These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

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

Author
SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#41 - 2016-02-21 22:12:22 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
Because a nerus or an iteron V can haul whatever they want, not an extremely limited range of items.

It is called a tradeoff.

The tradeoff is too strong. The Epithal carries nearly twice as much as the Iteron Mk V with full cargo fit; with no expanders it hauls nearly ten times as much.


Quantifying m3 with a very limited use-case as if it's just as good as general m3 is ridiculous, bordering on intellectually dishonest.

How about a weighted value? Epithal m3 * (% of typeIds epithal can carry) Vs. I5 m3 * (% of typeIds an I5 can carry).

Pretty sure the epithal needs a HUGE buff if we use that entirely arbitrary comparison instead of your entirely arbitrary comparison.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

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

Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#42 - 2016-02-21 22:21:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
Teckos Pech wrote:
But they really are not competing. If you are going to haul PI stuff you are doing it wrong if you are using an Iteron Mk V. Conversely if I need to haul Stuff™ I use an Iteron Mk. V. Depending on what I haul may change the fittings on the Iteron V or even switch over to a transport ship.

Please stop using this argument! You're only making yourself look stupid!

There is no point in comparing the tiny generic cargohold on the specialized industrials with the cargohold on large industrials. The pilot of the Epithal has the power to choose to carry PI materials in the ship. If that pilot wishes to carry something else, they can simply buy a different ship. The argument is moot, and the comparison between its PI hold and the Iteron's cargohold is the only comparison that matters. Its ability to haul only one material type is not nearly so strong a disadvantage as you make it out to be.


SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Quantifying m3 with a very limited use-case as if it's just as good as general m3 is ridiculous, bordering on intellectually dishonest.

Bordering on it? It IS intellectually dishonest. Fortunately, I have done no such thing. I have been very clear that I believe the specialized haulers should keep a larger total size than generalized haulers.

Please desist in misrepresenting my arguments.

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
#43 - 2016-02-21 22:24:00 UTC
I also find the argument, "But everyone fits ship X the same way" rather dubious as well.

Yes there is lots of possible variation, but in the end, for most (if not all) ships there are probably a small number of fits. Some ships that have dual purposes (e.g. PvP or PvE) might have the highest number of fits, but haulers are not like that. Many people who have been playing the game for a period of time will eventually settle on the same or rather similar fits.

Why is this bad? People try to optimize their fits (as people often do with most things in and out of game)...this is bad because....?

Changing things so that people go back to the drawing board and re-optimize is good....because...?

"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
#44 - 2016-02-21 22:28:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
How do you people survive with this little intelligence?

edit: I shouldn't have said this--not because it isn't a decent question, but because it isn't proper forum etiquette

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
#45 - 2016-02-21 22:32:22 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
The pilot of the Epithal has the power to choose to carry PI materials in the ship. If that pilot wishes to carry something else, they can simply buy a different ship.


Yes, that was my point. Which you call me stupid for pointing out. The two ships are for different purposes, hence comparing the specialized cargo bay to the generic cargo bay is intellectually dishonest.

"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

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#46 - 2016-02-21 22:38:07 UTC
Are you not comparing the generic cargo hold of the Iteron V with the specialized cargo hold of the Epithal?

From your first post:

Quote:
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


You are quite clearly comparing a specialized cargo hold with a generic cargo hold. That is what everyone else in the thread has been pointing out is where the balancing is taking place.

Yes, you are correct the specialized cargo hold on the Epithal is much larger than the generic cargo hold on the Iteron V. However, the Epithal can only carry one thing, PI stuff, whereas the Iteron V can carry anything.

Depending on what you are doing you'll want an Epithal or an Iteron V or maybe even both...the point I made earlier for which you called me stupid.

"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
#47 - 2016-02-21 22:47:23 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Yes, that was my point. Which you call me stupid for pointing out. The two ships are for different purposes, hence comparing the specialized cargo bay to the generic cargo bay is intellectually dishonest.

So absolutely any comparison at all between them is intellectually dishonest? What if the Epithal's PI hold carried 5,000,000m3 of PI materials, and the Iteron Mk V had a base cargohold of 1000m3, and a max cargohold of ~5000m3. Would it then be intellectually dishonest to offer any comparison between the two?

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
#48 - 2016-02-21 22:52:26 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Yes, that was my point. Which you call me stupid for pointing out. The two ships are for different purposes, hence comparing the specialized cargo bay to the generic cargo bay is intellectually dishonest.

So absolutely any comparison at all between them is intellectually dishonest? What if the Epithal's PI hold carried 5,000,000m3 of PI materials, and the Iteron Mk V had a base cargohold of 1000m3, and a max cargohold of ~5000m3. Would it then be intellectually dishonest to offer any comparison between the two?


And you complain about others misrepresenting your position. Pot meet kettle.

Here is a thought Reaver, maybe the specialized cargo holds do not benefit or need expanders because of a good reason?

"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
#49 - 2016-02-21 23:12:01 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Here is a thought Reaver, maybe the specialized cargo holds do not benefit or need expanders because of a good reason?

Please do tell me the reason.


Because I'm pretty sure it's just entirely easier to haul any goods that fit in specialty haulers than it is to haul anything else, and I don't see any good reason for the disparity to be as large as it 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."

SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#50 - 2016-02-21 23:21:42 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Yes, that was my point. Which you call me stupid for pointing out. The two ships are for different purposes, hence comparing the specialized cargo bay to the generic cargo bay is intellectually dishonest.

So absolutely any comparison at all between them is intellectually dishonest? What if the Epithal's PI hold carried 5,000,000m3 of PI materials, and the Iteron Mk V had a base cargohold of 1000m3, and a max cargohold of ~5000m3. Would it then be intellectually dishonest to offer any comparison between the two?


Actually, yes, because they still have a qualitative difference that you're opting to ignore.

Both a 5MM m3 PI hauler and a 5K m3 max standard hauler would be bad, but neither would be bad as a consequence of the size disparity between them.

You may as well be comparing gas cloud harvester yield to strip miner yield. The two aren't really in competition with each other.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

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

Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#51 - 2016-02-21 23:33:33 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
You may as well be comparing gas cloud harvester yield to strip miner yield. The two aren't really in competition with each other.

It would be more like comparing gas cloud harvester yield to mining laser yield, and the two are in comparison because the ships that use either one can use the other, and the stuff from it goes into the same hold. It would be wrong to say that the yield should necessarily be the same, but it would also be wrong to say that you cannot compare the two.

Likewise, the size of PI materials was initially balanced for being carried in non-specialized haulers, as was the size of minerals and ore, and they still are stored in non-specialized containers. So stop telling me they can't be compared because they can and should be compared!

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."

SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#52 - 2016-02-21 23:50:05 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
You may as well be comparing gas cloud harvester yield to strip miner yield. The two aren't really in competition with each other.

It would be more like comparing gas cloud harvester yield to mining laser yield, and the two are in comparison because the ships that use either one can use the other, and the stuff from it goes into the same hold. It would be wrong to say that the yield should necessarily be the same, but it would also be wrong to say that you cannot compare the two.


You absolutely can't in any meaningful way. "They go in the same hold" is an arbitrary, meaningless basis for comparison.

Both yields are balanced around the desirable level of supply for their respective commodities - NOT around each other.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

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

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#53 - 2016-02-21 23:54:46 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Here is a thought Reaver, maybe the specialized cargo holds do not benefit or need expanders because of a good reason?

Please do tell me the reason.


Because I'm pretty sure it's just entirely easier to haul any goods that fit in specialty haulers than it is to haul anything else, and I don't see any good reason for the disparity to be as large as it is.


I'm sorry, I'm too stupid.

"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

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#54 - 2016-02-21 23:59:43 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
You may as well be comparing gas cloud harvester yield to strip miner yield. The two aren't really in competition with each other.

It would be more like comparing gas cloud harvester yield to mining laser yield, and the two are in comparison because the ships that use either one can use the other, and the stuff from it goes into the same hold. It would be wrong to say that the yield should necessarily be the same, but it would also be wrong to say that you cannot compare the two.


You absolutely can't in any meaningful way. "They go in the same hold" is an arbitrary, meaningless basis for comparison.

Both yields are balanced around the desirable level of supply for their respective commodities - NOT around each other.


BTW, there is a hint in here to the answer to my question. And since you are so much smarter than the rest of us, I'm sure you'll see the answer right away.

"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
#55 - 2016-02-22 00:19:53 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
You absolutely can't in any meaningful way. "They go in the same hold" is an arbitrary, meaningless basis for comparison.

Both yields are balanced around the desirable level of supply for their respective commodities - NOT around each other.

No, the yield sizes are balanced around hauling and storage. The level of supply is independent as the unit sizes can be adjusted.



Teckos Pech wrote:
BTW, there is a hint in here to the answer to my question. And since you are so much smarter than the rest of us, I'm sure you'll see the answer right away.

Quoting for posterity.

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
#56 - 2016-02-22 01:28:37 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
You absolutely can't in any meaningful way. "They go in the same hold" is an arbitrary, meaningless basis for comparison.

