These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

Specialty Haulers should be made to need cargo expanders, too!

Author
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2016-02-20 18:55:56 UTC
There is a blatant unbalance between standard and specialty industrials in which, while their max storage sizes are pretty well balanced, the specialty industrials reach that max without any cargo expanders but the standard haulers only reach it with a full set of expanders.



Here are the cargohold sizes of a Nereus, Epithal, and Iteron Mk V with max skills, T2 cargo expanders, and T1 cargo rigs:

Nereus: 17,294 m3
Epithal: 69,710 m3
Iteron Mk V: 37,152 m3

I actually think even at this point it's unbalanced in favor of the specialty hauler, but it's no huge disparity.



But what if we measure their storage without cargo expanders? Just max skills:

Nereus: 3375 m3
Epithal: 68,050 m3
Iteron Mk V: 7250 m3

It's absurdly high for a hauler that has fitted no cargo expanders at all!! How has this not been fixed yet?


I see three possible solutions:

1.) shrink specialty holds and make them gain from cargo expanders--even just partly

2.) give cargo expanders a stacking penalty and increase industrial base cargohold to compensate

3.) reduce the specialty hold size and give them regular cargohold to compensate



Any of these options would at least help close the gap between specialty haulers and other tech 1 haulers.

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."

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#2 - 2016-02-20 19:05:07 UTC
The speciality haulers are "pre-nerfed" by being able to only haul the specialty item. It limits their usefulness and functionality to just that category of goods it was designed for.

Also, noting the stealth buff to people who do PI (such as myself by the way).

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#3 - 2016-02-20 19:38:59 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:


It's absurdly high for a hauler that has fitted no cargo expanders at all!! How has this not been fixed yet?


Because it isn't broken. In fact, it's the purpose they were made for in the first place.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Cristl
#4 - 2016-02-20 19:39:44 UTC
Unusually, both the first and second posters in a thread are correct here I'd say.

Keep the specialist haulers as they are.

Apply Reaver's 2nd point: buff generic haulers' base capacity, but also apply stacking penalties to cargo expanders. This will give them more choices in fitting, shouldn't break freighters (with only 3 low slots), and remove the somewhat overblown exponentiation of a base ability.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#5 - 2016-02-20 19:54:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
Cristl wrote:
Unusually, both the first and second posters in a thread are correct here I'd say.

Keep the specialist haulers as they are.

Apply Reaver's 2nd point: buff generic haulers' base capacity, but also apply stacking penalties to cargo expanders. This will give them more choices in fitting, shouldn't break freighters (with only 3 low slots), and remove the somewhat overblown exponentiation of a base ability.

Not break freighters? Thanks, but I like my 1.1M Providence cargohold. And what would you want to have stacking? Only the cargo expansion or also the penalties? Roll

That aside, special commodity haulers are utterly useless for any hauling business outside their very narrow niche. A Wreathe is nothing but a waste of money with the ammo hold. A Kryos similarly as it can only transport minerals, but not ice products. And transporting minerals in such a small hauler is a waste of time, even for beginners. The only marginally useful specialty haulers are the Epithal (because it can haul ore and ice blocks, but only so many to not to become a gank target) and Miasmos (because of being able to transport all PI things). I do not see how their holds are overpowered or how making them fit cargo expanders instead of some kind of tank makes them any better.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#6 - 2016-02-20 20:03:17 UTC
A stacking penalty on cargo extenders is generally good for haulers since it actually provides them with much more meaningful choices. Currently you are either max cargo low value bulk, or min cargo high value. There is no middle ground. A stacking penalty and a buff to the base cargo level allows for middle ground fits.
And more fitting options for industrialists are always a good thing for gameplay. They should have vastly larger fitting options as it stands, but cargo extenders getting the stacking penalty is at least a step away from binary fits.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#7 - 2016-02-20 20:10:10 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
A stacking penalty on cargo extenders is generally good for haulers since it actually provides them with much more meaningful choices. Currently you are either max cargo low value bulk, or min cargo high value. There is no middle ground. A stacking penalty and a buff to the base cargo level allows for middle ground fits.
And more fitting options for industrialists are always a good thing for gameplay. They should have vastly larger fitting options as it stands, but cargo extenders getting the stacking penalty is at least a step away from binary fits.

In case of freighters, I wholeheartedly disagree with you. Exactly because EC do not have stacking penalties there is a meaningful point in switching between ECs and Istabs. Beyond ECs and Istabs, there are no meaningful fitting choices for freighters, stacking penalties or not.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2016-02-20 20:44:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Cristl wrote:
Apply Reaver's 2nd point: buff generic haulers' base capacity, but also apply stacking penalties to cargo expanders. This will give them more choices in fitting, shouldn't break freighters (with only 3 low slots), and remove the somewhat overblown exponentiation of a base ability.

Not break freighters? Thanks, but I like my 1.1M Providence cargohold.

