Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
ragewind
|
Posted - 2006.04.26 17:45:00 -
[1]
Edited by: ragewind on 26/04/2006 17:48:22 This is a ship designed for the harsh areas of true 00 space that can with stand the risks of the 00 rates and gate spawns.
Its a battleship sized industrial so it has similar hull, armour and shields of the current top battleships such as a raven.
Its hull/ armour / shields same as a BS such as the raven's ect the large BS maybe more if its unarmed
60m3 of cargo space
bonuses to its speed and agility per level of transport skill bonuses to its shield or armour resistance per level of battleship
cup of mining laser needs is gimped
max of 2 weapon high slots juts like the industrials they can fit something but you are never going to use this as a warship.
Set its base price at 115mil
this ship is actually quite a risky ship as it is rather costly
industrial 5K m3 1mil ship 200 isk per m3 freighter 785,000 m3 1bil cost is 1273 isk a m3 befor skill bonuses new ship 60Km3 115mil cost out weights its cargo increase 1916isk per m3
new ship (raven based stats) freighter hull 5313 106250 armour 5313 20000 shields 6000 6000 totals 16626 132250
this ship is no were need the strength of the freighter with 1/8 of its total strength it has no added bonuses to warp scramblers so the blockage runners still have roles in the game and any good alliance/crop/pirate fleet will kill one of these easily
so what are pepole opinions on this ship? ------------------------------------ fix eves industrial sector!
advanced industrial ship |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.04.26 18:26:00 -
[2]
Repeating the same idea in multiple threads over and over without taking into account anything said in criticism is called spam.
ISK per m¦ does not take into account player TIME or escorts, or... They would rapidly replace freighters in many areas of the game, trivialise large areas of logistics, etc.
"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer |
Qolde
|
Posted - 2006.04.26 19:07:00 -
[3]
I think there should be an upgrade to Indy/Transport ships too. Something in between the 27km3 with millions invested in GSC/Locual hull Expanders/Skills of the Iteron 5, and the freighter. A ship with between 50km3 and 150km3 would be nice. Carry a couple battleships, maybe even 1 freight container, and not need 137987149015 expensive hull expanders on it. Could be a new variety of transport ship. I always thought it was funny that the Transport ships didn't actually carry more stuff than regular indies. Instead of speed and armor or slots, just give it beaucoup cargo space without need for expanders and GSCs.
|
ragewind
|
Posted - 2006.04.26 19:21:00 -
[4]
Maya Rkell i started this as it quite blatenly not a small freighter and needs looking at seperatly mining logistics come up multipul time so it is a seperat and warented idea here it is not spam in the freighter thread it is really.
if you read i have set it to need battelship and transport skills not industrial so it will take ages for pepole to get its not a base indi after all it so it need the skills of a T2 industrial and then batelship on top
how this will replace frighters is behond me you will need 13 of these and 13 pilots flying in one group pluss the ships to gard 13 idustrial ships to match a freighter so they are rather pilot hungers ships if you want to replace freighters for trade roughts 2 freigters and another 11 gaurding ships would be far more usefull.
as for not taking things in to consideration with regard to criticism then no i havent as no one has voiced an opinion as ever time a hauler/freighter/mining logistics idea comes up you snipe the idea and try killing it flay we all know you hate more than 3 players in the game to be abel to some larger scail hauling tadeing or mining you just one the select eleits to beabel to do it buy only haveing a mother ship to be the next step up.
your view is well known so now just let other peol have there idea, as of yet you are the only one to shoot these ideas down ------------------------------------ fix eves industrial sector!
advanced industrial ship |
Mihail d'Amour
|
Posted - 2006.04.27 00:49:00 -
[5]
I don't think the world needs more laws to deal with the pathetic enforcement of current ones. In that line, I don't think we need a new industrial to deal with the failure to make the current ones good at their jobs. We certainly don't need to make industrial pilots train BS. That is nearly as rediculous as calling the carrier the next industrial up from transport.
