Welcome to Jester's Trek.
I'm your host, Jester. I've been an EVE Online player for about six years. One of my four mains is Ripard Teg, pictured at left. Sadly, I've succumbed to "bittervet" disease, but I'm wandering the New Eden landscape (and from time to time, the MMO landscape) in search of a cure.
You can follow along, if you want...

Thursday, June 6, 2013

Will haul for food

So, with nearly every other type of T1 sub-cap out of the way in the re-balancing effort, it's time to talk about what's left.  Yep, I want to talk about T1 haulers again.  I've brushed past this topic on the blog twice already this year, once while talking about other ship balancing efforts and again while talking about high-sec ganking.  And it came up quite a lot during my CSM campaign, particularly when an incorrect belief that I'm opposed to non-consensual PvP was politicized.  So I spent a fair bit of time in CSM interviews talking about where I felt like the balance was and what I'd do to address it.

For the record, I said and repeated several times that I feel like high-sec ganking is at about the right balance now, with a tiny bit of advantage still in the hands of the gankers because T1 haulers are so thin and easy to kill.  And that comes down to the T1 haulers have simply not kept up with the times.  Damage -- and especially volley damage -- has increased geometrically over the last several years while the haulers are still operating like it's 2007.  But that's not only to the ganker's benefit!  The gankers are also penalized because it's much harder for them to gank for profit.  There isn't really a platform that can scoop their ill-gotten loot and then tank while being suspect flagged, Microwarpdrive back to the closest gate, and escape.

So I thought it'd be fun to give a proposal for how I think T1 haulers should be balanced.  Yep, it's time for a good old-fashioned proposal post.  I don't do these often, but sometimes it's just fun to dream.

So first off, I think there should be five basic types of T1 haulers.  In many ways, I'd like the varieties of haulers to match the variety of mining barges, which have different advantages and disadvantages.
  1. A general hauler, with "decent" tank, quickness, and capacity.
  2. A quick hauler with very thin tank and reduced capacity, but great agility and good speed.
  3. A tanky hauler with good capacity, reduced agility, two high slots, a drone bay, and a very good tank.
  4. A high-capacity hauler with good speed, thin tank, and poor agility.  And finally,
  5. A specialized hauler with a small standard cargo bay, but a large ore/ice bay.
Not every race would have one of every type.  As a matter of fact, I envision the fifth one -- the more specialized one -- being a second ORE faction industrial.  Let's start with that one first.

There should be a dedicated ore/ice hauler so that relatively new players can support mining ops.  I'm perfectly fine with it using the Noctis hull if desired, though really, it should be a new hull design.  The ore/ice hauler should be able to carry a little more ore/ice than a Retriever: about 30000m3.  This gives players a good reason to fly it as a hauler over simply flying a Retriever and gives it enough capacity to fully refuel a Starbase Jump Bridge.  Give this one two high slots, one of which is a turret slot, four-ish low slots, and four-ish mid slots.  It should be able to hold standard cargo too, so that it can carry around mining crystals.  About 1000m3 would do.

That leaves the remaining four haulers.  Here's what each should look like, IMO.

General hauler.  The general haulers for each race should hold around 5000m3 with no skills, with the same 5% per level bonus to cargo capacity and speed.  That will give decent pilots 6000m3 without mods to expand cargo and good pilots 6500.  That's about right for a general hauler.  The general hauler should be able to tank about 10000 EHP; a single Tornado should be able to take it out without too much trouble, but single ships of cruiser size and smaller should struggle and have to bring friends.  General haulers should have two high slots, and a mix of mid and low slots appropriate to each race.  The general hauler should align and warp in about nine seconds when unfit and fitting should be carefully balanced so that they cannot fit a MWD without having to sacrifice just about everything (and fit RCUs or MAPCs) to make it work.

Quick hauler.  The quick haulers should hold around 4000m3 at base skills, with 5% per level bonus to cargo capacity and agility.  Quick haulers should align and warp in about six seconds when unfit and fitting should be balanced so that they can fit a 10MN MWD, or they should receive a role bonus for fitting a MWD.  They should be given a single high slot and limited low and mid slots, no more than two or three.  Their signature radius should be set pretty small.  Tank should be about half the general hauler, or about equal to the current T1 haulers.  The warp speed should be higher than average, 6 AU/s.  The idea here is to give pilots who want a blockade runner something to start with.

Tanky hauler.  The tanky haulers should hold about the same as the general hauler, about 5000m3 at base skills, and should have a 4% per level bonus to resists and 5% bonus to shield/armor HP, depending.  They should be given a goodly number of lows and mids, sufficient to tank them to about triple that of the general hauler or half that of a bait Procurer, or about 30000 EHP.  It should be given sufficient grid to fit a 10MN MWD without too much difficulty.  In short, it should be made fairly difficult to gank on a gate, requiring either high alpha or webs.  It should be given a small drone bay with which to defend itself, and two high slots both usable as weapon hard-points.  Its align speed should be about 12 to 13 seconds when unfit and it should be given a warp speed of 3 AU/s.

High capacity hauler.  The high capacity haulers should sacrifice just about everything for capacity.  Tank should be equal to the quick hauler, warp speed and align time equal to the tanky hauler.  But its base capacity should be around 6500m3, with 5% per level bonus to cargo capacity and speed.  It should have lots of lows regardless of race.