Both yields are balanced around the desirable level of supply for their respective commodities - NOT around each other.

No, the yield sizes are balanced around hauling and storage. The level of supply is independent as the unit sizes can be adjusted.



Teckos Pech wrote:
BTW, there is a hint in here to the answer to my question. And since you are so much smarter than the rest of us, I'm sure you'll see the answer right away.

Quoting for posterity.


To be clear, in this thread you are coming off as a complete arrogant **** who thinks he is smarter than everyone else, when in fact the reality is quite the opposite.

Here is what I meant, since it is quite clear you are NOT nearly as smart as you think you are....

Perhaps, specialty ships have their specialty cargo holds unaffected by expanders because balance is not just between ships, but also what they do. Did it even enter your brain that perhaps when CCP was thinking about this that maybe...they looked at this issue and felt yeah...PI needed a production buff...which in turn would lower prices? Same with mined products? SurrenderMonkey also hinted at this. Balance isn't not just what different ships can do, but also how they impact the larger game world.

You want to keep harping on the intra-ship differences as if that were the only dimension on which balance should be considered.

In short you are a completely blinkered tool who is running around calling everyone else in this thread stupid. Maybe you are indeed a lone genius...or, as is more likely, you are the lone boob who is quite simply wrong. So please do continue with our monomanical focus and ignore the rest of the issue, but let me tell you that you cannot optimize a multi-variable process by looking at the optima for each variable while ignoring the others.

Oh...and it is cargo hold, not cargohold.

"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
#57 - 2016-02-22 01:39:35 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:

No, the yield sizes are balanced around hauling and storage. The level of supply is independent as the unit sizes can be adjusted.




Yield has nothing to do with how much tritanium builder bob can fit in his freighter to bring over to his assembly array. That's volume.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

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

Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#58 - 2016-02-22 01:50:24 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Perhaps, specialty ships have their specialty cargo holds unaffected by expanders because balance is not just between ships, but also what they do. Did it even enter your brain that perhaps when CCP was thinking about this that maybe...they looked at this issue and felt yeah...PI needed a production buff...which in turn would lower prices?

It did enter my brain...way back during the few minutes I spent reading the devblog about the release of these monstrosities, and I came to the conclusion that didn't make a lick of sense and it was far more likely that CCP just threw stats at these things in a lazy attempt to give them a purpose.

If they wanted to decrease the price of PI goods by making them easier to ship, they could and should simply decrease the volume of the PI goods, because then they'll fit into freighters more easily as well. If they didn't want to increase the capacity of storage units and launch pads, they could simply shrink their volume to match the shrunk volume of the goods going into them.

I don't understand what is so difficult about this.

SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Yield has nothing to do with how much tritanium builder bob can fit in his freighter to bring over to his assembly array. That's volume.

That's what I'm saying!!

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."

SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#59 - 2016-02-22 01:52:29 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:

That's what I'm saying!!


Yield isn't volume, so, no, it isn't what you're saying unless, in your brilliance, you've entirely conflated the two sides of the analogy.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

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

Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#60 - 2016-02-22 01:56:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:

That's what I'm saying!!


Yield isn't volume, so, no, it isn't what you're saying unless, in your brilliance, you've entirely conflated the two sides of the analogy.

I was trying to explain to you how you're conflating yield with volume, and you, in your apparent brilliance, responded by stating my point against you as if it was your point against me.

YOU said that volume cannot be compared because yield is separate.

I corrected you by pointing out that the volume of the unit and the volume of the yield can be adjusted independent of each other.


Teckos Pech wrote:
To be clear, in this thread you are coming off as a complete arrogant **** who thinks he is smarter than everyone else, when in fact the reality is quite the opposite.

If I thought I was abnormally intelligent, I wouldn't berate you so much as I would congratulate myself. I have been berating you guys because I feel your intelligence--as far as this conversation has gone--is particularly concerning.

Why do you feel the need to put so much energy into stating your opinion when you can't be bothered to spend a fraction as much into developing the opinion?



Teckos Pech wrote:
So please do continue with our monomanical focus and ignore the rest of the issue, but let me tell you that you cannot optimize a multi-variable process by looking at the optima for each variable while ignoring the others.

Comments like this make me want to cry. Are you even listening to me? I'm putting so much effort into dumbing down my point as much as possible and deliver it in small easy-to-digest pieces, because when I lay the whole thing down you get lost and don't know what I'm talking about, then accuse me of not developing my idea.

It is not I who is failing to consider multiple variables, it is YOU.

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."