Cargo vs. Hull size: WTF these metrics CCP?

Oi everyone,

why are we so really really bad at efficiency when it comes to hull size vs. cargo. Take any T1, T2 hauler, Freighter or JF. Go to their info window, click on the image and see their longest axis in metres. Now make some educated guess (or measure dimensions on screen) about Y and Z axis. Go for any amount lower than the average length of each axis, depending on its shape, just to be within reason. It gives you (X,Y,Z) - a rough estimate of their volume in m3. Another option is to just go to the ATTRIBUTES tab on the info window and look for unpackaged Volume there. You will find that often enough unrepacked size on the Attributes page will make no sense if you look at the image mentioned before.

Take the Ishtar as a random example: 115,000m3 unpackaged. Longest axis: 239m. Open the image and look at the model. To make it easy, completely ignore the lower part. Shorten the 239m to let’s say 180m or 75% for calculations. Estimate the upper part of the Ishtar for Y axis at 60m and now turn it around to see its face. 180m x 60m = 10,800m2. Which leaves for an average of under 11m of the Z-axis (face view, upper part) to stay within 115,000m3. And that’s ignoring the lower part.

Okay, Epithal, another one. 553m long. Lower average for both Y and Z axis (kind of round) would be around 0.08 of that or roughly 44m. Y * Z = (44m/2)^2 * 3.14159 so roughly 1537m2. Makes for a Volume of 850,000 instead of the 250,000m3 on the info page.

Seems like the larger the ships get the more serious this gets: Phoenix, 16,250,000m3 unpackaged according to Attribute tab. 3756m longest axis and fairly rectangular. With X = 3756m it leaves for (Y,Z) for 4393m2 to be somewhere around the size it shall have. Now 4393m2 is below 67m x 67m, meaning Y- and Z-axis would be an average of 67 times shorter than X-axis. Look at the image. 67 times shorter is the girth of a broom compared to its length. Not a broom!

While this is not always the case (esp. on frigates number seem to make more sense), your ships axis length will determine things like bumping and size has important implications on Signature radius (which becomes important when someone locks you or shoots you), so that’s something to keep in mind. Often enough you’ll find the actual Volume in m3 should be 10 times larger than in the Attribute page.

So really, wtf went wrong there? Does it have to do with something no one wants to touch due to Signature radius or such? Whatever it is, please be nice to math.

Which leads me to haulers, T1, T2 and Freighters. I find it already hard to conceive how a ship that big that doesn’t bring any specialized Power system for fitting bulky tank, guns (and sometimes not even MWD) or anything alike can be so large (even just the “official” size according to Attribute tab) and have such a little actual space for cargo. The actual dimensions are even larger.

Let’s make a comparions - Probe vs. Wreathe & Mammoth:
Minmatar T1 Frigate vs. Minmatar T1 Hauler.

A. Cargohold:
Probe: 400m3 base - 1372.9m3 with maxed cargohold extenders and rigs.
Wreathe: 2900m3 base - 3625m3 base max skills - 20226.4m3 with max skills & extenders/rigs.
Mammoth: - 5500m3 base - 6875m3 max skills - 38360,5m3 with max skills & extenders/rigs.

B. Hull-Size:
Probe: 19,500m3 unpackaged, realistic, maybe even smaller.
Wreathe: 225,000m3 unpackaged, realistically easily above 1,000,000m3. (>400%)
Mammoth: 255,000m3 unpackaged, realistically easily above 2,000,000m3 (>800%)

C. Comparison:
Let’s compare the Volume of each ship with its max cargohold - both are in m3 so we just need simple math to get a hold of it. I will calculate in the form of “Cargohold” / (“Hull-Volume” / 100) to get X, which is the % of m3 in Cargohold of the overall m3 of said ship.

  • Probe:
    X = 2,05% for unfitted; 7,04% for maxed cargo.
    (official and realistic size are close enough to not make any meaningful difference here).

  • Wreathe
    “official”: X = 1,61% for max skills&unfitted; 8,98% for maxed cargo.
    “realistic size”: 0,36% for max skills&unfitted; 2,02% for maxed cargo.

  • Mammoth:
    “official”: X = 2,69% max skills,unfitted; 15,04% for maxed cargo.
    “realistic size”: 0,34% for max skills&unfitted; 1,91% for maxed cargo.

It means if we are talking realistic sizes (actual metrics and not that number on the Attributes tab), we end up with an unfitted Probe LVL1 having a higher cargo efficiency than a fully fitted and max skilled T1 hauler. It also means that on a max skilled and maxed out cargo-fitted T1 Hauler you have 2% of the overall Volume for cargo - at best. That’s like declaring shopping a success, because two bottles of milk.

How about make them haulers smaller in size? CCP? Or somehow fiddle with Sig radius, because in all of that it makes the least sense to me. Or just any explanation why it has to be like that and why everything else is just crazy talk. Thanks.