Not every race should receive every type of hauler.

Currently, the Gallente have five hauler hulls and they should lose one of them but should have examples of all four of the types above.  I recommend dropping the Iteron II.  It's the most ungainly-looking and least iconic of the five.  Of the remaining four, the Itty V should be the high-capacity hauler, the Itty IV should be the quick hauler, the Itty I should be the tanky hauler (it just looks butch), and the Itty III should be the general hauler.

The Caldari will need an additional hauler hull.  I recommend creating a T1 skin for the Bustard ship model.  That one will be the high-capacity hauler.  The Badger II will be the generalist, and the Badger will be the quick hauler.  The Caldari would thus lack a tanky hauler.

The Minmatar currently have three hauler hulls and they're fine with that.  The Wreathe will be the quick hauler, the Mammoth will be the high-capacity hauler, and the Hoarder will be the tanky hauler.  The Minmatar would thus lack a general hauler.

The Amarr currently have only two hauler hulls and will also need a new hull and there are no obvious models for one.  So that's a new art asset that would need to be created.  The Bestower would be the tanky hauler and the Sigil would be the quick hauler.  The new model would be for a generalist hauler.  The Amarr would thus lack a high-capacity hauler.

And there you have it.  Thoughts?

81 comments:

  1. The Minmatar get a tanky hauler and the Caldari don't? What's the rationale for not following the races' traditional strengths and weaknesses?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Have to say, Anon has a point here. I'd say the Badger II be tanky, and the Hoarder be generalist. Apart from that, I agree entirely, this is pretty much exactly how I envisioned industrials being balanced.

      As for Amarr, I think just leaving it at 2 hulls would be fine if the art department was a bottleneck to getting it done, and just make the Bestower a Tanky, and the Sigil a generalist. This makes sense to me because Amarr don't really do speed or much in the way of industry (that's what the slaves are for!)

      Delete
    2. I agree. Based on the general trends in the racial ships, I would think that the Caldari should be missing the agile hauler and the Minmatar should be missing the tanky one.

      Delete
    3. I don't think every race should necessarily have a generalist; like the above poster said, why not follow the races' traditional strengths and weaknesses?

      I would love to see the Badger 2 be a tanky hauler, and although Amarr tend toward shiny space bricks I would like to see the Bestower be a high-capacity hauler, since pre-Odyssey it was the top tier1-3 hauler in terms of m3.

      Delete
    4. re: anon above me
      I can already see the lore for the new tanky Amarr hull, too...
      Something about "in response to increasing weapon capabilities, a new, much more defensively-capable hauler was developed"

      Delete
  2. There's already a second Ore faction industrial, and it's already the T1 version of the Noctis--the totally useless Primae.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wasn't the Primae a one-time gift? If not I'd suggest re-purposing it into the ore hauler, while allowing it to carry PI materials in the ore bay. Can you put PI stuff in ore bays?

      Delete
    2. The Primae was a gift, yeah, and is used for hauling PI stuff. It should get its own rebalance while the other haulers do, and maybe even a BPO deployed for it.

      Delete
  3. Combine your 4 and 5, make the new ORE industrial a hauler with 40k ore bay, 40k general cargo in a fleet hangar. Paper thin (10k EHP). No lows, two mids, one high, no hard points. Bonus to MWD cycle time of -10% per level. 20s align time with no bonuses. Repackages to about 5000m3.

    This could work as a lighter serving freighters at a POS, orcas in a belt, or general hauling duty in "safe" space.

    Then give the races two out of three of fast, tanky, general.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Everyone would just use this one and nobody would use anything else. Sort of Retriever syndrome.

      Delete
    2. Well, that would justify the train to ORE Industryal 5, right? :)

      Other ideas here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3085923#post3085923

      Rather than this two-bay hauler, have one which specialises in hauling ISO containers (ISO containers being a new container of 10k m3 capacity). That's all its specialised cargo bay can handle. Or a single general freight container.

      Another hauler could become a ship hauler, with ship maintenance bay capacity for two cruisers, fleet hangar capacity for one GSC.

      There are more options than just "tanky, fast, big".

      Delete
    3. My other half uses shuttles and frigates to collect stuff from "nearby" stations when hauling stuff with her Orca or freighter. Smaller haulers will still get used: the important thing for a "lighter" is that is can carry a decent volume and can collapse to a very small size. For an Orca, any T1 industrial will do if it has space: the lighter would not be useful for an Orca pilot simply because it's no better than the Orca for any purpose.

      The ships need to have greater differentiation in role than "tanky", "quick" and "big". Take my ORE hauler example: will changing the fleet hangar capacity to 10k make a decent difference?

      I think you had a great idea with differentiating haulers by type of cargo: have a generalist, and specialists for ore hauling (40k ore bay, to service orca-led fleets), fuel hauling (with fleet hangar to serve dread/carrier fleets), etc.

      Whichever hauler has the largest general cargo bay will end up being used for everything in hisec, unless other factors come into play. So just as combat ships have combat roles (combat, assault), why shouldn't haulers have specialist carriage roles? Haul 27k m3 with an Iteron V, or 40k m3 of fuel with the ORE Industrial?

