These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

need for 400,000 m3 general hauler.

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Celthric Kanerian
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#81 - 2015-09-08 09:25:14 UTC
Bowhead full of haulers?

Joking.

I'd say either you go large (Freighters) or you go home.
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#82 - 2015-09-08 16:29:19 UTC
Mike Whiite wrote:
cargo hold size is only interesting when it's dependable.
should be measured in isk a M3 .

as for the need of new haulers, I think there is a place for the EVE version of an (Oostindie vaarder or Spiegelschip)

these where more or less warships that sacrificed a cannon deck for cargo hold, though instead of making a new ship, this could also be established by making a large high slot module that takes the place of a turret or Launcher hard point.

and by making the stacking penalty for these modules reverse, so that by offering 1 hard point you gain a little extra cargo space less than a extended cargo bay or instance, though by 3 of these modules it will be more interesting than a extended cargo bays, for instance.


and with that give a slight boost to the fleet hanger of the DTS.


No, that is just another complicated way to end up with a sub-par result.

I have no way of knowing this for sure but based on my own programming experience im guessing that creating and balancing a basic hauling ship, as per the request, would be one of the easiest new ship coding and balancing tasks that you can do in EVE.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#83 - 2015-09-08 16:34:09 UTC
Celthric Kanerian wrote:
Bowhead full of haulers?

Joking.

I'd say either you go large (Freighters) or you go home.


read previous posts ive made covering this argument.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#84 - 2015-09-08 17:06:53 UTC
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
Celthric Kanerian wrote:
Bowhead full of haulers?

Joking.

I'd say either you go large (Freighters) or you go home.


read previous posts ive made covering this argument.


read previous posts a lot of folks have made covering 'NO'.

(touche' mon pussycat)
Media freak
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#85 - 2015-09-08 20:35:23 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Media freak wrote:
The T2 being it specializing into hauling instead of combat.

That doesn't make a lick of sense. There are T1 haulers in the game.



and these would be battle cruisers or battleships that are specialized in hauling thus why T2. It makes as much sense as discounting the DST and the orca as haulers cause of the cost and training time.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#86 - 2015-09-08 21:40:52 UTC
Hauling stuff isn't some hyper specialized ship function. It's one of the most basic things a ship does. It's worth its own T1 line-up.

Why should moving loads bigger than a bread box always require billion+ ISK ships? Seriously, where's the balance problem in an unarmed flying box? There are more playstyles in EVE than pirates and they could use a little dev time too. If anything this puts more targets in space. Is 'no' just a Pavlovian response now-post an idea, get a flurry of 'no' on reflex?

A full line of cargo moving options is almost a QOL issue. It's not some huge balance nightmare if freight can suddenly be moved in sub freighter amounts in ships that don't cost a billion ISK.
Media freak
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#87 - 2015-09-08 22:04:41 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Hauling stuff isn't some hyper specialized ship function. It's one of the most basic things a ship does. It's worth its own T1 line-up.

Why should moving loads bigger than a bread box always require billion+ ISK ships? Seriously, where's the balance problem in an unarmed flying box? There are more playstyles in EVE than pirates and they could use a little dev time too. If anything this puts more targets in space. Is 'no' just a Pavlovian response now-post an idea, get a flurry of 'no' on reflex?

A full line of cargo moving options is almost a QOL issue. It's not some huge balance nightmare if freight can suddenly be moved in sub freighter amounts in ships that don't cost a billion ISK.



CCP has always and still claims that cost should not be included when talking about balancing things.

400 000 m^3 is freighter territory. and thus if ccp did have a ship that could move that amount you can be sure that it would no better than a freighter for that load size.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#88 - 2015-09-08 22:21:30 UTC
Media freak wrote:
400 000 m^3 is freighter territory. and thus if ccp did have a ship that could move that amount you can be sure that it would no better than a freighter for that load size.

What's wrong with that? A smaller freighter can still be a freighter.

Nobody is suggesting giving this ship all of the benefits of one ship and none of the drawbacks. The post was very specific as have been our responses since then: the proposed ship is smack dab BETWEEN large industrials and freighters. The specific attributes are up for discussion, but the basic idea isn't unbalanced for it can't be, for the very description of it is an exact match with what balance is.

