Features & Ideas Discussion

 
^ Back to top

Topic is locked indefinitely.

 

[Odyssey 1.1] Tech 1 Industrials

Jump to first DEV post
Author
Invisible Exchequer
#681 Posted: 2013.06.24 11:20
I find this thread a bit frustrating to follow..

Several players are pointing out some really important facts and issues, and its basically being ignored by both Fozzie and Rise..

A word of advice get the BIG picture philosophy of ALL of industrial ships right. Talk to Seagull and Soundwave, they usually have good over all insigt on the larger scale of things.

We currently have so many strange shelved, ignored and handicapped ships and features in EVE its not funny anymore.

Orca and Rorq, where the Rorq is industrially underpowered, and the Orca is some weird multi-purpose ship.

Mining barges that are up side down regarding yield, versus solo and group focus.

Noctis that is almost perfect, but with the Primae being totally useless and a piece of crap. The hold is way to small for the actual purpose as a dedicated PI ship.

The Industrials are all from 2003, and have no change AT ALL. They should be considered a semi modular multipurpose hull, that industrialists can fit and tweak for special roles.

The whole tiericide and rebalance thing is a bit of a Joke imho. Things that are 10 years old and all we get is some database value changes. Its presented as this huge operation, but it seems its more like swapping some numbers and asking the community if they are about to go and shoot a monument.

Sanctuary Pact
#682 Posted: 2013.06.24 11:33  |  Edited by: Caitlyn Tufy
Scatim Helicon wrote:
Thanks for the "make haulers into stupid gimmick ships because LOL WE DID A BATTLE BADGER ROAM ONCE ROFL" suggestion there.


There's more to it than "lol battle badger". First, there's sci-fi examples of armed transports to fall back on (or in case of Firefly, empty threats of armed transports :p). Second, there's a very practical side to it - if you have a ship that has the biggest tank in the world, a single frigate can still disable it and hold it indefinitely. That's why DSTs are fail - once pointed, they can't really break free. However, if that transport has at least some armament, it has a chance to wrestle out and get away. In that situation, the tank serves a purpose - surviving not indefinitely, but long enough.

Frankly, if I was Hans Olo, the famous hauler from Dodixie, I'd have stuck a couple of missile launchers on my transport just in case I met that nagging Blood Raider patrol while moving goods out to my contractors in Querious. :)

Caleb Ayrania wrote:
The Industrials are all from 2003, and have no change AT ALL. They should be considered a semi modular multipurpose hull, that industrialists can fit and tweak for special roles.


Exactly, but I'd rather achieve that with containers - it allows CCP to keep the general purpose ship while offering a more flexible solution as well.
Invisible Exchequer
#683 Posted: 2013.06.24 11:45
Caitlyn Tufy wrote:


Caleb Ayrania wrote:
The Industrials are all from 2003, and have no change AT ALL. They should be considered a semi modular multipurpose hull, that industrialists can fit and tweak for special roles.


Exactly, but I'd rather achieve that with containers - it allows CCP to keep the general purpose ship while offering a more flexible solution as well.


There is nothing to stand in the way of doing both.

Containers should be integrated into the rest of the EVE gameplay and ecology. Ideally the function should be saving cargo and scannable function, and ofc added capacity and security.

The BAYs should be added in the rig slots, and become a feature in all ships, to change capacity of needs. Also bonus from skills on special ships should go on BAY and not on the basic hangar floor of the ship.

When a ship is destroyed the containers almost always drop, thus not using containers become a "denial" of loot but at a huge cost-benefit to capacity.

The Freighter, Jumpfreighter should get added rig slots for bays, and no longer have the pickup and jettison in space, that "boost" was very bad balancing, and basically removed the original role of a DRY load container ship. All the industrials and in space work force was nerfed, suddenly you only need one ship to clean up after an activity in space. This was a poor solution to the lack of development in industrial ships and purposes from YEAR of ignoring these aspects.

The fact that we have two PVP heavy devs in this thread and on this issue and they seem to totally ignore real topic, while talking about skinning and other ships, just proves that we need to get the CSM on this case. This time around we have a very strong knowledgable team regarding finance and industry.

Goonswarm Federation
#684 Posted: 2013.06.24 12:53
Caleb Ayrania wrote:
The fact that we have two PVP heavy devs in this thread and on this issue and they seem to totally ignore real topic, while talking about skinning and other ships, just proves that we need to get the CSM on this case. This time around we have a very strong knowledgable team regarding finance and industry.


You're pigeon-holing Fozzie far too much here.


Just sayin'.
Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Invisible Exchequer
#685 Posted: 2013.06.24 13:19
mynnna wrote:
Caleb Ayrania wrote:
The fact that we have two PVP heavy devs in this thread and on this issue and they seem to totally ignore real topic, while talking about skinning and other ships, just proves that we need to get the CSM on this case. This time around we have a very strong knowledgable team regarding finance and industry.