After giving it a lot of thought, I'm prone to agree with Maya on this middle-tier hauler idea. while I liked where we were going with 'container ships', the current freighter/industrial setup makes a great deal of sense. Freighters are our railroads and industrials/transports are our trucking industry. I'd rather see all this effort put into making the freighters and transports good at what they do. Particularly the transports.
---------------------------------------------- In nomine Domine, quod erat malum |
Ysabelle nKataros
|
Posted - 2006.04.27 01:58:00 -
[6]
tbh, if you beefed up the transport ships' holds by 50-100% and made them equivalently more expensive, you'd solve the problem
-------
Omerta Syndicate |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.04.27 02:19:00 -
[7]
There IS no problem. CP know precisely what they're doing with volume limits.
You want all the advantages of a freighter and more on the cheap, sure, but that does NOT indicate that there is a problem.
Ragewind, it's identical to previous proposals by you. And it dosn't matter what you CALL it, just what it IS. You won't need 13, as stated - you fail to realise that freighters can't use cans to expand their bays and you don't figure in the fact that you're looking only at the largest freighter bay size.
The entire idea is just badly concieved. And no, I'm not going to let this sort of thing past if you just keep repeating it in different threads - it's a flawed idea, and that flaw is being pointed out. If you have a serious answer to the abuseability of the logistics, let's hear it. Not "OMG you have no point" either.
Ysabelle nKataros, so why did CCP not do it? Have a think about the logistics...
"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer |
Mihail d'Amour
|
Posted - 2006.04.27 16:55:00 -
[8]
There are two things worth noting..
1. T2 industrials generally have smaller starting cargo holds, which might have been better served having slightly larger ones.
2. The argument that "CCP knows what they are doing" implies a divine righteousness upon the argument which defies the ability to discuss further. This is a logical fallacy, and a moral pitfall. If we want to debate the points of why it is so, then say what they are, not just that some divine entity has deemed it so thus let it be done. The reasons may or may not be valid. They can easily be based on false premises ("insta's make you invulnerable" comes to mind).
I wholeheartedly disagree with the class of vessel proposed here. That does NOT mean that I agree that the T2's are how they should be. There is room for discussing a raise in cargo hold size on industrials, especially given that one tech 1 can carry a ship construction array and most other race's T2's can not even fully expanded. There are material failures in the T2 transports and a small increase in the base size might be warranted. As for the mid-sized freighter, I think this is a pony that everyone wants but I haven't seen any 'needs-based' arguments for it beyond mining. For that the mobile refinery is certainly a better solution for a variety of reasons. This 50k+ capacity transport seems like a solution trying to find a problem because it would make some things easier. What ever happened to the container-ship thread, that had potential?
---------------------------------------------- In nomine Domine, quod erat malum |
ragewind
|
Posted - 2006.04.27 17:32:00 -
[9]
right some one solve these problems
1) mining logistics most small mining gangs can wipe a belt out in no time far faster than you can haul the ore and pleas look to the future it been roumerd that some areas could start haveing system wide roid belts and the more ore there is the more you need to haul it you will have no chance with the current ships
2) 00 serviverbility
some one try traveling 15KM to a rat camped gate you stand no chance the idustrials are too weak and far to large to avoid the rats, im not saying they should be imortal ships but they are far too weak for their size currently.
and the Battel ship skill was all i could think of at the time that takes ages to train im sure there is a more suited skill out there ------------------------------------ fix eves industrial sector!
advanced industrial ship |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.04.27 18:50:00 -
[10]
On the flow of the economy, CCP have a remarkably good record. On THIS topic, I think they know precisely what they're doing. (Other topics? Heck no)
And I fully believe that the T2 hauler base cargo size was veery deliberately chosen...
And ragewind, again, you still haven't really commentated on why a ORE Capital would be unsuitable.
