These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

Expanded Cargoholds One Positive stat yet Two Negative ones?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mr Burnz
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#21 - 2014-06-25 20:40:18 UTC
Kaerakh wrote:
Benny Ohu wrote:
Quote:
Which ergo means this is a general EVE discussion.

where it'd be moved here. so stick your ergos up your subset and stop shitting up the thread


Please just point to where the new idea in the original post is. I'm begging you.



Just did. *reading is hard* Roll
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#22 - 2014-06-25 20:47:06 UTC  |  Edited by: ShahFluffers
Mr Burnz wrote:
So after i read this I went and looked up something that looked like it should be somewhat related to the Expanded Cargoholds as a counter and found an Overdrive Injector.

https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Basic_Overdrive_Injector_System

Now unless I'm reading it wrong that module appears to only really lower your cargohold. Shouldn't it also have a negative effect to some extent on your structure?

Sorry guys I'm a noob and am just trying to see how these things relate to each other.

No worries.

Some modules, like the Overdrive Injector, do not need a second penalty because the bonus can be an indirect penalty as well.

The Overdrive can make you faster, yes. Even more so when combined with an AB or MWD.
However, without extra agility, that extra speed may actually increase the time it will take for you to turn... resulting in high-speed maneuvers taking longer to perform... which can be a death sentence if you need to pull away from a high-speed dogfight ASAP.

How did you Veterans start?
Mr Burnz
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#23 - 2014-06-25 20:50:00 UTC
ShahFluffers wrote:
Mr Burnz wrote:
So after i read this I went and looked up something that looked like it should be somewhat related to the Expanded Cargoholds as a counter and found an Overdrive Injector.

https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Basic_Overdrive_Injector_System

Now unless I'm reading it wrong that module appears to only really lower your cargohold. Shouldn't it also have a negative effect to some extent on your structure?

Sorry guys I'm a noob and am just trying to see how these things relate to each other.

No worries.

Some modules, like the Overdrive Injector, do not need a second penalty because the bonus can be an indirect penalty as well.

The Overdrive can make you faster, yes. Even more so when combined with an AB or MWD.
However, without extra agility, that extra speed will actually increase the time it will take for you to turn... resulting in high-speed maneuvers taking longer to perform... which can be a death sentence if you need to pull away from a high-speed dogfight ASAP.



Nice. I hadn't thought about that angle. So do you think CCP had any reason for going with -struct and -velocity as opposed to -velocity and -agility with these modules? Conceptually bolting additional storage modules on the side of your hull and filling them with crap would hurt your agility more than your structure wouldn't it?
Kaerakh
Obscure Joke Implied
#24 - 2014-06-25 20:54:05 UTC


Mr Burnz wrote:

And if this one module class were to be broken down into two sub types (one for +cargo -structure, and one for +cargo, -velocity) would that address some of the concerns for the freighter pilots out there?

Fair enough, that's my bad.

Mr Burnz wrote:

Although normally in a process where you're looking for information and have a desire to have ideas thrown around, limiting yourself to just a blanket statement is fairly short sighted. And in general not conducive to anything. Well except painting yourself into a corner and setting yourself up for a "my @*@ is bigger than his @*@*" kind of contest.

But yes I guess that could be considered "splitting hairs" as well Roll



Because I didn't think there was an idea here and your far from the first to post in the wrong board. F&I gets one of those ever 2-4 days. Plus, my argument wasn't about the merit of your idea. It was about whether or not your post was relevant to the board. You're resorting to taking my hair splitting statement completely out of context.

Saying my post is **** and not telling me how it is **** in any objective way does not result in me suddenly saying, "Oh sorry you're right my argument is complete ****."

As to your idea itself, I already addressed the fact that the penalties are rather inconsequential to most ships that would benefit from the bonus provided. Smaller ships have very little structure so it makes no difference in that regard, but the speed penalty could, if you're slow boating through a bubble(for example), be a substantial nerf. Meanwhile the speed penalty has no effect on a freighter, but on the flip side the structure penalty is very relevant to a freighter.

So if you want to get into why removing one or the other penalties would have game balancing consequences there you go.

Schrodinger's Hot Dropper

The Fate of Forum Alts

Guaranteed Success
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#25 - 2014-06-25 20:59:36 UTC
Mr Burnz wrote:
ShahFluffers wrote:
Mr Burnz wrote:
So after i read this I went and looked up something that looked like it should be somewhat related to the Expanded Cargoholds as a counter and found an Overdrive Injector.

https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Basic_Overdrive_Injector_System

Now unless I'm reading it wrong that module appears to only really lower your cargohold. Shouldn't it also have a negative effect to some extent on your structure?

Sorry guys I'm a noob and am just trying to see how these things relate to each other.

No worries.

Some modules, like the Overdrive Injector, do not need a second penalty because the bonus can be an indirect penalty as well.