You're pigeon-holing Fozzie far too much here.


Just sayin'.


True.. I might be exaggerating quite a bit. I just find it a bit frustrating that the discussion is allowed to be derailed away from talks about a bigger picture of industry. These topics have seen hardly any attention for many years, and now when every financial oriented player, every industrialist and related players are holding their breath in hopes for big changes in the wake of Odyssey, its fair to push the issue hard.

If this was not a personal focus area I would say that said devs have done an amazing job, but there will be a lot of old disgruntled players raging if something so over due is not done right.

I apologize for punching low, and will retract..

If there are reasons why the discussion is not allowed to develop, like changes we arent meant to know about yet, then we should at least be told that there are plans and reasons behind the "silence"..

#686 Posted: 2013.06.24 13:26
I am a wormhole resident.

There are two things that I have mixed feelings about:

Large Haulers to get only 1 high slot. (down 1). For us the Iteron Mark V has been the pinnacle of wormhole hauling. Easy on the wormholes, large storage, a cloak and a probe if you get stuck. It has been the only ship to use. The loss of that highslot means we have less fallback options; and probably means a dedicated scanning frigate per interim system (for us - generally 1). We will have 'interesting choices' that have to be made; but for us; this is a hard nerf.

The Bestower takes the crown as the largest hauler (39201m3 t1 rigs/t2 expanders/max skill) from the Iteron Mark V (38433m3 similar configuration). While the manufacturer in me rejoices; the pilot weeps. I trained Gallente Industrial 5 to have the maximum size T1 hauler. The difference is marginal (2%), but I fear I am still coming down with the beginnings of bitter vet syndrome.
C C P Alliance
#687 Posted: 2013.06.24 14:04
Hey guys

I spent most of the weekend going over feedback and talking about this issue with a lot of different folks (CSM, Devs, and random folks from the community via stream chats or private convos), and I want to touch base with you about where I'm at.

First, I want to dispel any ideas about the level of investment in this project by myself or anyone else here. Like any other part of the game, we want this to be as good as it can be. The rebalance in the OP was not the result of some lazy afternoon where we dismissively decided what to do. It was the result of a fairly lengthy process of negotiating within the balance team about what industrial balance should really consist of. We started with fairly lofty ideas and slowly backed into a more conservative solution, both because of concerns about equality relating to the extra industrials and also because of knowing that more high level industry work was coming down the pipe that could impact our needs in the near future. Moral of the story: we care about this a lot, and want to do it right.

So, whats the plan? Although I am a bit nervous about backlash coming from the other direction, I want to take your feedback and try to do something that makes you guys more excited. As far as I can tell, there's a few common concerns/desires that you're hoping for with these ships:

  • Make them all useful
  • Make them as different from each other as possible
  • Add new function/purpose where possible

  • Most of these could be said in different ways, but essentially it seems that in-so-far as balance allows, you want more niche applications, more character, and more differentiation. To me this seems reasonable, as long as it doesn't obligate people people to cross train for very basic needs. So, here's what we're looking at doing to address these points:

  • Special purpose bays - This will be for Hoarder, Iteron Mark II, III, and IV. We wanted to do this originally, but held back because of concerns about racial inequality. Based on feedback I'm now hoping you guys will be fine with this inequality, as long as it isn't so favored towards Gallente that no one would ever train another race for hauling.
  • More separation between the two basic hauler types - I want to achieve this through several means including giving the faster haulers better warp time (up to 6au/tick instead of 4.5au/tick), taking a mid slot away from the cargo focused versions to highlight the tank on the others (this will partly be counter-acted by giving back the second high to the cargo versions), along with other small changes to make some of the tankier haulers stand out a bit more.
  • More quirkiness overall - I won't go into specifics right now, and it won't be anything extremely drastic, but I want to try and get each ship within a role set apart from the others as much as possible to avoid any feeling of homogenization (though I still feel that the very simplistic hauling system doesn't provide a lot of room for variation that wouldn't severely handicap some ships).

  • I'll post again within the next couple days with details, but until then I hope this will do. Finally, I want to say that I really appreciate all the feedback that was given in a polite and constructive manner, both from the CSM and the community as a whole. I hope this change will help to build some faith in our ability to take that feedback into account and make good adjustments for you guys. (I also hope it doesn't make you feel like any time you make a 30 page thread I'll do whatever you say =)

    See you soon in the OP with more details
    Fly safe
    @ccp_rise
    Caldari State
    #688 Posted: 2013.06.24 14:07  |  Edited by: Liastr
    DoToo Foo wrote:
    I am a wormhole resident.

