T3 hauler concept


(Lukett MyDabb) #1

Quite simply, all T3s are of the following description:

  • they’re customizable both in looks and in traits
  • This customizablity allows them to not be pigeonholed into one role
  • they have meta upheaving properties.

so, quite simply, the very many things a t3 hauler can do are really left to imagination. How I think it should be:

  • each subsystem of the hauler is set to a scale to ratio out it’s utility to it’s cargo space. from it being essentially a normal ship to the equivalent of a paper-mache uber-pinata.
  • subsystems can allow the ship to specialize in the same way the gallente t1 hauler line has specialized versions of itself.
  • these subsystems will be described to what happens if you use all of one kind of subsystem but obviously it’s meant to hybridize certain subs for other subs.

the variations that can be accomplished when a series of subsystems can be combined lead to these setups, ranked in descending order of cargo capacity.

  • 1- The pinata
    the pinata setup allows for maximum cargohold in exchange for all forms of capability and traits. with only it’s rigs slots this hauler really starts to look like a junior frieghter however due to it’s large cargoholds it comes with higher structure ehp that coincidentally makes up for the paper-thin shields and armor.

  • 2- the usual hauler doctrine
    this particular setup sees the norm for most industrials in terms of slot layout and a much more “healthy” bhp and resist profile, this exceeds most other haulers minds you, but it holds the same relative balance.

  • 3- the t2 2.0
    say what you want about displacing the DST and the BR, I already said that T3s already have that reputation. so combining the best of both with the only drawback being a loss of two to three low slots, i think it will be just fine.

  • 4- “speedy”
    BRs are fast, and this concept makes them faster, though without the ability to covops and having a cargo bay that matches t1 haulers you wonder as your reading this… why? small mass limits. nuff’ said.

  • 5 really not a hauler anymore
    cargo bay of 1000. no covops, no fancy improvements to compare it to the rest of it. what makes it different?
    maybe the cruiser’s slot layout with added bhp. more of a bait ship if nothing else, since it comes with zero bonuses, but the ability to fight back.


(Salt Foambreaker) #2

Don’t see a need.

1-


(Daichi Yamato) #3

No thanks. T3’s have been head ache enough.

Their tendency to make T2 ships irrelevant would be even more prevalent in a simple job such as hauling.

Edit- cudos for not putting interdiction nullification in though.


(Lugh Crow-Slave) #4

long post yet still failed to provide a convincing argument as to why the game would even need them


(Sasha Viderzei) #5

Sadly, the game doesn’t really need more advanced haulers =/
What you said could be done with the right fits (not the last one, of course). T1 haulers can allow pretty much every character to do a small scale moving operation, and anyone serious about hauling will either go for Blockade Runners, if they want the speed of a frigate for small but high values items (named modules, for example), a Deep Space Transport for bigger shipement that do not justify the use of a Freighter or JF, or said Freighter if the player is more into massive hauling.

Note that with every current Industrialist, you can still do the “Loot Pinata” !

And for what you said, even on a RP point of view it wouldn’t make sense. The Empires got interested in Sleeper Technology because they managed to create extremely sturdy ships that generally pack a lot of punch for their sizes, and they can withstand heavy fire even when none of them is equipped with modern shield tech. Plus, how would we be able to build those T3 industrialists ? As long as I know, Sleeper fleets are only composed of defensive drones, there’s no need for a transport ship anymore, as the precedent masters are either all dead, or turned into Drifters that generally prefer big guns on battleships.


(Teckos Pech) #6

This. Also, why do we need more alternatives for hauling?


(Sasha Viderzei) #7

We might don’t need T3 haulers, but maybe specialised haulers for each empire could be a nice thing.


(Lukett MyDabb) #8

since i didn’t layout any hard numbers i can see why you’d think that, in the way i was thinking was the t3 blops hauler and up were to outperform t2 haulers, but the junior freighter doesn’t out perform actual freighters.


(Sasha Viderzei) #9

What do you mean by “blops haulers” ?


(Teckos Pech) #10

The blockade runners already do this just fine.


(Mike Voidstar) #11

The only hole in the hauling line up is something between the box truck of transports and the orders of magnitude larger freighters.

T3 is cancer, and should be removed from the game in every form it appears in, not added to everything else.


(Lukett MyDabb) #12

giving the hauler the ability to take on traits such as nullification and covops cloaking similar to a blockade runner or DST, though a combination of subsystems.

the subsystems can be mixed and matched like other t3s to allow other traits/slot layout changesbut the description of a blops hauler is allowing it to effectively be a higher capacity BR with other modified stats if you used all of the subsystems related to that setup.


(Sasha Viderzei) #13

Thanks mate :slight_smile:


(Teckos Pech) #14

Why? As you note we already have ships for this. And one thing with T3s is that they are rather hard to balance, particularly the ones with interchangeable subsystems.


(Lugh Crow-Slave) #15

that hole is filled by the orca m8

only haulers that we could see is for the rest of the commodities not yet covered. and hopefully split those more evenly across the races


(Mike Voidstar) #16

Orca isn’t a hauler, it just happens to have a decent sized cargo hold.


(Lugh Crow-Slave) #17

doesn’t need to be classed as a hauler to fill the hauling hole now does it.

not a single ship in the game is designated a ‘roller’ yet ships fill the role


(Mike Voidstar) #18

I meant the Orca is designed for a different job altogether, and is not a good choice for hauling regardless of it’s nametag.

Transports and haulers are flying boxes. The expensive part of such a ship should be it’s cargo, not the hull. The shipline should have a smooth progression from racial transport—>racial freighter, not require a detour into ORE mining ships.

It’d probably be fine if they just removed the racial transport lines altogether, and made one smooth line of ORE or other faction hauler, if you are so set on not having the hole filled on the racial skill path.

But regardless you go Transport–DST/Blockade–(Big hole)–(Bigger Hole)–Freighter/Jump Frieghter. Really even as far as it goes the DST/Blockade aren’t really the next step, they do hold a bit more but the real upgrade in those ships are their T2 specialized roles. We should have one smooth T1 basic path from Transport—>Frieghter.

IMO, every doubling of base cargo capacity should be a new basic hull. You can branch laterally from each step along the way with specialized roles like the DST, BR, or Jump, or specialized cargo as warranted, but the basic job of hauling should not jump in one step from around 50 thousand m3 to around 300,000 m3.


(Lugh Crow-Slave) #19

even cost wise the orca is right in between dst and freighter…

you go

DST 62km3 orca 140 JF 342km 543km3

there is no hole


(Mike Voidstar) #20

Except, as already noted, Orca isn’t a transport. It requires you to left turn into an entire other professions skills. It may have a sizeable hold, but it’s not a transport, except maybe as a sideline to make it useful to mining fleets.

DST is a T2 specialized ship. Orca is an entire other professions ship. Jump Freighter is a T2 specialized ship.

The transport line is more hole than it is a viable line of ships. It begins with industrials, skips into T2 industrials, skips again into t2 freighter, and then finishes with T1 freighter… and you don’t see that as an issue?