      When shipping containers around the real world, you will use a container ship. When shipping coal around, you don't go shoving coal into ISO containers to shove aboard a container ship: you use a bulk hauler. When shipping LPG around you don't fill ISO containers with loads of small tanks, you use the "Dolly Parton" haulers which are basically floating gas tanks. But for shipping commodities such as TVs, computers, cars, carpets, tiles and glass you will use ISO containers.

      Attempting to balance industrial ships around combat roles ("tanky", "fast") is only one way to look at the issue.

      Delete
  4. To clarify: the idea of having fewer haulers per race is great.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I like the idea, the symmetry. I think it should match the races in general more though:

    -Caldari should lack a fast one (or possibly the generalist). Most Caldari ships are slower than their counterparts.

    -Minmatar should lack the tanky one, their ships can often be dual tanked, they are the 'generalist' race.

    -Amarr should maybe lack the generalist one since most of their ships are quite specialized. Usually, tank and occasionally speed (slicer, new ONI), but not very often on the same hull.

    Gallente should lack the large hold one? Not sure about that one :P

    This is becoming a bit less obvious the the more I think about it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Another idea I formulated over at Gevlon´s Blog: To remove the mandatory shield tank (You have to shield tank a hauler, even if you use an amarr one, else much less cargo space) disallow the use of cargo expanders on industrials (the module is strictly used for repurpose combat ships) then increase the cargo of all haulers as if 2,3 or 4 expanders are fitted. To prevent a total crash of the expander market, add 2,3 or 4 expanders as extra material.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This is a pretty good idea for the rebalance of haulers

    ReplyDelete
  8. I already wrote http://greedygoblin.blogspot.hu/2013/03/business-thursday-industrials-and-their.html what is wrong with the T1 haulers - and what will still be wrong with them after your proposal:

    they are leagues worse than freighters and the Orca. A cruiser or destroyer isn't worse than a carrier, different. On the other hand, neither currently, nor with your idea implemented, there is no reason to fly a T1 hauler or even a T2 "blockade runner" if you can fly an Orca or Freighter (JF and covops outside highsec).

    While there is a need and place for a "noobship" like the Venture before the barges, having 22 ships in 4 (5 with your idea) races with respective (and long) skill requirement. So the task would be giving a reason to players over 2 months to use these ships.

    I proposed some roles for T1 haulers:
    * Autopilot-hauler: 500m/s without afterburner, it's good doing distribution missions on autopilot. Distribution missions are the only hauls where you need to move medium sized things that are not typical sucicide gank targets.
    * Tanky hauler: Problematic because of the Orca. It is only competitive if it's more tanky (200K+) and has other competitive property that offsets its smaller hold (faster, aligns faster).
    * Fast aligning, fast warp hauler: Good for doing distribution missions manually.
    * Specialist haulers: tiny cargohold, large specialist hold for items like planetary materials, minerals, ores, fuel. Each race could get one with different specialty.
    * Combat hauler: moderate cargohold, large ammo hold. Agile and fast as a battlecruiser, tanks like a battleship, has a non-zero DPS and can supply its fleet with ammo, nanite paste and some spare parts.
    * Interdiction nullified (but not cloaky) hauler: passes bubbles like a T3
    * Scanner hauler: bonused for scan probe strength, so can scan itself in and out of wormhole chains
    * ECM bonused industrial: can protect itself with ECM and ECM drones

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As a game designer, why would you want to make a design that promotes AFK gameplay?

      A lot of the features and changes that have been released in recent patches have taken the ability to do things AFK now. Ie drone mission running and ice mining more recently.

      Delete
    2. Duude i know ur spacerich an all but the primary reason 2months old toons are using haulers is cause they arent alts-of-alts. Go ahead and try and convince a two month old toon to splurge on, what essentially is a bigger hauler.

      Delete
    3. Dude, no one wants to read your posts. Stop posting.

      Delete
  9. The ice/ore bay you speak of won't be able to fit the LO to fuel a jb. This does not have to interfere with your idea: have rigs available so players can specialise depending on their need (like the specialisation rigs for mining barges). I think of 3 kinds: a mineral bay rig for producers, a pos fuel bay (which allows blocks,LO and strontium clathrates) and a PI rig.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If this proposal were taken seriously, I could nudge the appropriate party to make the ore bay accept LO.

      Delete
    2. In all honesty, rig customisation trumps dedicated roles. By allowing this, you can "tune" the ship to your specific needs which saves CCP a lot of hassle with hulls.

      The "pro" version of this would be an ORE t3 hauler which is far more customisable in terms of the various options you described in your post. However, you make a valid argument for the amount of artwork that is involved so I'll keep dreaming about that.

      Delete
  10. Pretty boring. And, except for the general hauler, the rest are too easily predictable how each hull is likely to be fit (ex. tanky version will likely just be fit for maximum tank - otherwise, if you are going to fit for capacity or speed, you'd fly the other choices). This is also too much like the mining ship changes.

    I'd rather see each race have a set of "general" haulers, with the average speed, tank, and capacity stats, each of which can be specifically player-augmented via the various modules already existing in the game. All haulers should get a bonus for fitting cargo expanders, speed/agility mods, and hull tanking mods. This makes it more difficult to predict how the hauler is fit.