If you read carefully, you'd see that your 1.1M Providence will be sticking around. The max cargohold won't be changed, only the base value to reflect that there are stacking penalties on cargo expansion.


I'll show you an example change, and I'll go a step further and increase the percentage bonus from cargo expanders to retain some of the gap between a high cargo fit and a low cargo fit:

T2 expander: +40% cargo

3x T2 expanders (with stacking penalty): ~131.75% increase

Old Providence base cargohold (before skill): 456,750
Old Providence base cargohold (skill 5): 543,750
Old Providence max cargohold (T2 expanders): 1,127,015


New Providence base cargohold (before skill): 389,800
New Providence base cargohold (skill 5): 487,250
New Providence max cargohold (T2 expanders): ~1,129,200

Now I wouldn't be opposed to leaving freighter base cargohold where it is and allowing them to gain more max out of this.
But here's an even better point:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
That is a problem of freighters having no PG, CPU or slots to make meaningful fitting choices. Hamstringing the entire system in order to maintain a bad choice is silly.

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."

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#9 - 2016-02-20 20:48:17 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:

In case of freighters, I wholeheartedly disagree with you. Exactly because EC do not have stacking penalties there is a meaningful point in switching between ECs and Istabs. Beyond ECs and Istabs, there are no meaningful fitting choices for freighters, stacking penalties or not.

That is a problem of freighters having no PG, CPU or slots to make meaningful fitting choices. Hamstringing the entire system in order to maintain a bad choice is silly.
SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#10 - 2016-02-20 22:31:22 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:



I'll show you an example change, and I'll go a step further and increase the percentage bonus from cargo expanders to retain some of the gap between a high cargo fit and a low cargo fit:


In that case, it's yet another unnecessary buff to EHP-fit freighters.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#11 - 2016-02-20 22:51:00 UTC
Reaver.

Are you familiar with the concept of a tradeoff? These haulers can haul exactly one type of item. If you nerfed them down to the same size as every other t1 hauler, we'd all just go back to using nothing but iteron Vs again. Do you really think that's better?
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#12 - 2016-02-21 01:11:57 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
In that case, it's yet another unnecessary buff to EHP-fit freighters.

No, it's a nerf. Freighter max cargo stays the same but freighter base cargo goes down, at least in the attributes I gave. Of course specifics will need to be decided and I don't claim to be the one to do that. Freighters are a mess anyway, and should have normalish capital ship fitting like the Rorqual.


Danika Princip wrote:
If you nerfed them down to the same size as every other t1 hauler

I'm trying to be as clear as possible that I'm not pushing for any change to max cargohold size, only change to base cargohold size along with stacking penalty on expanders. This will in no way nerf specialized haulers but will be a huge buff to standard haulers.

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."

Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#13 - 2016-02-21 01:18:32 UTC
If you buff standard haulers up to the size of the specialised, people will also no longer fly the specialised ones. The end result will be exactly the same, people will fly the biggest ship. If that means an iteron V can haul as much trit as a kryos or whichever one it is, people will fly the iteron exclusively simply for the versatility it offers.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2016-02-21 01:47:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
Danika Princip wrote:
If you buff standard haulers up to the size of the specialised, people will also no longer fly the specialised ones. The end result will be exactly the same, people will fly the biggest ship. If that means an iteron V can haul as much trit as a kryos or whichever one it is, people will fly the iteron exclusively simply for the versatility it offers.

You're completely misunderstanding what I'm suggesting. Let me show you with numbers.



Current cargoholds:

Iteron Mk V before skills: 5800
Iteron Mk V with no expanders: 7250
Iteron Mk V with 3 expanders: 15,026
Iteron Mk V with 5 expanders and 3 rigs: 37,152

Epithal specialty hold: 67,500


================================


With stacking penalty on expansion, and expanders buffed to 40%, with base cargoholds adjusted:

Iteron Mk V before skills: 11,000
Iteron Mk V with no expanders: 13,750
Iteron Mk V with 3 expanders: ~31,865
Iteron Mk V with 5 expanders and 3 rigs: ~37,400

Epithal specialty hold: 67,500


================================


With specialty hold size nerfed, and cargo expanders now affecting specialty hold:

Epithal specialty hold before skills: 11,200
Epithal specialty hold with no expanders: 16,800
Epithal specialty hold with 3 expanders: 34,820
Epithal specialty hold with 4 expanders and 3 rigs: 67,521


================================


With specialty hold decreased, and cargo increased to compensate:

Epithal before skills: 3000 + 38,400 = 41,400
Epithal with no expanders: 3000 + 57,600 = 60,600
Epithal with 3 expanders: 6218 + 57,600 = 63,818
Epithal with 4 expanders and 3 rigs: 12,057 + 57,600 = 69,657

Epithal with 4 expanders/3 rigs but without any changes: 2210 + 67,500 = 69,710



Variation on the above, but decreasing margin on total space to go with increasing base cargohold:

Epithal before skills: 3000 + 28,400 = 31,400
Epithal with no expanders: 3000 + 42,600 = 45,600
Epithal with 3 expanders: 6218 + 42,600 = 48,818
Epithal with 4 expanders and 3 rigs: 12,057 + 42,600 = 54,657





The maximum cargohold sizes stay roughly the same, and the specialty haulers maintain a very strong advantage in total hauling capacity.

