Doomheim
#158 - 2013-07-25 18:36:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Siresa Talesi
Edit: wrong thread!
Lakitel
4.20ly Mining Range
#159 - 2013-07-25 22:40:27 UTC
Out of curiosity, how is the industrial re-balancing going to effect current BPOs? Will they just be re-named with the new names and create the new ships? Will the material requirements or anything like that be changed or altered? (they should be, since these are really actually new ships in an old hull).
Gianath
Gallentian Legitimate Businessmen
#160 - 2013-07-26 20:15:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Gianath
I'm really excited about the Epithal, hoping it will make low-cost, low-sec hauling of PI less painful than a hundred+ trips per week in a blockade runner.

Can we get an idea on the carrying capacity of this thing? I'm hoping for 50,000 m3 without the need of rigs, with a building cost comparable to the current Iterons so it won't kill my entire week's manufacturing profit if I lose it like losing a Viator would.

** edit** nevermind, I see they already posted 45k m3 that in the other thread at https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=252819