    And, yes, hull tanking - that means DCs, reinforced bulkheads, and hull reppers. More interesting, don't you think? Also, more logical, since haulers really should not generally be fitting armor or shield.

    As for as creating different flavors of haulers, here's a few examples of how I might go:

    a) The "combat" hauler, which has the high slots and hardpoints to fit a rack of guns/launchers, or perhaps even drones. It might also get an "insta-lock" bonus, allowing it to always lock and shoot first.

    b) The "smuggler" hauler, with the scan-impervious cargo bay (but no cloak, since that should remain with the BR) - and maybe a bonus to ECM and ECM bursts, just for grins.

    c) The "fleet" hauler, which has armor/shield resists to better benefit from logi support. It should also be able to jettison cans, without any delay (for ammo, cap boosters, etc.).

    d) The "high-sec" hauler, which has a smaller signature, higher warp speed (much faster than any combat ships, except possibly intys), a built-in +2 warp strength, and plenty of extra low slots. The point being to make the auto-piloted AFK hauler somewhat viable again, by making them somewhat more difficult (but not impossible) to catch and kill before they reach the gate. This could also potentially be used to run gate camps in low/null.

    d) The "WH" hauler, which doesn't affect the mass limit of the wormhole, and gets a bonus for scan probes.

    e) The "ship" hauler, which gets a bonus for hauling package ship hulls, or even fitted ship hulls.

    Anyways, there are my thoughts. Feel free to shoot 'em down or praise 'em. :)

    ReplyDelete
  11. The haulers are perfect as they are.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Not sure there actually needs to be a "max capacity"-specific T1 industrial. That is purpose/role of the T1 freighter.

    Instead, you might want to re-examine the skill tree and see if the progression to T1 freighter is reasonable, particularly with respect to training time, and actually makes sense (ie. players aren't required to train up any otherwise useless level 5 skills).

    Also, the T1 freighter needs rebalancing, as well. With the increase in alpha over the years, the EHP of the T1 freighter just isn't what it used to be. This can probably be best solved by just adding one low slot, rather than adding HP - the low slot gives players the option of using a cargo expander to add even more capacity, or fitting a DC II, for more tank, or even adding a warp stab.

    Final note - can you also ask CCP to take a look at the warp stabs? They are pretty much obsolete.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I really like your idea Ripard. Let's do it.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Why train any non-Gallente race, if they get all four types?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gallente should have the best max capacity hauler, but Minmatar should have the quickest quick one and Amarr the most tanky one.

      Delete
    2. And Caldari the best combat one!

      Delete
    3. As a player that trained Amarr Industrial to V and often hauls fuel product into wormholes, I loathe the idea of the Amarr lacking a decent hauler.

      I currently use the Impel, and I do not want to train a second race to Industrial v. Making Amarr the tanky is lore appropriate, but it's completely useless. I never put any tank on my impel. The only reason for the low slots is more cargo.

      I say no to tanky haulers. If I'm using an industrial ship, it's to haul.

      The quick ship is useful for transporting small valuables.
      The large capacity ship is useful for large capacity haul.
      The generalist ship is a low hanging fruit for new players.
      The Ore hauler is for ore, obviously.

      The tanky ship is for...baiting?

      You should at least give amarr one useful type of ship. On the other hand, tell us about the Deep space transport.

      Delete
    4. There's an odd inconsistency in the "hauling" line at the moment.

      In freighters (no lows -> no cargo expanders), the Caldari have the biggest hauler and the Matar the smallest.

      Raw industrial capacity follows the same pattern (tiers notwithstanding), but the use of low slots to increase capacity (vs mids for ?tank?) flips things on its head: Amarr and Gallente haulers (well, specifically the Sigil, Bestower, and Itty V) use their low slots to reverse the pattern. And for most haulers, you don't care about mid slots anyway.

      I don't think we *need* to be consistent between capacity and race between freighters and indys, but in that case the mid slots should be made more meaningful, somehow.

      Delete
    5. And the Caldari? The most general generalist one doesn't seem like much of a role.

      Delete
  15. I like this general line of thinking.

    For ORE haulers, I was thinking three of them: One for each compartment in an Orca. The Orca is then all three of them stapled together, which is exactly what it looks like.

    Oh, and bug someone about increasing the size of the ore bay in the Orca. As it is, it's kind of silly to have not-quite-two Retriever loads.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Ship class bonus to tractor beam range and/or speed would be nice.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I think the Hoarder should be the high capacity, after all its kinda in the name, whereas the Mammoth should be the tanky one; cuz really a mammoth is just the furry tank of the Pliocene era :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I went based on what they looked like. The Hoarder looks like a beast.

      Delete
  18. I'd say it should be down to two to three (2-3) haulers per race and one specialized ore one.

    This way development time is spared and also it becomes more streamlined. The respective races can have two or three of them so they will be able to also fit into canon:

    Amarr:
    Bestower - tanky hauler
    Sigil - general hauler
    Caldari:
    Badger Mk I - quick hauler
    Badger Mk II - high capacity hauler
    Gallente:
    Iteron Mk I - general hauler
    Mk II/III - tanky hauler
    Mk V - high capacity hauler
    Minmatar:
    Hoarder or Wreathe - quick hauler
    Mammoth - general hauler

    This way very few changes are required. You do not need additional hulls for needless complexity, now that the freight hulls have come down from Industrial level V.