None of you have offered a single shred of reasoning for why this is a bad idea, and every argument against it has been a strawman misrepresentation of the idea. What you oppose is your view of what the suggestion is, not what the suggestion really is.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
ISD Decoy
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#89 - 2015-09-09 03:32:20 UTC
Quote:
4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not conductive to the community spirit that CCP promotes. As such, this kind of behavior will not be tolerated.

5. Trolling is prohibited.

Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive, and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.

I have removed a trolling personal attack. There is no need for this nonsense on our boards. If you can't stick to the topic at hand, and can't be civil, please don't post.

ISD Decoy

Captain

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department
Mike Whiite
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#90 - 2015-09-09 06:30:05 UTC
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
Mike Whiite wrote:
cargo hold size is only interesting when it's dependable.
should be measured in isk a M3 .

as for the need of new haulers, I think there is a place for the EVE version of an (Oostindie vaarder or Spiegelschip)

these where more or less warships that sacrificed a cannon deck for cargo hold, though instead of making a new ship, this could also be established by making a large high slot module that takes the place of a turret or Launcher hard point.

and by making the stacking penalty for these modules reverse, so that by offering 1 hard point you gain a little extra cargo space less than a extended cargo bay or instance, though by 3 of these modules it will be more interesting than a extended cargo bays, for instance.


and with that give a slight boost to the fleet hanger of the DTS.


No, that is just another complicated way to end up with a sub-par result.

I have no way of knowing this for sure but based on my own programming experience im guessing that creating and balancing a basic hauling ship, as per the request, would be one of the easiest new ship coding and balancing tasks that you can do in EVE.


as a programmer you might be right, no experience in that area/ though ganes should nt be build arround the programmers convenience.

This game already has more ships than is needs, almost every new ship cannibalizes on existing ships or simply makes them obsolete.

The requested ship is niece that needs to have a larger bay and a better Defense than a DTS it also needs to be faster than a Freighter, if that is the case why would I use a DTS? a small difference in Warp Speed?

if the Defense is less it becomes a gank magnet and people wont use it.

A Reconverted Battleship/Battle-cruiser with a some means to defend it self/or participate in an attack has more uses
Defending a Mining Fleet while being able to take a load
Hold Extra Fuel/Ammo/loot while not making the pilot buggering his nose the entire op.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#91 - 2015-09-09 10:40:28 UTC
Mike Whiite wrote:
This game already has more ships than is needs, almost every new ship cannibalizes on existing ships or simply makes them obsolete.





A Reconverted Battleship/Battle-cruiser with a some means to defend it self/or participate in an attack has more uses
Defending a Mining Fleet while being able to take a load
Hold Extra Fuel/Ammo/loot while not making the pilot buggering his nose the entire op.

I disagree with your assertion that new ships make old ships obsolete. Not only do I not believe it always happens, I actually feel that it has never happened yet. Please give me an example of a ship that was marginalized by the addition of another specific ship.




I like the idea of a defense-oriented hauler but it's just yet more room for more hauler options, demonstrating that the field is very much not overdone and still has a lot of room for innovative designs. But defensive haulers don't need to be limited to mini-freighters, and mini-freighters don't need to be limited to defensive hauling.

I can come up with at least twenty distinct types of haulers beyond what this game has each with its own special and very significant niche, with none stepping on any toes at all. This game currently only has 12 types of hauler that I can think of, and 4 of them are primarily made for other purposes. (fast industrial, large industrial, specialized industrial, blockade runner, deep space transport, noctis, orca, rorqual, freighter, bowhead, carrier/supercarrier, jump freighter

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Mike Whiite
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#92 - 2015-09-09 12:41:59 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:

I disagree with your assertion that new ships make old ships obsolete. Not only do I not believe it always happens, I actually feel that it has never happened yet. Please give me an example of a ship that was marginalized by the addition of another specific ship.




I like the idea of a defense-oriented hauler but it's just yet more room for more hauler options, demonstrating that the field is very much not overdone and still has a lot of room for innovative designs. But defensive haulers don't need to be limited to mini-freighters, and mini-freighters don't need to be limited to defensive hauling.

