These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Trailers for Cargo
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Strot Harn
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1 - 2014-06-29 16:45:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Strot Harn
With all the changes to Freighter and Industrial cargo sizes. How about adding a trailer you can hitch to you ship for doing some hauling? It slows down your warp speed, lowers your agility and slows your inertial speed as well as increasing significantly your signature radius.

This could also be posted in the one bad idea thread, but ... I'm torn. Straight
Bohneik Itohn
10.K
#2 - 2014-06-29 17:07:02 UTC
Definitely belongs there.

While I would love to see space caravans as long as an Avatar traveling with a full escort of armed guards, the mechanics of suicide ganking don't allow for it.

Maybe they could get through with some decent logi support but I seriously doubt it.

Wait, CCP kills kittens now too?!  - Freyya

Are you a forum alt? Have you ever wondered why your experience on the forums is always so frustrating and unrewarding? This may help.
Fer'isam K'ahn
SAS Veterinarians
#3 - 2014-06-29 17:10:24 UTC
I like the visual idea, but isn't that basically what cargo extender modules and rigs are doing ?
Bohneik Itohn
10.K
#4 - 2014-06-29 17:16:22 UTC
Fer'isam K'ahn wrote:
I like the visual idea, but isn't that basically what cargo extender modules and rigs are doing ?



Think bigger.

In the same method that a train's capacity is greatly increased by having one car devoted to being the engine and using that engine to pull multiple cars that're nothing but boxes, imagine if you could pull several freighter sized boxes behind your freighter in exchange for dedicating the freighter to being nothing but the engine.

Again though, it's just making suicide ganking much easier. It wouldn't work out financially for the hauler, never.

Wait, CCP kills kittens now too?!  - Freyya

Are you a forum alt? Have you ever wondered why your experience on the forums is always so frustrating and unrewarding? This may help.
Fer'isam K'ahn
SAS Veterinarians
#5 - 2014-06-29 17:25:36 UTC
Nono, I get that, I just meant, having more cargo is like extending the existing one, doesn't matter if its in the same module or another. In the end its just a visual.

Freighter 100.000m3 + lorry 20.000m3 + lorry 20.000m3
or
Freighter 100.000m3 + 20% rig + 20% rig (+penalty) and 3 cargo containers inside
or
Bigger freighter with 140.000 m3 also with 3 containers if you are in need of the division.

Practically it makes no difference, as long as you can get bigger or add more mods/rigs.

So the only difference is in the visual (to the mentioned limit).

If you go beyond that, sure, suggest a capital freight engine and capital freight containers (hey, maybe I'LL do that Pirate
Bohneik Itohn
10.K
#6 - 2014-06-29 17:28:50 UTC
Fer'isam K'ahn wrote:
Nono, I get that, I just meant, having more cargo is like extending the existing one, doesn't matter if its in the same module or another. In the end its just a visual.

Freighter 100.000m3 + lorry 20.000m3 + lorry 20.000m3
or
Freighter 100.000m3 + 20% rig + 20% rig (+penalty) and 3 cargo containers inside
or
Bigger freighter with 140.000 m3 also with 3 containers if you are in need of the division.

Practically it makes no difference, as long as you can get bigger or add more mods/rigs.

So the only difference is in the visual (to the mentioned limit).

If you go beyond that, sure, suggest a capital freight engine and capital freight containers (hey, maybe I'LL do that Pirate


But what if it wasn't just visual? Treat each trailer expansion as a different object from the freighter, and everything changes.

Wait, CCP kills kittens now too?!  - Freyya

Are you a forum alt? Have you ever wondered why your experience on the forums is always so frustrating and unrewarding? This may help.
Fer'isam K'ahn
SAS Veterinarians
#7 - 2014-06-29 17:33:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Fer'isam K'ahn
Oh well, now I get the misunderstanding, for me the visual included the added physical object (as long as we can use the word physical to apply for a digital world). I thought that was clear with my example, those were 3 different ships + internal and external modules.

I don't see the need for an added extra independent module unless it extends beyond what is possible to achieve so far in the game (m3 wise).