The Overdrive can make you faster, yes. Even more so when combined with an AB or MWD.
However, without extra agility, that extra speed will actually increase the time it will take for you to turn... resulting in high-speed maneuvers taking longer to perform... which can be a death sentence if you need to pull away from a high-speed dogfight ASAP.



Nice. I hadn't thought about that angle. So do you think CCP had any reason for going with -struct and -velocity as opposed to -velocity and -agility with these modules? Conceptually bolting additional storage modules on the side of your hull and filling them with crap would hurt your agility more than your structure wouldn't it?


Velocity and Agility are easily bypassed by web-to-warp mechanics, making tank a more valuable commodity to many haulers. They probably chose the -structure penalty specifically so your choice of fitting has more impact on your play.
Kaerakh
Obscure Joke Implied
#26 - 2014-06-25 21:02:21 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Mr Burnz wrote:
ShahFluffers wrote:
Mr Burnz wrote:
So after i read this I went and looked up something that looked like it should be somewhat related to the Expanded Cargoholds as a counter and found an Overdrive Injector.

https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Basic_Overdrive_Injector_System

Now unless I'm reading it wrong that module appears to only really lower your cargohold. Shouldn't it also have a negative effect to some extent on your structure?

Sorry guys I'm a noob and am just trying to see how these things relate to each other.

No worries.

Some modules, like the Overdrive Injector, do not need a second penalty because the bonus can be an indirect penalty as well.

The Overdrive can make you faster, yes. Even more so when combined with an AB or MWD.
However, without extra agility, that extra speed will actually increase the time it will take for you to turn... resulting in high-speed maneuvers taking longer to perform... which can be a death sentence if you need to pull away from a high-speed dogfight ASAP.



Nice. I hadn't thought about that angle. So do you think CCP had any reason for going with -struct and -velocity as opposed to -velocity and -agility with these modules? Conceptually bolting additional storage modules on the side of your hull and filling them with crap would hurt your agility more than your structure wouldn't it?


Velocity and Agility are easily bypassed by web-to-warp mechanics, making tank a more valuable commodity to many haulers. They probably chose the -structure penalty specifically so your choice of fitting has more impact on your play.


Exactly, as I had just said.

Schrodinger's Hot Dropper

The Fate of Forum Alts

Guaranteed Success
Mr Burnz
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#27 - 2014-06-25 21:07:57 UTC
Kaerakh wrote:


Mr Burnz wrote:

And if this one module class were to be broken down into two sub types (one for +cargo -structure, and one for +cargo, -velocity) would that address some of the concerns for the freighter pilots out there?

Fair enough, that's my bad.

Mr Burnz wrote:

Although normally in a process where you're looking for information and have a desire to have ideas thrown around, limiting yourself to just a blanket statement is fairly short sighted. And in general not conducive to anything. Well except painting yourself into a corner and setting yourself up for a "my @*@ is bigger than his @*@*" kind of contest.

But yes I guess that could be considered "splitting hairs" as well Roll



Because I didn't think there was an idea here and your far from the first to post in the wrong board. F&I gets one of those ever 2-4 days. Plus, my argument wasn't about the merit of your idea. It was about whether or not your post was relevant to the board. You're resorting to taking my hair splitting statement completely out of context.

Saying my post is **** and not telling me how it is **** in any objective way does not result in me suddenly saying, "Oh sorry you're right my argument is complete ****."

As to your idea itself, I already addressed the fact that the penalties are rather inconsequential to most ships that would benefit from the bonus provided. Smaller ships have very little structure so it makes no difference in that regard, but the speed penalty could, if you're slow boating through a bubble(for example), be a substantial nerf. Meanwhile the speed penalty has no effect on a freighter, but on the flip side the structure penalty is very relevant to a freighter.

So if you want to get into why removing one or the other penalties would have game balancing consequences there you go.



Ok so if say I wanted to (for whatever reason) drop cargohold extenders in an orca for whatever reason (yeah dumb example but its a structure tank). That would negate the structure tank of my ship significantly (x * 20ish%) on top of making it really really slow (x *20ish%). Would the side effects of doing something like splitting the cargohold expanders out into two subclasses one that affects +cargo, -tank or +cargo, -speed/agil, would that break the mechanics already in play? It would give a hauler the option to either go slow with more tank and more cargo, or faster with less tank and more cargo. And I'm not even saying keep the 20% bonus to the cargo storage on these modules. That can fluctuate too (metas maybe I dunno). I'm assuming the %s would change if the modules were broken out like this. But yea like you guys say more options = more fun ways of fitting.
Mr Burnz
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#28 - 2014-06-25 21:09:49 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Mr Burnz wrote:
ShahFluffers wrote:
Mr Burnz wrote:
So after i read this I went and looked up something that looked like it should be somewhat related to the Expanded Cargoholds as a counter and found an Overdrive Injector.

https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Basic_Overdrive_Injector_System

Now unless I'm reading it wrong that module appears to only really lower your cargohold. Shouldn't it also have a negative effect to some extent on your structure?