I can come up with at least twenty distinct types of haulers beyond what this game has each with its own special and very significant niche, with none stepping on any toes at all. This game currently only has 12 types of hauler that I can think of, and 4 of them are primarily made for other purposes. (fast industrial, large industrial, specialized industrial, blockade runner, deep space transport, noctis, orca, rorqual, freighter, bowhead, carrier/supercarrier, jump freighter



It's your good right to disagree.

though most assault Frigates have been grounded after the T3 Destroyers to name one example.

as for industrial ships, once you can use Transport ships there is almost no reason to use a Fast/Large/Specialized industrial.

the Rorquel is in such a sad shape it hardly fits in that list.

The Noctis used to be nice, but aside from the fact that salvaging isn't very profitable, you could just invest that isk in one of the higher tier MTU's.

and on top of that the current Blockade Runners/DTS/and Freighters lack any form of interesting diversities between them.

not getting thrilled of 4 extra ships of which 2 are all but useless at the introduction, because of the slot layout
with a cargo bay that can hold 400 m3 which can not be worth more than 4 Tornado's
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#93 - 2015-09-09 15:34:26 UTC
A lot of people say a given ship is useless because it has a sub-par slot layout, but I think they're selling themselves short. I've always celebrated slot layout diversity and I think that the slot rebalance on the Coercer and Cormorant was actually a bad thing. There are uses for a ship with only one mid slot, or only one low slot.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#94 - 2015-09-09 17:36:38 UTC
Media freak wrote:
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Media freak wrote:
The T2 being it specializing into hauling instead of combat.

That doesn't make a lick of sense. There are T1 haulers in the game.



and these would be battle cruisers or battleships that are specialized in hauling thus why T2. It makes as much sense as discounting the DST and the orca as haulers cause of the cost and training time.


Wrong on every account: not a cruiser, not a battleship, DST and Orca discussions have already been covered.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#95 - 2015-09-09 17:44:27 UTC
Media freak wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Hauling stuff isn't some hyper specialized ship function. It's one of the most basic things a ship does. It's worth its own T1 line-up.

Why should moving loads bigger than a bread box always require billion+ ISK ships? Seriously, where's the balance problem in an unarmed flying box? There are more playstyles in EVE than pirates and they could use a little dev time too. If anything this puts more targets in space. Is 'no' just a Pavlovian response now-post an idea, get a flurry of 'no' on reflex?

A full line of cargo moving options is almost a QOL issue. It's not some huge balance nightmare if freight can suddenly be moved in sub freighter amounts in ships that don't cost a billion ISK.



CCP has always and still claims that cost should not be included when talking about balancing things.

400 000 m^3 is freighter territory. and thus if ccp did have a ship that could move that amount you can be sure that it would no better than a freighter for that load size.


No, 400,000 is not freighter territory, please see numerous posts as to why.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#96 - 2015-09-09 17:46:46 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Media freak wrote:
400 000 m^3 is freighter territory. and thus if ccp did have a ship that could move that amount you can be sure that it would no better than a freighter for that load size.

What's wrong with that? A smaller freighter can still be a freighter.

Nobody is suggesting giving this ship all of the benefits of one ship and none of the drawbacks. The post was very specific as have been our responses since then: the proposed ship is smack dab BETWEEN large industrials and freighters. The specific attributes are up for discussion, but the basic idea isn't unbalanced for it can't be, for the very description of it is an exact match with what balance is.

None of you have offered a single shred of reasoning for why this is a bad idea, and every argument against it has been a strawman misrepresentation of the idea. What you oppose is your view of what the suggestion is, not what the suggestion really is.


Appreciate your support but this is not a freighter nor anything like one, freighters are capitals and there is a huge jump up in ability from sub-cap to capital.

This is a larger version of the smaller T1 haulers.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#97 - 2015-09-10 05:29:00 UTC
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
Appreciate your support but this is not a freighter nor anything like one, freighters are capitals and there is a huge jump up in ability from sub-cap to capital.

This is a larger version of the smaller T1 haulers.

Based on the cargo size you're going for, it would be about the size of an Orca, or maybe a bit smaller. Larger than a battleship. Orca is sort of officially a capital ship, and it lies in a range I like to call mini-capital. It's the only mini-capital we have so far but your suggestion could be the next.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."