"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer |
|
ragewind
|
Posted - 2006.04.27 20:50:00 -
[11]
you idea just seems large leap from current haulers, but then i gguess it is diferant to them.
its very similer to other calls for modile refing ships and as long as it can match a pos or normal station for refining ability then it would have a place
the main thing i dislike about you ide is the use of making it a "mothership" these can only use jump drives and not gates this means it needs some one to be its jump marker ect. jump drive only needs fule and this will increase the bse cost of the mining op.
if it was just a capital that could use the gates like the freighter can then it would be vierbel, remember there are some holes in the idea of capitals not useing them based on size with the carryers as they are small and can fit trough a gate as easy as a BS size wise.
i would say it needs the baility to jump aswell as use gates then it is a worthy idea ------------------------------------ fix eves industrial sector!
advanced industrial ship |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.04.27 21:04:00 -
[12]
Yep, jump drive. Jump drive lets you move extremely rapidly at low risk. Making it use gates with little more than a freighter's agility would nullify most of it's advantages.
And its jump drive OR use gates.
"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer |
Cheopis
|
Posted - 2006.04.29 07:46:00 -
[13]
Originally by: ragewind right some one solve these problems
1) mining logistics most small mining gangs can wipe a belt out in no time far faster than you can haul the ore and pleas look to the future it been roumerd that some areas could start haveing system wide roid belts and the more ore there is the more you need to haul it you will have no chance with the current ships
2) 00 serviverbility
some one try traveling 15KM to a rat camped gate you stand no chance the idustrials are too weak and far to large to avoid the rats, im not saying they should be imortal ships but they are far too weak for their size currently.
and the Battel ship skill was all i could think of at the time that takes ages to train im sure there is a more suited skill out there
What problems?
In answer to #1 - you are inventing a problem that does not exist. I can easily haul the ore from two covetors with one 10k m3 industrial - without using giant secures as space expanders. And without having to set instas for the miners. Tractor Beams are a ore hauler's best friend, especially since they reduced the skill requirement to science 4. For each 5k m3 of effective available space, even a poorly skilled hauler should be able to handle all the ore a covetor pilot can generate, as long as they have an insta back to a station. I have a 20 day old alt that hauls ore for me now, and I mine 1197 m3/minute. He sits at the station for minutes at a time waiting for me to get enough ore to make it worth it for him to come grab ore, AND he also spends the time to collect all rat loot cans.
In answer to #2 - Teir 1 industrials are crunchy. They are supposed to be. Teir 2 industrials are most definitely not crunchy. It took a 4 battleship player gate camp 30 seconds to destroy my impel a couple weeks ago, and it wasn't fitted with any armor mods or reppers.
It seems to me that you see only the weaknesses of ships, and don't look for their strengths. I wouldn't object to Teir 2 Industrials getting more cargo space, but honestly, I think they are fine the way they are now. |
Serenity Lin
|
Posted - 2006.05.07 22:49:00 -
[14]
Well i for one like the idea of a slightly larger industral hauler, I use Industrials, Transports and Freighters there is a huge gap that does need some filling in the way of ship capacity, and with respect to those who have dismissed this because if CCP wanted this gap closed they would have, there is always a chance they just havent got to it yet .
Now as i state the obvios yet again i might be able to plead the case for this concept one last time
Industrals: these are realy for the solo pilot, moving small amounts of ore, equipment even some small ships, just a general purpose cargo ship if you like.
Transports: These are better armored/shielded indis, they are for traveling in low sec space and meant to give you that extra 30secs it takes to activate a MWD and get to the gate befor you loose it. SO there are 2 flavors, the slow hevily defended verson such as the "Bustard" lots of low slots to fit stuff so you have more cargo or more WCS than you know what to do with. The second flavor is the "Blockade runner" this is fast and has a +2 WCS built in very handy, but not much in the way of cargo space. But at the end of the day they cant realy support mining ops in 0.0 unless you fit the best expanders, making the ship painfully slow even with MWD. Then at the end of the day you will be better off with an IT5 with Expander 1's for that. Realy these ships are intended to bring all the nice minerals and named loot back from 0.0 .