    Also, some adjustments on the roles:

    quick - should have 3000m^3, +2% per level to cargo, 5% per level to agility

    tanky - should have 4000m^3, +3% per level to cargo, 5% per level to resist and/or armour/shield hp amount

    general - should have 5000m^3, +4% per level to cargo, 5% per level to speed (somewhat nice balance for "autopiloteers")

    high cap. - should have 6000m^3, +5% per level to cargo (sacrificing everything for cargo)

    It think this would fit nicely. Your thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Nice overall idea, but the Caldari should get a Tanky Hauler, not the Minmatar as per Racial lore. Specialised hauler (Ice/Ore) should be based on the Primae hull and prehaps remove the General Hauler from the races and have it as an ORE hull, that way the Racial Haulers can better conform to each races characteristics?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think the vanilla general-purpose hauler really fits with ORE. ORE's ships are all highly specialised and very good at that thing that they're intended to do. They're also supposed to be (in terms of lore) fairly sophisticated vessels.

      A general-purpose hauler should be, for most races, the basic, low-tech cargo ship, the sort that in its original non-capsuleer form an independent captain would run as a tramp freighter.

      Delete
  20. I think this idea needs further slimming down before being taken seriously. The idea of splitting up the haulers is great, but there are too many choices in this article. I think it will make the T2 transports obsolete, or at least severely limit their use, specifically the tanky version.

    If you made simply 2 racial variants, one slow and tanky, the other at normal speed that focused more on cargo, I think it would make much more sense. While its great to have options, you don't want to confuse new players.

    As far as a ore/ice hauler, I love the idea, but it wouldn't work without changing a lot of ships right now.
    Take the mackinaw for example, which can haul 35,000. Okay, its a T2 and takes awhile to get into. How about the retriever, which can be piloted in less than a week can hold 27,500 m3.
    These ships both haul plenty well enough without the need for a new dedicated ship that hauls 30k.

    Or, you could increase the 30k, and make it say, 50k or 70k. But now you're moving into the orca (50k m3) territory.

    Of course, you could nerf the orca cargohold, and boost its ore hold to 100k, which would fit an ORE ship, but that would would create a threadnaught in hours when people found out their mini-freighter orcas were going bye bye.

    ReplyDelete
  21. A rigged & fitted T1 racial hauler with skills needs to hit 8k+ m3 for each race so a T1 hauler can drop a Large POS. It can be full of expanded cargo IIs and medium cargohold optimization rigs, but the 8k+ m3 is a threshold that every race needs to be able to achieve.

    Note that today a L5 skilled pilot can hit that threshold for each race without having to rig. (not every ship, but at least 1 hauler for each race with copious cargohold IIs).

    ReplyDelete
  22. It seems that the plan for now says: three types of industrials.

    https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3015066#post3015066

    ReplyDelete
  23. As much as I love variety and choice, I agree with Mara in this case that there just aren't enough distinct roles for haulers to justify so many models.

    Part of the problem is that, where normal ships can differ in their optimal weapons systems and defenses (yielding 5x4 combinations right off the bat), haulers don't have optimal weapons systems and can't be easily tailored for armor tanking without people just filling all those lows with cargo expanders instead.

    That leaves your quick/tanky/large spectrum, but do we really need every race to have a model of every type? Will there really be much of an interesting choice between the quick haulers of each race, or will one of them inevitably be the "best" quick hauler, and likewise for the other archetypes?

    ReplyDelete
  24. 1. whats the difference between large cargo hauler and ore hauler?

    2. what stops me to make fit that tanky hauler as a high cargo hauler?
    lots of low slots = lots of cargo.

    3. there are already a quick hauler and a tanky hauler as t2 versions. while the quick hauler is a very powerfull hauler thaanks to the covert op cloak and the high agility, i think no one realy uses the tanky hauler.
    you can fit that tank t2 hauler up to freighter ehp and what you get is a ship that aligns not much faster then a freighter, has +2 warpcore strengh and a very small cargo. not sure who needs something like that.
    if you fit it for max cargo, you reach iteron v levels with not much more tank.

    i think that balancing is not as easy as it looks like. mostly because there are specialized haulers already ingame and because with enough fitting slots you can change the role of every t1 hauler with the fitting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1. The Ore hauler has a crap standard cargo bay.

      2. The percentages apply to the base cargo and the tanky hauler will have a lower base cargo.

      3. The idea is to give newer players some additional options.

      Delete
  25. I used the Probe as a fast and small hauler (like a pick-up truck) but since it lost the cargo bonus I've been looking for a small quick ship that could hold more than my Cheetah. Something like a modified Venture with more cargo and less ore hold might be nice.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I am just wondering if you couldnt focus your effort more on getting a decent middle of the road hauler. Right now the jump in cargo capacity between a normal hauler and a obelisk is ridiculus. As a relativly new player I want the ability tio move my 6 frigats 30 jump to where my new corp is in one go. Not in 3 trips back and forth. Its a huge problem for a new player that the hauler capacity on the ships you start out flying is this low. As a new player I dont need a obelisk, but i damn well need more hauling space then the Iteron V gives me. If you want to fix something fix that. As a new player I am gonna be crap a fitting my ship anyway or I'm gonna panic when i get ganked. This might sound silly to a vet, but spending 2 hours hauling stuff back and forth is not a fun way to spend amy time as a new player. I am guessing its a major part of why some people dont keep playing EVE. Hauling things when it isnt for profit but for yourself is boring and annoying, why do we need to take 3 trips or invest 40 days to laern to fly a ship thats a huge overkill in capacity.
    Why not make a ship with a capacity of 20000 but make it a 10 day training time, make it slow as all hell to if you want, I just want to move my stuff as a newby from A to B. If i get ganked thats what i get for moving it all in one go, but if the alternative is spending 5 hours going back and forth i might just quit anyway. The one trip i make in the slow hauler is gonna be nervewreaking and fun the 6 trips in the Iteron V is gonna be boring and annoying