    There are two things that I have mixed feelings about:

    Large Haulers to get only 1 high slot. (down 1). For us the Iteron Mark V has been the pinnacle of wormhole hauling. Easy on the wormholes, large storage, a cloak and a probe if you get stuck. It has been the only ship to use. The loss of that highslot means we have less fallback options; and probably means a dedicated scanning frigate per interim system (for us - generally 1). We will have 'interesting choices' that have to be made; but for us; this is a hard nerf.

    The Bestower takes the crown as the largest hauler (39201m3 t1 rigs/t2 expanders/max skill) from the Iteron Mark V (38433m3 similar configuration). While the manufacturer in me rejoices; the pilot weeps. I trained Gallente Industrial 5 to have the maximum size T1 hauler. The difference is marginal (2%), but I fear I am still coming down with the beginnings of bitter vet syndrome.


    As a fellow wormhole resident, I can see what you're saying here but I'm totally OK with having to commit more resources to larger hauling operations. There is still a hauler available with two high slots and I think sacrificing cargo space for this capability strikes a good balance. Similarly, anyone bitching about Gallente losing the "largest hauler" crown can get over it. If they'd nerfed the ITTY V's cargo space into the ground, you've have grounds to complain. You don't. Suck it up- there are bigger problems to deal with here.

    Having said that-
    Without going in to a lot of detail about other options that have already been covered better by others, I agree with the general sentiment that there is a massive opportunity being missed here. "We'll come back to them later" is not acceptable. We've all heard it before and we know it's CCP-speak for 'we can't be bothered coming up with anything better, so here's a bone to chew on."

    You can talk around it and backtrack as much as you like Rise, but you said pretty bluntly that you find industrial ships boring and you're pretty much passing the buck to 'someone' who will 'at some time' do a more comprehensive overhaul of industry. Well until there's a timeline on this, I call buck passing. You expected the community to go "meh industrials" like you did, and move on. Now you've been caught with your pants down by a community that actually does care about and use these ships. Man up and do the job properly.

    These changes, as they stand, are not good enough. Industrial players (and no, i'm really not one.) deserve better, the ships deserve better, the game deserves better. Do better.
    The Initiative.
    #689 Posted: 2013.06.24 14:07
    Steve Ronuken wrote:
    Can we drop a lowslot from all of them and give them a hardwired damage control II?


    It's a core principle of EVE that people should be allowed to make bad choices.
    Here is my CSM9 endorsement list - vote for diversity of expertise : Ali Aras  Mangala Solaris  Mike Azariah  Steve Ronuken
    James Arget  Xander Phoena  Sugar Kyle  corbexx  mynnna  progodlegend  Psychotic Monk  Jayne Fillion
    Gallente Federation
    #690 Posted: 2013.06.24 14:10
    You have the Bustard model so adding another Caldari Indy to their lineup won't be too hard. Just make a new model for the Amarr and you won't have to remove the extra Minmatar and Gallente industrials.
    Herping your derp since 19Potato - [Proposal] - Ingame Visual Adverts
    #691 Posted: 2013.06.24 14:16
    Caitlyn Tufy wrote:
    if you have a ship that has the biggest tank in the world, a single frigate can still disable it and hold it indefinitely. That's why DSTs are fail - once pointed, they can't really break free. However, if that transport has at least some armament, it has a chance to wrestle out and get away. In that situation, the tank serves a purpose - surviving not indefinitely, but long enough.


    This is a great point. So far, hauler tankiness means one and only one thing in practice: how many Tornados can it survive. That number limits the value of cargo that can be safely moved in high-sec, while the cargo bay itself limits the volume. But it's not a very interesting limitation because almost every hauler proposed here can only withstand 0 or 1 Tornados. It also doesn't really matter at all in low, null or wormhole space because any amount of damage at all will eventually take down a hauler which has been pinned. It might take an hour, but the hauler still has no recourse, no matter its tank.

    But if the "tanky" haulers had some additional capabilities, then suddenly their tank means something else: how long do they have to run off a solo pirate in dangerous space before going down? And I'm not just talking about weapons, necessarily -- how about a line of "tanky" haulers with EWAR bonuses?


    • Caldari: bonus to ECM jammers, to break the attacker's lock
    • Amarr: bonus to energy neutralizers, to disable the attacker's point/scram
    • Gallente: bonus to sensor dampeners, to break the attacker's lock
    • Minmatar: bonus to web range and strength, to outrun the attacker's point/scram
    HYDRA RELOADED
    #692 Posted: 2013.06.24 14:19
    CCP Rise wrote:
    (up to 6au/tick instead of 4.5au/tick)


    Because warp speed doesnt affect warp acceleration, i would make the difference even bigger.
    Mordus Angels
    #693 Posted: 2013.06.24 14:22
    Michael Harari wrote:
    CCP Rise wrote:
    (up to 6au/tick instead of 4.5au/tick)


    Because warp speed doesnt affect warp acceleration, i would make the difference even bigger.


    i still hope warp-acceleration will be a ship-attribute at some point...
    Caldari State
    #694 Posted: 2013.06.24 14:26
    Thank you for listening to the feedback, Rise. Much appreciated.
    CCP Rise wrote:

  • Special purpose bays - This will be for Hoarder, Iteron Mark II, III, and IV. We wanted to do this originally, but held back because of concerns about racial inequality. Based on feedback I'm now hoping you guys will be fine with this inequality, as long as it isn't so favored towards Gallente that no one would ever train another race for hauling.

  • This is as much an issue as people having to train Caldari ship skills if they want to fly a powerful ECM or missile boat.
    Mr. Science & Trade Institute, EVE Online Lorebook 
    RISE of LEGION
    #695 Posted: 2013.06.24 14:26  |  Edited by: Berluth Luthian
    What about +1 stabs for one or two of them. Make them psuedo smuggling ships? Limited size cargo bay for illegal goods that can't be scanned by customs officers?
    #696 Posted: 2013.06.24 14:26
    Michael Harari wrote:
    CCP Rise wrote:
    (up to 6au/tick instead of 4.5au/tick)


    Because warp speed doesnt affect warp acceleration, i would make the difference even bigger.


    Or, take this opportunity to fix the warp acceleration problem so that warp speed bonuses matter more in general.

    I've always hated how lazily ships warp -- even "fast" ships take 10 seconds to get off grid after they finish aligning, and another 10 seconds after appearing on grid to slowly cost to a stop. It'd be much snazzier if the transitions were more sudden. Imagine how exciting it looks when a fleet comes out of warp in other sci-fi universes, like Star Wars or even Star Trek: ships appear in the distance and close the gap in seconds, and then abruptly drop back to "normal space" speeds. Way cooler looking.
    Caldari State
    #697 Posted: 2013.06.24 14:27  |  Edited by: Liastr
    Malcanis wrote:
    Steve Ronuken wrote:
    Can we drop a lowslot from all of them and give them a hardwired damage control II?


    It's a core principle of EVE that people should be allowed to make bad choices.


    This. Though I like the idea of barring or limiting cargo expanders in haulers (like Damage controls, so there is a precedent for the mechanic) and giving them a generous base cargo hold increase (maybe equivalent to half a rack of expanders?) would be a good thing. I think that this would free pilots to actually use those low slots to make meaningful decisions about ship fitting.

    Right now 90% of industrials have all cargo expanders in the lows. To me, this is a sign of bad design that is easily rectified. IMHO. it also makes sense to limit cargo expanders, we're talking about ships that are already designed from the ground up to be optimized for cargo space- how many times can you really optimize that design?

    Taleden wrote:
    Michael Harari wrote:
    CCP Rise wrote:
    (up to 6au/tick instead of 4.5au/tick)


    Because warp speed doesnt affect warp acceleration, i would make the difference even bigger.


    Or, take this opportunity to fix the warp acceleration problem so that warp speed bonuses matter more in general.

    I've always hated how lazily ships warp -- even "fast" ships take 10 seconds to get off grid after they finish aligning, and another 10 seconds after appearing on grid to slowly cost to a stop. It'd be much snazzier if the transitions were more sudden. Imagine how exciting it looks when a fleet comes out of warp in other sci-fi universes, like Star Wars or even Star Trek: ships appear in the distance and close the gap in seconds, and then abruptly drop back to "normal space" speeds. Way cooler looking.


    Also this.
    Caldari State
    #698 Posted: 2013.06.24 14:35
    CCP Rise wrote:

  • Make them all useful
  • Make them as different from each other as possible
  • Add new function/purpose where possible

  • Finally, this gets thumbs up from me. Which is rare. Twisted
    It's not bad at all when you consider you can access all the ships with just the racial industrial skills at L1.
    RISE of LEGION
    #699 Posted: 2013.06.24 14:39
    Or 'special cargo bay' could be a cargo bay that is significantly smaller than the mammoth's/Itty V, but self destructs when it is destroyed. Basically, if you kill the ship, you aren't going to get the loot. So the best you can hope for is griefing the user.
    Brave Collective
    #700 Posted: 2013.06.24 14:41
    Long as we get something that can move mass amounts (between 100,000 m3 and 200,000 m3), in some-type of configuration (not a freighter, jump freighter, or Orca), that involves either the T1 ships, the Deep Space Transports, or some new transport ship, I'll be happy. i really could care less of the utility, the tank, the "special abilities". Just something that can handle the movement of a mass bulk order where a Orca or Freighter can't do, in a ship that doesn't cost a billion isk.

    I could have recovered the 4 hours of moving crap I just did, because that was in no way, shape, or form, fun or enjoyable.
    Forum Jump