THE GAP (cover this in a min)
Freighters: Well if you realy need to haul alot of something than this is your ship, and the best billion isk you will ever spend. It is painfuly slow, but the cargo space makes it all worthwhile in the end, Nuf said
OK Finaly to my point:
There are ships for all the hauling jobs except one big one, Hualing in 0.0 an indi is often too small and a freighter cant do the things you need a ship to do. This isnt just mining it is most things i can think of. If you need to deploy a POS you need atleast 5 ships or trips to bring all the fule, tower/structures and guns if you are lucky to have a station in the system this is easyer. To be honist i would like to see another 4 people in BS's while i put up a POS than have them in haulers. Being able to dock a freighter at a POS will be helpful but you still need an indi sized ship and fule to get it up and running and deploy the structure to unload the freighter, and an IT5 with 27% expanders may not even have that capacity.
Next up is mining it has to be said, if there is a mining op and the refinary is 5 - 10 jumps through usualy hostile space i admit i would like something that can take a few hits and give me the chance to get away (not realy provided by a transport) and also a larger capacity so i can stay in the belt longer, usualy it is non stop between station and belt even with a good number of haulers. I dont want to take the risk out, infact it is still in the game with multiple ship if you loose 1 you only loose a small % of an op, and the other ships can safespot and log, but with a single ship there is an increase in the % lost.
I dont see it as an unreasonable request to have a ship with the capacity of say 100,000m3 it isnt going to put freighters out of the picture as a transport ship, infact it would be benifical as a deepspace hauler, allowing corps and individules to move larger loads solo or with a small escort. There will always be a place for all ships, Industrial, Transports and Freighters there is just a small gap that would be good if it could be filled.
Even if all it requires is something like Indi 4 (5 is requirment of a freighter and this isnt a freighter) and Industry lv5 to fly it. But it would need attributes similar to a (teir 1) BS for it to work. Some weapon slots would be good as well, low number of low slots, good number of mids and maybe upto 4 hi.
This idea should work, and is most definatly needed.
|
Wesley Harding
|
Posted - 2006.05.23 10:28:00 -
[15]
I think it'd be better to just tweak Freighters.
|
Erfnam
|
Posted - 2006.05.23 19:50:00 -
[16]
There are a few non ship solutions to the problems discussed here.
Mining:
The current haulers require a much larger ratio of haulers to miners as the jumps to refining station increases. There are 2 current methods to solve this. Put up a refining POS in a closer system or mine in a closer belt. Some other solutions requiring CCP intervention include bigger secure cans that could be anchored and t2 cargo expanders. If it's a really profitable belt, than putting up a outpost in that area might be an option to pursue. It would give you a closer refining spot that is freighter accessible. The towers to maintain sovereignty are also easily refuelable since you have a freighter dockable outpost, or you could simply use a carrier to jump the fuel in for a higher cost/lower risk solution.
POS - Refueling and deploying arrays:
With regards to running a POS, it is intended to be a multi person operation. CCP never intended it to be something for an individual. Either increase your man power, decrease your refuel requirements, or use the carrier method. As far as deploying those things that are too big to fit in indy ships, that sucks and needs to be fixed because there is no way to scoop it back up. I think that the t2 cargo expanders will help resolve this problem for some of the assembly arrays, except for the capital ones.
I would love to see a tugboat style ship that has little to no cargo space, but is capable of attaching to and dragging other ships/structures where they need to go. This style ship could make deploying/scooping those larger structures a more manageable task.
Recruiting WTS Bulk Mining/Indy - Monitor Thread |
ragewind
|
Posted - 2006.05.24 00:03:00 -
[17]
the problem with hauling in 00 is two fold the first being shear size simperly nothing is bigenose and its also why the galenty industrial skill must be one of the most bought in the game.
the other is the ships defences they are slow, have large sig radius and are weak. the badger mk2 has more arrmor then shilds i do belive, now i forgot do caldari shild or armor tank this scrams that these were rushed.
mining ships have had many upgrades and new ships to mine even faster but the logistics havent been changed. ------------------------------------ fix eves industrial sector!
advanced industrial ship |
Daedalus Maxwell
|
Posted - 2006.05.24 06:51:00 -
[18]
*sneaks onto the boards*
Has anyone seen the stats on the test science vessel in the latest build? My god that would be an uber industrial ship even if comes with jump drive. 5/5/5 setup.. cargo bay of 735,000 m3 and apparently its icon detail says "Can research and manufacture in space". I know what I want for Christmas now.
|
Katya Ishenka
|
Posted - 2006.05.24 12:54:00 -
[19]
transport ships need alarger cargo hold.