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This, so much this. The current progression is cruiser sized industrials straight to capital classed freighters. There isn't a battleship sized industrial, its a massive gap. And one every player at some point has run into. You don't need the 750,000m3 of an Obelisk, but you need more than any of the industrialists can supply. The 100-200,000m3 area.

      If you want to make a change to industrials, that's the one to make. I don't care about balancing and people ganking me nearly as much as I care about that HUGE gap. That huge gap is soul eroding in the extra jumps it adds to Eve in the form of multiple trips.

      Delete
    2. I just got into PI as a secondary income source, and I've run into this hard. I'm a bad player trying to finance other more interesting stuff like PvP, so I don't have the cash for a freighter yet while this character has Gal. Indy 5 from ages ago. I've been using a blockade runner to run stuff out of Jita because I'm paranoid and it's absolutely soul-crushing to cart materials around when I can barely fill a single launchpad per trip.

      I'm strongly tempted to switch to the Itty 5 and hope nobody cargo-scans me.

      Delete
  27. That follows pretty closely to my thoughts as well. change them up to fast+small cargo, a pre-runner to a blockade runner, a general (high capacity) hauler, and a tanky hauler. I like the idea of a dedicated ore/ice/fuel hauler though. But how would that not step on the toes of an orca?

    ReplyDelete
  28. great ideas - i endorse even as someone who blaps with tornados - you should run for csm!

    ReplyDelete
  29. Carebear teg. Clearly pvp is bad and we need more safety in hisec and more protection for carebears.

    ReplyDelete
  30. The 5th one should be ice/ore/Planetary cargo bay, should be made by Ore, and should have +2 warp strength.

    perfect ship to accompany a group of Venture's, or tend to your lowsec PI.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's fairly similar to the deep space transports. There shouldn't be infringement on the T2 hauler uses.

      Delete
  31. Gevlon had an interesting analysis of cargo carriers, where he identifies the large gap in hauling capability and tank that is between the largest industrial and an Orca.

    I think your proposals are pretty sensible and, in terms of what I think CCP might be interested in doing, very reasonable. Me, I think in more radical terms.

    I don't see that having a racial breakdown of industrials really adds much to the game. So, get rid of that. Remove all industrial skills except ORE. Create a new "ORE Transport" skill for transports. People should get the ORE skills at the level of their highest industrial/transport skill, with all other skillpoints for eliminate skills compensated.

    I find the whole idea of multiplicative cargo expansion ridiculous, on "realism" grounds. Skill or item based, ships don't get bigger inside. Remove cargo expanders, give industrials two or three low slots. This gives players interesting choices between tank (a damage control), agility (nanos), and warp stabilization.

    Now the actual ORE industrials: roughly as you have specified. One ore hauler. One T1 version of the blockade runner, a T1 tanky hauler, and a T1 big hauler. T2 versions of each, which require adding a T2 general hauler (perhaps called a "Cargo Transport"), and a T2 big hauler. This latter should fill the current hole between Iteron V (35000m^3, ~9000 EHP tank), and Orca (87500m^3 + 50000m^3 ore, 205000 EHP). I'd suggest something on the order of 80000m^3 with 80000 tank for the general T2 hauler.

    One other change I would like to see related to haulers is to make all active defensive modules stay on across jumps. As things stand you have to have a completely passive tank while autopiloting, precluding the use of damage controls and the better active modules.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Not sure what you are trying to achieve frankly, for me its odd that Gallente have 5 hauler hulls while amarr only 2, but if you are really looking to balance the idea of t1 haulers across all racial designs you need to consider the following:

    Minmatar haulers should be about agility+speed, less about cargo space.

    Caldari haulers should be about usefulness/utility/efficiency, having the most module slots of all

    Amarr haulers being the most tanked and well built.

    Gallente more about cargo space as they are the trading empire. (curious thing the charon has more space than the obelisk)


    But the difficult i foresee is staying away of overlapping the roles of T2 haulers.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I don't really see why someone would fly the general hauler over the tanked one.

    The tanked hauler has potential for capacity since you seem to describe it with more fitting slots, tanks better, better fitting room, and has some defense with drones. The only downside is the generalist has better base speed, but since you can still fit an mwd to the tanked hauler you should be able to get into warp fast anyway by cycling it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tanked one aligns and warps slow. That 3 AU/s will really become annoying after a while.

      Delete
  34. I half expected a "surprise rebalance" in Odyssey so I bought one of each Gallente hauler a couple months ago to have collectors items. I honestly believe that each race should have three (so +1 Amarr, +1 Caldari, -2 Gallente, +0 Minmatar) ... or that all of them should be replaced by 3-4 new ORE ships.