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."

Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#15 - 2016-02-21 01:52:19 UTC
I'm sorry? I thought you said you didn't want anything to be nerfed. That is an enormous hit to the functionality of the specialised haulers.

Requiring a max cargohold fit to maintain current functionality is a nerf. You are removing fitting options from these ships, and reducing EHP and speed. That is a nerf.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#16 - 2016-02-21 02:05:22 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
I'm sorry? I thought you said you didn't want anything to be nerfed.

I didn't say that. This thread is about either nerfing specialized haulers (they could use a nerf) or buffing standard haulers (they NEED a buff). The main point is to correct the giant gaping chasm that is the disparity between specialized haulers and standard haulers.

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."

Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#17 - 2016-02-21 03:29:47 UTC
Im in two minds.

The specialised haulers shouldn't exist in my opinion. The concept is gimmicky and the redundant haulers should have just been removed for tieracide.

That said, its fun running round in a miasmos stealing peoples cans and being impervious in all kinds of ways normal haulers can only dream of.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#18 - 2016-02-21 05:02:39 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
If you buff standard haulers up to the size of the specialised, people will also no longer fly the specialised ones. The end result will be exactly the same, people will fly the biggest ship. If that means an iteron V can haul as much trit as a kryos or whichever one it is, people will fly the iteron exclusively simply for the versatility it offers.

You're completely misunderstanding what I'm suggesting. Let me show you with numbers.



Current cargoholds:

Iteron Mk V before skills: 5800
Iteron Mk V with no expanders: 7250
Iteron Mk V with 3 expanders: 15,026
Iteron Mk V with 5 expanders and 3 rigs: 37,152

Epithal specialty hold: 67,500


================================


With stacking penalty on expansion, and expanders buffed to 40%, with base cargoholds adjusted:

Iteron Mk V before skills: 11,000
Iteron Mk V with no expanders: 13,750
Iteron Mk V with 3 expanders: ~31,865
Iteron Mk V with 5 expanders and 3 rigs: ~37,400

Epithal specialty hold: 67,500


================================


With specialty hold size nerfed, and cargo expanders now affecting specialty hold:

Epithal specialty hold before skills: 11,200
Epithal specialty hold with no expanders: 16,800
Epithal specialty hold with 3 expanders: 34,820
Epithal specialty hold with 4 expanders and 3 rigs: 67,521


================================


With specialty hold decreased, and cargo increased to compensate:

Epithal before skills: 3000 + 38,400 = 41,400
Epithal with no expanders: 3000 + 57,600 = 60,600
Epithal with 3 expanders: 6218 + 57,600 = 63,818
Epithal with 4 expanders and 3 rigs: 12,057 + 57,600 = 69,657

Epithal with 4 expanders/3 rigs but without any changes: 2210 + 67,500 = 69,710



Variation on the above, but decreasing margin on total space to go with increasing base cargohold:

Epithal before skills: 3000 + 28,400 = 31,400
Epithal with no expanders: 3000 + 42,600 = 45,600
Epithal with 3 expanders: 6218 + 42,600 = 48,818
Epithal with 4 expanders and 3 rigs: 12,057 + 42,600 = 54,657





The maximum cargohold sizes stay roughly the same, and the specialty haulers maintain a very strong advantage in total hauling capacity.


I'm sorry, that is a load of crap.

You are presenting this as if, for example, the epithal can carry anything. It can't. It can only carry PI materials. As such its use is highly specialized and limited.

If you want to haul PI materials, use an epithal.
If you want to haul Stuff™ use an iteron mark V.

You are mixing monkey balls and apples and trying to pretend they are the same thing. They aren't.

-1.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#19 - 2016-02-21 05:19:08 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
You are mixing monkey balls and apples and trying to pretend they are the same thing.

Not once did I try to pretend they are the same. I have adamantly defended that the specialized hold should be larger than the generalized hold, despite the Epithal having a smaller sig radius, higher HP, more powergrid, and a faster align.

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."

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#20 - 2016-02-21 05:25:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
You are mixing monkey balls and apples and trying to pretend they are the same thing.

Not once did I try to pretend they are the same. I have adamantly defended that the specialized hold should be larger than the generalized hold, despite the Epithal having a smaller sig radius, higher HP, more powergrid, and a faster align.--emphasis added


You are comparing a specialized cargo hold to a generic cargo hold so...your claim on not mixing like and unlike is complete Bravo Sierra.

Try again.

Still -1.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

123Next pageLast page