How those modules are treated once taken as implemented is another thing all together.
Bohneik Itohn
10.K
#8 - 2014-06-29 17:41:56 UTC
Fer'isam K'ahn wrote:

How those modules are treated once taken as implemented is another thing all together.


Right, my prediction is that they would be completely ignored, because without making some other fundamental changes to the game anyone using them would just be making themselves an easier target, which would lead to no discernible financial gain for the hauler for their extra investment.

In truth, they would practically be paying isk to increase the profit of the suicide gankers.

Wait, CCP kills kittens now too?!  - Freyya

Are you a forum alt? Have you ever wondered why your experience on the forums is always so frustrating and unrewarding? This may help.
Fer'isam K'ahn
SAS Veterinarians
#9 - 2014-06-29 18:02:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Fer'isam K'ahn
Just to play along the fantasy a bit more, how about treating them in a way like T3s ? Like a T3 capital freighter, each subsystem equals a 'wagon' and adds an extra cargo container to the cargo hold and offers certain slots for the main 'engine'.
Visually it is portrayed as separate segments much like the look of the T3 cruiser changes, but they handle like a single ship. Except building around the main module they build up behind.. much like the Iteron V looks chained-up , but with energy connections between the modules.

Lets say the main module has a max speed and no slots/cargo space, each module adds cargo space. module slots and reduces base speed. Different modules either add in relations more cargo space, tank, reduced speed penalties etc.

All those values can still be balanced for cargo reward and gank risk and time invested.
Bohneik Itohn
10.K
#10 - 2014-06-29 18:23:33 UTC
Fer'isam K'ahn wrote:
Just to play along the fantasy a bit more, how about treating them in a way like T3s ? Like a T3 capital freighter, each subsystem equals a 'wagon' and adds an extra cargo container to the cargo hold and offers certain slots for the main 'engine'.
Visually it is portrayed as separate segments much like the look of the T3 cruiser changes, but they handle like a single ship. Except building around the main module they build up behind.. much like the Iteron V looks chained-up , but with energy connections between the modules.

Lets say the main module has a max speed and no slots/cargo space, each module adds cargo space. module slots and reduces base speed. Different modules either add in relations more cargo space, tank, reduced speed penalties etc.

All those values can still be balanced for cargo reward and gank risk and time invested.



Possibly, but there would still be the problem of the point of no return, in which the value of the gank is simply so high that the ship is guaranteed to be lost. It's be extremely hard to make the ship something new and useful without tipping the scale into either the territory where it becomes useless because it's nothing but gankbait or it's ungankable, and thus a guaranteed source of income.

Wait, CCP kills kittens now too?!  - Freyya

Are you a forum alt? Have you ever wondered why your experience on the forums is always so frustrating and unrewarding? This may help.
Fer'isam K'ahn
SAS Veterinarians
#11 - 2014-06-29 18:28:06 UTC
might be possible, but isn't that the case with the new low slot freighters too ? Can't fly them, so I have no ways to compare.
Bohneik Itohn
10.K
#12 - 2014-06-29 19:02:01 UTC
Fer'isam K'ahn wrote:
might be possible, but isn't that the case with the new low slot freighters too ? Can't fly them, so I have no ways to compare.


With the low slotted freighters it puts more of the balance in the hauler's hands, and less in CCP's. It was a really clever way for CCP to say "If you think you can do better, here you go." while keeping the "Maximum cargo space for maximum risk" option pretty much unchanged.

If you envision this balance as a set of scales in the typical risk vs. reward scenario, imagine that the amount of isk the hauler is putting on the line as proportionate to the length of the arms of the scales. The more he invests, the more smaller changes and decisions added to one side or the other tips the scale dramatically.