Sorry guys I'm a noob and am just trying to see how these things relate to each other.

No worries.

Some modules, like the Overdrive Injector, do not need a second penalty because the bonus can be an indirect penalty as well.

The Overdrive can make you faster, yes. Even more so when combined with an AB or MWD.
However, without extra agility, that extra speed will actually increase the time it will take for you to turn... resulting in high-speed maneuvers taking longer to perform... which can be a death sentence if you need to pull away from a high-speed dogfight ASAP.



Nice. I hadn't thought about that angle. So do you think CCP had any reason for going with -struct and -velocity as opposed to -velocity and -agility with these modules? Conceptually bolting additional storage modules on the side of your hull and filling them with crap would hurt your agility more than your structure wouldn't it?


Velocity and Agility are easily bypassed by web-to-warp mechanics, making tank a more valuable commodity to many haulers. They probably chose the -structure penalty specifically so your choice of fitting has more impact on your play.


Ok so it's a player devised workaround that necessitates the module being balanced the way it is. So if CCP ever removed that webbing capability then would that even the field?
Kaerakh
Obscure Joke Implied
#29 - 2014-06-25 21:30:45 UTC
Mr Burnz wrote:
Kaerakh wrote:


As to your idea itself, I already addressed the fact that the penalties are rather inconsequential to most ships that would benefit from the bonus provided. Smaller ships have very little structure so it makes no difference in that regard, but the speed penalty could, if you're slow boating through a bubble(for example), be a substantial nerf. Meanwhile the speed penalty has no effect on a freighter, but on the flip side the structure penalty is very relevant to a freighter.

So if you want to get into why removing one or the other penalties would have game balancing consequences there you go.



Ok so if say I wanted to (for whatever reason) drop cargohold extenders in an orca for whatever reason (yeah dumb example but its a structure tank). That would negate the structure tank of my ship significantly (x * 20ish%) on top of making it really really slow (x *20ish%). Would the side effects of doing something like splitting the cargohold expanders out into two subclasses one that affects +cargo, -tank or +cargo, -speed/agil, would that break the mechanics already in play? It would give a hauler the option to either go slow with more tank and more cargo, or faster with less tank and more cargo. And I'm not even saying keep the 20% bonus to the cargo storage on these modules. That can fluctuate too (metas maybe I dunno). I'm assuming the %s would change if the modules were broken out like this. But yea like you guys say more options = more fun ways of fitting.


The problem with what your suggesting is that it would become a non choice. You would simple fit which ever one doesn't have a noticeable effect on your ship. IE freighters/orca would fit the speed/agil penalizing expanders and pretty much any ship smaller than those would fit the structure penalizing modules. Both scenarios result in marginal penalties for either ship when they would be better balanced to receive increased risk if they were fitting vice versa. You could restrict the modules to specific ship classes, but I really don't see the point when the same thing is achieved by having both penalties baked into the same module.

Just to break it down:
Freighters/Orcas are already ungodly slow, therefore penalties to their speed have no affect on them.
Industrials(incl noctis), Blockade Runners, and Deep Space Transports have usually have more shields or armor than structure and sometimes find themselves without a scout in potentially dangerous space. A penalty to structure rather than speed would make more sense.
I'm just saying that there's no real choice in the matter.

On the subject of meta levels that would be something to discuss at another time after CCP has implemented or released some numbers for their planned module tieracide.

Schrodinger's Hot Dropper

The Fate of Forum Alts

Guaranteed Success
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#30 - 2014-06-25 21:34:46 UTC  |  Edited by: ShahFluffers
Actually... the tanking penalties on the Cargo Expanders pre-date the discovery of web-warp trick (which, I am pretty sure, will never be removed for a variety of reasons).

But the point that Grizz and Kaerakh made does still stand; the idea behind the penalties of the cargohold expanders is that haulers must choose between two very precious stats... tank or cargohold (see: being less or more gankable).
Agility/mobility is a secondary concern unless you are being actively hunted down (in which case, there are better ship options).

How did you Veterans start?
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#31 - 2014-06-25 22:21:01 UTC
This thread has been moved to Ships & Modules.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
#32 - 2014-06-25 23:24:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Little Dragon Khamez
If you expand your cargo hold by gutting your ship it might not be as strong as it used to be, hence the penalty to speed is a consequence of losing hull hit points.

Acceleration stresses ships.

Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction...
Daniel Plain
Doomheim
#33 - 2014-06-26 10:10:17 UTC
i find it difficult to adequately express how silly this entire topic is.

I should buy an Ishtar.
De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#34 - 2014-06-26 11:16:19 UTC
ISD Ezwal wrote:
This thread has been moved to Ships & Modules.

I lol'd.

Thanks for making my morning Ezwal.

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.
Previous page12