Also freighter piltos should have to train for transport ships so that the progression = indy, transport, freighter
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.05.24 12:59:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Katya Ishenka transport ships need alarger cargo hold.
No. CCP knew precisely what they were doing when whey set their capacity. You're not getting the inbetween either..
|
|
Lady Fallon
|
Posted - 2006.05.24 14:48:00 -
[21]
Moble Refineries are needed, afterall we do have a skill book for it. and mining corps too small for a POS but big enough to not want to be restricted to a station would do greatly from this.
|
Katya Ishenka
|
Posted - 2006.05.24 15:40:00 -
[22]
Transport ships have better resistances than normal haulers yes.
However they are alot slower because they dont get the speed bonus that normal indies get.
You rarely see the hauler type transport ship. most of teh ones used are the blokade runners.
even a 50% bonus to teh cargo bay on my bustard would be welcome. as it is I either use my badger II or a freighter or use my other account and use the itty 5 or a freighter.
I don't see anything wrong with a maxed out transport ship being able to haul a packaged battleship.
And your post that CCP know what they are doing is based on what. They made the transport ships originally as tech 2 haulers, they then made the freighters to hauler capitol stuff. There is a psace for something in the middle.
|
ragewind
|
Posted - 2006.05.24 18:08:00 -
[23]
Maya Rkell the hauler ships may have been nicely balanced but that was befor the likes of the hulk were introduced and the carrier which had a biger use being an industrial then it does fighting.
the T2 transport ships need there names changing fast they are both blockade runers they sacrife space for strength they should be called "blockade runers" thats what they are.
we need proper transport ships ------------------------------------ fix eves industrial sector!
advanced industrial ship |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.05.24 19:40:00 -
[24]
..The game's changed, and the limits on size of industrials has become MORE important because of the way logistics have gone, yes.
Carriers are a form of transport, like it or not. They are low-sec only, require a jump drive, etc. This is deliverate. As are freighter's limitations.
There are alternatives. A refining "mining" capital ship is one of them.
There is NO place for breaking the game in the middle.
|
Reggie Stoneloader
|
Posted - 2006.05.25 08:42:00 -
[25]
Ore Barge
So how about a hauler with the defense of a T1 hauler but a very large cargo bay? Make it big enough to keep up with a mining group made up of Hulks, but fragile enough to be unsuitable for long hauls in dangerous space.
Just go ahead and call it the "Macro Miner".
|
K Shara
|
Posted - 2006.05.25 09:32:00 -
[26]
I cant see an issue with a ship that could move a freight container or even just a packaged BS under the same limitations as a freighter <><><><><><><><><>
Contraband
<><><><><><><><><> |
Viktor Fyretracker
|
Posted - 2006.05.26 15:00:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Maya Rkell ..The game's changed, and the limits on size of industrials has become MORE important because of the way logistics have gone, yes.
Carriers are a form of transport, like it or not. They are low-sec only, require a jump drive, etc. This is deliverate. As are freighter's limitations.
There are alternatives. A refining "mining" capital ship is one of them.
There is NO place for breaking the game in the middle.
well you could have a small refinery based on the industrials with 75% efficent and then have one based on the racial freighter(ie the capitol ship version as freighters are cap ships) would be 100% efficent.
however you need to make it so the refinery has to "deploy" to fuction and then it undeploys when its time to move the gang. however the game code would need to be altered to permit the industrials to dock with the freighter class version and offload their cargo.
|
James Duar
|
Posted - 2006.05.26 15:41:00 -
[28]
To me the issue is and remains, simply, that even if I invest all my time skilling and training, I still can't build an Industrial which will haul 1 whole jet can's worth of m3.
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |