The role of combat ships is defintely not to “run security missions”. They aren’t designed around that goal at all. It’s just a side effect that they can do it, given their on-field-performance. The main focus of the game designers is PvP (not limited to space combat), or better “Player Interaction”. And the ships need to have a balance within the PvP meta. If they are then good or bad for missionrunning is absolutely secondary to a balanced PvP design. And even then, there are so many different types of PvE, some ships might shine here and suck there. A Proteus for example is among the best ships you can use for the Crimson Harvest Event and also among those who can run C3 WH combat sites solo quite well (meaning: reasonable fast).
If a certain “combat” ship can or can’t run security missions well is absolutely no indicator for it being bad or needing buffs, it’s simply not the right choice for that content, but it’s other benefits might hugely outweight that.
No sh.t, “I didn’t know that”!!! Are we suppose to use them for Distribution missions or Mining? Well then have you seen how much is the volume of the cargo in the L3 distribution missions. let alone the L4s or the amount the agents wants us to mine? What type of ships are we suppose to use for Security missions if not combat?
Combat ships are designed with the goal of having an easier time destroying other ships and better handling of the incoming damage this could happen in both PvE and PvP environment, PvE is not mining and delivering cargo between stations only.
The Proteus can have 81 different configurations it can be “the best” for many things not just the Crimson Harvest Event or C3 WH. if that is what some people like to do - then good for them on the other hand I have found different use for it out of those 81 that suits my needs and playstyle, it is certainly far better than any of the ships I have flown of similar size, so I will keep using it. If someone prefers to run L4s with a battleship that’s their call.
I never said the ship was bad for running L4s, it was about the cargo, even a battleship won’t be able to pick up all the loot from a lot of the L4s.
You look at the issue from the wrong angle. The design of these ships isn’t for running missions. You of course can do that, but it’s the other way round: The PvE content has been made so the combat ships can do it, not the ships have been made to do the content. Thats a big difference. Not sure if you understand that. When creating ships and giving them their stats, the designers do not look at missions and then decide what stats on the ships are good for missionrunning. They compare the stats to the general PvP balance and give the ship it’s spot. PvE (including missions) is not a deciding factor in EVE when designing/balancing ships.
Yeah fine thing, then just accept that the cargo isn’t large enough for conveniently doing what you want to do with it.
Maybe because it was never the idea to grab all the loot with the combat ship? Tbh the loot of L4s is mostly worthless (and yes, I have looted them all), compared what you can earn if just ignoring it and run another mission. And even if someone would want to have the loot, make a bookmark, let an MTU pull the wrecks and come back with a Noctis. A specialized ship for a special purpose.
If you like a jack-of-all-trades swissknife ship, you will probably be disappointed. But that will stay this way. Combat ships don’t need more cargo to do their job and for balance puproses, they shouldn’t have more cargo.
You heavily implied that though when you started to compare the linear ratio of ship size to cargo space:
by comparing the ration ship’s volume/ ship’s cargo ALL frigates have lower ratios than Proteus!
If you aren’t saying cargo space should have a linear relation with ship size, why are you comparing cargo space linearly with ship sizes?
You’re not talking about combat ships only here, you are comparing the Proteus to the Imicus which is a non-combat frigate with an oversized cargo hold.
The Imicus, Magnate, Probe and Heron may not be industrial ships, but they’re definitely cargo-frigates specialized in salvaging, looting and exploration.
He’s comparing the volume, not the size ?
volume should be 4/3 pi r³ , if volume was based on size, so a linear relation between cargo and volume is not a linear relation between cargo and size
The funny thing of salvager bonuses is that they appear on ships that use salvagers on wrecks that they’re looting.
Yes, the Imicus is a salvaging&looting ship, similar to the Noctis. And they have bigger-than-average cargo sizes to fill that role.
He’s comparing sizes, not lengths. In this context size is ‘volume’, because he’s comparing how much bigger the volume of the ships are with relation to their cargo volumes and is doing so in a linear manner.
Now if you want to be pedantic, try telling him that comparing volumes like that shouldn’t be linearly but should be cubed, or something like that. Either way it’s irrelevant because cargo sizes are chosen for gameplay reasons, not because they’re supposed to be linearly scaling with ship size. Or ship volume if you prefer.
It’s specialized in salvaging and exploration, yes. Not in looting.
I don’t know exactly what he’s comparing. I’m telling you that if he says he compares “volume” to cargo expecting a linear ratio and you claim he’s expecting a linear ratio with “size”, it’s a valid reason he answers you “I never said that the cargo space should have a linear relation with the ship’s size” - because that’s correct !
It’s your fault for changing the wording. Calling that “pedantic” is just your feeling being hurt from your own mistakes.
I then gave you an explanation on how your wording could mean a different thing. Because it seems that something THAT obvious still could not reach you without an example.
Okay, so the Imicus, Magnate, Heron and Probe are frigates specialized in salvaging wrecks (which generally contain loot) and have for their role about twice the cargo size of other frigates, but are not ‘specialized in looting’ because the role bonuses do not explicitly say so. Got it.
I never said that the devs first create the PvE content then the ships that can do it!
One man’s garbage is another man’s treasure. you do as you see fit, For me the ISK from loot and salvage is as much and often more than I get from bounties and mission rewards, except in missions with drones but I still like to salvage it which doesn’t take long, and in fact it always takes less time to loot and salvage than to kill the rats!
Bigger cargo is not going to help one ships kill faster another ship that has similarly large cargo! I said that the cargo of ALL ships should be looked and updated at not just the Proteus:
I keep being told here on the forums that the missions are not going to get their content touched - the code is too old, the developers that maintained it nor longer work for CCP, it’s gonna mess up the game, it’s not worth the money, etc.! Well that’s ONE more reason to increase the cargo. Let the pilots who choose to run missions to be able to collect all their loot without the need to fly back, refit etc. and if it is done for all ships then it won’t brake any balance as all ships will have more room for ammo, deployable, charges, etc.
There are some ships specialized into looting : those with a bonus to tractor beams.
orca, purpose, maurauder, rorqual.
Having a bigger cargohold is not “being specialized in lootin” otherwise freighters would be specialized in lootin.
There is no clear definition of what is specialized in lootin, except for tractor beam bonuses, so claiming that “ship X is specialized in looting” based solely on its class-relative cargo is an empty claim.
What’s more it’s a circular one : “it’s normal for it to have more cargo because it’s specialized in lootin” … “it’s specialized in lootin cause it’s got more cargo”
The tautological aspect of that specific term is enough to invalidate your whole claim (because from false you can deduce anything), so I advice you refrain from using such an equivocated notion without enough precision about what you actually mean, and how you reached that conclusion based on that meaning.
Hence the “No” followed by a question mark asking you to retract your specifically quoted term or give an explanation on how, and following which definition, does that term suit your argument.
cargo has other impact.
It limits how many cap boosters you can use.
It prevents some ships form using a cyno.
It makes deployable a cost to deploy
It can even be used to balance out ships, by making fast shooting ships REQUIRE more cargo for long-lasting operations.