Wait, CCP kills kittens now too?!  - Freyya

Are you a forum alt? Have you ever wondered why your experience on the forums is always so frustrating and unrewarding? This may help.
Fer'isam K'ahn
SAS Veterinarians
#13 - 2014-06-29 19:05:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Fer'isam K'ahn
Well, if you make it possible for the modules to allow for faster speed and less cargo space then the current freighters and the other way around, more cargo space, low speed and or higher tank, than its just an extension of said principle of extending options and possible choices. The rest is fine tuning and balance, nothing speaks against the basic idea. The basic average should be at least 50% more cargo (balanced with other features) than current basic and balanced setups to start with.

But what I find interesting in a negative way, its only us two discussing it Bear.
Bohneik Itohn
10.K
#14 - 2014-06-29 19:10:49 UTC
Fer'isam K'ahn wrote:
Well, if you make it possible for the modules to allow for faster speed and less cargo space then the current freighters and the other way around, more cargo space, low speed and or higher tank, than its just an extension of said principle of extending options and possible choices. The rest is fine tuning and balance, nothing speaks against the basic idea. The basic average should be at least 50% more cargo (balanced with other features) than current basic and balanced setups to start with.

But what I find interesting in a negative way, its only us two discussing it Bear.


Indeed, this tells you exactly what the haulers reading this thread think.

Wait, CCP kills kittens now too?!  - Freyya

Are you a forum alt? Have you ever wondered why your experience on the forums is always so frustrating and unrewarding? This may help.
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#15 - 2014-06-29 20:10:53 UTC
Freighteron V.
Komodo Askold
Strategic Exploration and Development Corp
Silent Company
#16 - 2014-06-29 21:07:55 UTC
Space truckz Big smile

Reminds me of an old TV cartoon series, "Malo Korrigan". It was awesome... and it's really difficult to find on the Internet :(

Well, that could be interesting. Or... make Cargo Expanders actually modify the ship's model by adding extra containers...
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
#17 - 2014-06-30 00:28:16 UTC
Bohneik Itohn wrote:
Fer'isam K'ahn wrote:
Well, if you make it possible for the modules to allow for faster speed and less cargo space then the current freighters and the other way around, more cargo space, low speed and or higher tank, than its just an extension of said principle of extending options and possible choices. The rest is fine tuning and balance, nothing speaks against the basic idea. The basic average should be at least 50% more cargo (balanced with other features) than current basic and balanced setups to start with.

But what I find interesting in a negative way, its only us two discussing it Bear.


Indeed, this tells you exactly what the haulers reading this thread think.

Well I'm no hauler but I definitely think it is a very interesting idea, T3 Freighters/Space Trains that can tailor their hauling abilities based on their load. You can get an Ammunition optimized trailer or a PI optimised, but you pay for that ability by being a more interesting gank target so why not have a defensive "caboose"?

Also, this might be more interesting to people if it were a T3 hauler instead of Freighter.
Bohneik Itohn
10.K
#18 - 2014-06-30 00:54:14 UTC
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:
Bohneik Itohn wrote:
Fer'isam K'ahn wrote:
Well, if you make it possible for the modules to allow for faster speed and less cargo space then the current freighters and the other way around, more cargo space, low speed and or higher tank, than its just an extension of said principle of extending options and possible choices. The rest is fine tuning and balance, nothing speaks against the basic idea. The basic average should be at least 50% more cargo (balanced with other features) than current basic and balanced setups to start with.

But what I find interesting in a negative way, its only us two discussing it Bear.


Indeed, this tells you exactly what the haulers reading this thread think.

Well I'm no hauler but I definitely think it is a very interesting idea, T3 Freighters/Space Trains that can tailor their hauling abilities based on their load. You can get an Ammunition optimized trailer or a PI optimised, but you pay for that ability by being a more interesting gank target so why not have a defensive "caboose"?

Also, this might be more interesting to people if it were a T3 hauler instead of Freighter.


Agreed. Once you mention spending more money on an already expensive yet tasty freighter the haulers start to look a little pale.

But then again it seems most of the haulers are convinced there's no way to make money unless you fly a freighter to Jita 3 times a week.

You just can't satisfy some people... Roll

Wait, CCP kills kittens now too?!  - Freyya

Are you a forum alt? Have you ever wondered why your experience on the forums is always so frustrating and unrewarding? This may help.