Yup, it’s been like that for ages. Unpackaged size, cargo capacity, sigradius, ect are all balance parameters and are set by balance concerns not lore. Model size isn’t a balance parameter, and CCP have said they’d like to go through and rework the sizes of everything but they can’t until they can be confident it won’t just make bumping a massive issue.

It would indeed be nice if all the numbers actually made sense and bumping actually behaved somewhat reliably (sometimes you can move through things, sometimes even going by a decent visible distance away still bumps you). I remember watching something on the physics of EVE that at least made the weird bumping mechanics kind of make sense, relating to how eve ships are powered by this weird thing that also envelops them in some kind of bubbles and bumping is actually the collision of this bubble with either other objects or other similar bubbles.

Signature radius could then be related to the size of that bubble and not have anything to do with the actual physical size of the ship. It’s a similar 1D equivalent to “collision cross-section” for both scanner beams that the ship uses to target things and your weapons.

As for unpackaged size, model size and cargo space, yeah, that should be related, especially the later two. One could claim that unpackaged size is related to the bubble, but you point out that the number is actually smaller than conservative estimates of model size, so it can’t be that either.

Signature size has nothing to do with the size of the ship, it’s simply a measure of the sensor signature of the ship. That’s why Target Painters increase your signature radius but don’t actually make your ship bigger. The bigger your sig radius the easier you are to target and hit accurately.

Cargo space isn’t directly related to ship size since each ship has a different percentage of the hull dedicated to cargo as opposed to other systems.

Also unpackaged size is related to the ease of moving the ship and is a balance factor, not something that should be related to the physical model of a ship.

Yes, I am aware of the game mechanics… I am talking about the “EVE Fluff” or whatever you want to call it that ties everything together into a meaningful whole.

Intuitively, we consider sizes and things like signature radius to be related because that is how it is in our every day experience. Things are different in EVE for various reasons, some may be sorted as inconsistencies, some are (tentatively) explained by the wonky sci-fi physics of the setting, like spaceships having a maximum speed. However, the ratio of longest axis to stated size requiring ships to actually be a different shape than portrayed, or the ratio of cargo hold to ship sizes, seem to be just inconsistent.

This has little to do with balance as there is nothing preventing the numbers from being sensible in a given setting (with its given physics) while retaining their balance. This is a more desirable state than balance with wonky numbers. The only obstacle is in the work involved to fiddle with a lot of numbers to keep balance-related relationships the same (including the volume of things carried as cargo, if one is to modify cargo hold sizes), while fixing setting inconsistencies.

It’s called game balance.

All of that just so people can feel good about some number being more “right”? I’m pretty sure there is a rather long list of things that are much more important to deal with than numbers being inaccurate but still working just fine.

Except that you’re asking for a lot of numbers with unrelated balance considerations to all relate sensibly to both each other and the physical model of the ship. Also ships of a similar class should have similar sizes so they need to relate to each other as well.

Also really, signature radius has almost nothing to do with the size of something. The new US destroyer has the radar signature of a 60 foot fishing boat, and a stealth aircraft 30 feet long can have the radar cross section of a pigeon.

Also, as I said before, the physical sizes of the ships can’t be changed significantly until CCP solve the bumping problem, since making capital ships have reasonable relative sizes would turn jumps and warps into a game of pinball.

Lastly fiddling with numbers which players currently understand and completely changing the scale they’re represented on would serve to throw everyone off and cause a lot of confusion. There needs to be a more compelling reason to do so than “I think this number looks weird” or just vague “realism” arguments.

Nor logic, either. Logically speaking, a freighter or industrial hauler is an engine, a place for the crew/capsule, and a big empty space. I recall that in David Weber’s Honorverse, most freighters are at least the size (volume) of superdreadnaughts, considerable slower and much less tanky. OTOH, the navies of the honorverse take a dim view of pirates attacking their nation’s haulers. To the extant that, unlike CONCORD, they will actively hunt pirates.

The various faction navies of Eve are the ones who deal with pirates. CONCORD deals with Capsuleers and their affairs under a set of agreed upon rules.

Also Honor Harrington, while great in a number of ways, is hardly hard sci-fi. While Eve isn’t really hard sci-fi either you can’t really point at one piece of soft science fiction and use that to say that another piece isn’t hard enough…

Also there are more concerns when moving cargo in space than just empty volume. Cargo needs to be secured, the internal space needs to be modular enough to accommodate different cargo types, and the whole thing needs to not snap in half when you turn it around because of the added momentum from the cargo.

Which is why I’ve always viewed the Iteron V with suspicion. Why doesn’t it fall apart?

With regard ship sizes, the relative sizes of the combat ships has always seemed to me a bit exaggerated considering the damage output differences.

The Itty V is actually pretty believable considering it doesn’t carry that much and materials in Eve are stupidly strong and resilient. Also it positions the mass along the length of the hull fairly evenly which is good.

That’s a balance concern, for one, but beyond that it’s not that unbelievable. They’re not just adding guns or firepower they’re also adding armor, capacitor, engines, reactor mass, ect. It’s not just more guns.

This topic was automatically closed after 90 days. New replies are no longer allowed.