    Assuming racial rather than ORE, I would not give Gallente "all" but instead would have 3 of 4 types per race as you lay out above (fast, tanky, general, large). My breakdown would be:
    - Amarr get no "fast". Their "tanky" would be the tankiest.
    - Caldari would get no "large". Their "general" would be the best cost per m3 however
    - Gallente get no "general". Their "large" would be the largest.
    - Minmatar get no "tanky". Their "fast" would be the fastest.

    I also think a new class of Freighter is needed - call it a "ship hauler" for lack of a more clever name. Yes, you could do this in a Carrier, but I'm thinking something that could carry but not launch Freighter volumes of fitted ships, and that the ship would be gate-capable. This could be an ORE or Interbus ship to minimize art department impact.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Utility Haulers w/ tractor bonuses and ore hold.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Get CCP to rebalance the warp speed numbers and/or equation, too.

    Currently, the differences, or lack thereof, in warp speed aren't as important as they ought to be, with regards to travel time nor risk. The time required to get into warp and the time required to travel from the warp out point to the next gate, when using auto-pilot, are far more significant than the time spent in warp.

    And, there is only one rig, and no modules, which allow you to augment your warp speed. And, using just one of the rigs doesn't actually do much to improve your overall travel time - you are better off fitting a normal space speed rig.

    On a bigger picture note, I also believe that warp speed travel times should be increased, as well as star gate transit time. By a lot.

    Part of the reason that the EVE universe seems so small to many of us is because it really doesn't take much time to bop from one end to another. Look at the "size" of most regions - you can travel from one end to the other in less than 15 minutes. In RL terms, at US freeway speeds, that equivalates to a small city sized area, about 15 miles across - not all that big.

    And, because the travel time between regions is naught, due to the star gates, the whole layout of the EVE universe is as if these 15 mile diameter cities were adjacent to each other, rather than spread out across a country-sized area, ie. a single megacity complex.

    This makes the alliance warfare thing into more of a street gang conflict than the larger scale warfare it ought to be, since moving large number of assets across a region requires minutes rather than hours. The scale of conflict isn't even on par with the Italian city-states, or feudal Japan.

    Take a look at all of your favorite sci-fi galactic wars, whether in movies, TV series or books. Then, imagine that the travel time scale was all recast in minutes rather than hours/days/weeks/months/years. Loses a lot in the translation, doesn't it?

    This is also why it is so easy for EVE to be dominated by a few large alliances - or even one single alliance. If the "universe" were bigger, even just on the scale of hours rather than minutes, then area of control becomes exponentially more difficult and we'd see a lot more smaller alliances, and thus probably more conflicts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The travel time should be *decreased*, because travel is boring. There's no actual gameplay to it.

      New Eden will not seem bigger just because you spend most of your play time looking at your ship flying from point A to point B.
      More differentiation between various areas can make it seem bigger. As well as packing more things to do in less space.

      Delete
    2. "New Eden will not seem bigger just because you spend most of your play time looking at your ship flying from point A to point B."

      Uh... yes it will. You won't even bother flying from point A to point B, if it takes you days of game time, rather than minutes - unless you are planning to permanently relocate to point B. From point A, you would perceive point B as being "too far away". Just as you probably perceive China as being far away, as compared to your local market.

      This sort of change would affect gameplay on the macro scale of alliances, not on the micro scale of individual players (which would be mostly unaffected). It is a much more complex problem to manage assets and supply lines when travel times are largely increased - and holding an area which requires several days to cross is more difficult than holding an area which you can span in minutes. Warfare becomes less about skirmishes and more about strategy - something which is rather lacking in EVE.

      Increased separation would also open up more of empty null space to new corps/alliances, since the current major alliances would most likely contract to hold a much smaller area, due to logistics (not the ship class, btw).

      Increased travel times would also create more scattered nodes of player activities, such as opening up the regional hubs for more business, and diluting the centralized importance of Jita.

      As for packing more things into less space... that just makes things seem crowded, not bigger.

      Delete
  37. How about turn one into a dedicated ship transport, um, ship. Something with quite a large ship maintanance bay (but no corp hanger). Basically for moving around fully fit, or at least rigged, ships. That would have a use for pilots of all skill levels.

    Could turn off access to the bay while in space if you want it to be a pure transport, or you can leave it open and let the players kick some sand around.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Honestly does it really take that long to train a given T1 hauler skill? It's been a long while but I seem to remember getting to 3 in a day, and 5 in a week. Not mention that freighters only need a 4 racial indy skill.

    Why load down the art department creating additional ships? We have 13 ships in play most of which don't ever get used. We should give each ship a reason to be used. My thoughts:
    Tanky
    Speedy
    Maxy cargo
    Fighty
    Stealthy (unscanable, bonus to speed while cloaked, no covert ops cloak)
    Probey (For wormholes, and sites)
    Ore Holdy (Tractor bonus, and large ore hold)
    Ship hauly (able to haul a cruiser or numerous frigs, and allow refiting)
    Droney (BS sized drone hold, but cruiser bandwidth)
    Jammy (ECM?)

    ReplyDelete
  39. The quick and tanky haulers are things I've wanted for a long time.

    The quick hauler should be similar to a blockade runner, fast and agile but missing the covert ops cloak capability.

    The tanky hauler should be passive buffer tank. Big HPs making it tough to take down but with the lowest speed and longest alignment times.

    A high capacity hauler makes sense too but frankly I don't see the need for specialized mining haulers. Really special ice/ore holds are just a bandaid fix to prevent mining ships from being used for hauling anything else (which would obsolete existing industrials).

    As for a general hauler, I doubt it'd get used very much at all if the others existed.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I am also in the "do we need racial haulers?" camp. Of course, there are currently dependencies to T2 haulers and freighters. But for just a moment, ignore about what we have, and think about what would you need if you build this anew.

    Are the properties of haulers really enough to distinguish 12-15 ships from each other? For combat ships, small differences often have big effects on how you fly them. But for haulers? I think it's good and with reason, that there are no racial mining barges.

    So what do racial haulers bring to the game?

    ReplyDelete
  41. I think you're ignoring the fact that the t2 haulers already fill two of your roles. DST is a tanky hauler and Blockade Runner athin agile hauler. What I think is really necessary and doesn't already exist would be some kind of research hauler, like a ship that somehow worked on BPOs while they were inside.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Faster warp speed hauler, for those long trips across New Eden.

    ReplyDelete
  43. My only comment at the moment is that you talk about fitting (or not fitting) MWDs to the General and Quick Haulers, but you also say they should have native align times faster than MWD cycle times (10s). Why even worry about MWDs in that case?

    ReplyDelete
  44. I think your making too many different haulers roles where only 2-3 will ever see use. First off, agility on a hauler is always better than tank, that's why people fly viators over occators. It doesn't matter what your EHP and warp core strength are if you align for half a minute. It takes roughly 3 volleys or 3 tornadoes to gank you, and 3 can do it easily if you take 10+ seconds to align.

    Second, armor tanking for a hauler is DUMB. Why do people haul? To move stuff. How much do they want to haul? As much as possible to cut down on trips. What are they going to put in the lows? Expanded cargoe holds. Not to mention there just isn't the grid to tank any of these to begin with. At least not anything substantial. Make all haulers shield tank or add a stacking penalty to expanded cargohold mods so people stop fitting more than 4.

    Based on this I only really see 2 clear winners, the fast haulers and the big cargo space haulers, maybe a couple people using the tanked ones. No one will want the generalist hauler, it doesn't do anything well. The ore one could be special but what's you incentive to use it over the max hauler one?

    Last, give all blockade runners 2 highs so they can fit a cloak AND a cyno.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Please make sure the Amarr have a high capacity hauler. If they don't, then I will very much regret training Amarr industrial to V :/

    ReplyDelete
  46. While it is not a hull alteration, I do think it would be interesting to have a module that allowed for the refitting of ships in space similar to an orca, at the expense of much of the industrials cargo capacity.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Are you writing about things that are already in the pipeline? Because I was sure I read pretty much what you here propose written by a dev some time ago. As a CSM, you surely have a better inside view into these things than we do?

    ReplyDelete
  48. Really nice, and some good ideas there. Kudos!

    ReplyDelete
  49. While I can definitely agree that the industrials would need a rebalance (I'm a ganker myself), the one thing I'm most afraid of is CCP going the route they did with the barges and exhumers.

    Don't get me wrong, they too needed a buff, but they went the wrong way about it in terms of increasing the ehp by simply adding raw hp instead of providing the fitting options (and thus 'forcing' players to think about how they fit their ship).

    Eve rewards intelligent play, and I strongly think that people that don't think about their actions should be 'punished' for it by having their ships suicide ganked. If someone were to autopilot 10 plexes in an untanked hauler, the guy deserves to lose them, right?

    Therefore, what I'd say is this. Keep the current ehp numbers, or change them only very very slightly for some fine-tuning. But add the necessary slots (mids or lows) and Pg/CPU to allow the ships to fit a proper tank.

    ReplyDelete
  50. "The tanky haulers should..."

    Offhand, I'd guess that you've never flown a DST in-game. Quite frankly, there isn't much reason to do so. BRs have proven to be superior in almost every respect, for hauling in high, low and null space. Fast and stealth offer a far better chance of survival vs. slow and tanky. After all, if a freighter, with 200K EHP can be easily ganked, even in high-sec, then what chance does a DST really stand against the same opponents?

    Your "tanky" hauler is nothing more than a crippled DST, with less than 1/2 the tank and no warp strength bonus.

    No reason to ever fly it.

    ReplyDelete
  51. T1 Industry ships

    - Quick and nimble small hauler for thoes ammo runs etc.
    - Tanky hauler EHP to survive a alpha, stabbed, slow, medium size
    - General hauler with bonus to cloaked speed
    - Big haulers with limited EHP and speed with huge cargohold this one should act like a Orca ~40-60k m3 without the limited size

    - Dedicated Ore hauler 40k m3 orebay and limited normal bay medium ehp.

    T2 industry ships
    - Cloaky unscannable small hauler (as now)
    - Jumpdrive capable medium hauler (switch the DST to jumpdrive so we get a mini JF)


    Capital
    - Orca (as now)
    - Freighter (as now)
    - Jump freighter (as now)


    that is how I envision the Industrial branch/ Hauler



    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.