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...

Friday, June 28, 2013

Happy enough

OK!  CCP Rise has heard our pleas about the work done on the T1 industrials and has released a second version.  You can read all about it on the EVE Online forums.

The initial good stuff: every hauler now has a role; there are no worthless or useless haulers.  In particular, I'm pleased to see that several haulers -- notably the Iteron IV -- received specialty bays.  If you're flying Orcas or freighters or whatever, you might not see the point to these bays but my eye is on the newer players that are most often in these T1 haulers.  And what I see is a brand new EVE player on EVE day one being able to train Gallente Industrial II and haul 50k of ore or ice back to station every couple of minutes during big mining ops.

Make no mistake: this is a good thing.  I can remember a lot of days early in my EVE career that this would have been incredibly handy.

Each race still has one max cargo hauler and one quick hauler and yes, that's a tiny bit disappointing.  But I'll live with it for now, particularly since there's been more effort to give each of the eight haulers in this group somewhat more distinct roles.  For the quick haulers, I'm particularly pleased at the Iteron's drone bay (something I argued for based on player feedback in the first thread) and the Badger's base cargo bay.  I think we're going to see some interesting combat fits from the first and it's great that the first hauler that most EVE players fly will be a worthwhile choice right into their career mid-points.  That's a nice step forward.  I'll also be interested to play around with the Wreathe; I think it's going to be a nice go-to ship for low- and mid-level Distribution missions.

All four of these ships have pretty decent "Catalyst numbers" which is going to make them hard to gank, and most have the grid and the slot layout to fit both a MWD and a pretty nice tank.  I think you for-profit gankers should look at them really closely as your "scoop loot and run back to gate" ship.  Which one will be preferred for this work?  I suspect it'll be the Wreathe.  It seems to have the best mix of base HP, mid-slots, speed, and grid for fitting a tank.

For the big haulers, the max velocity bonus is traditionally used to assist with "slow-boating"... the process of using auto-pilot to move low value cargoes from place to place.  All four of the specialty haulers also retain this bonus.  So hauler ganks should continue to be quite common, even easy since almost all of these ships have received nerfs to effective tank.  But there isn't a lot of differentiation between these four ships now.  The funniest will be battle Badger IIs, now apparently sporting both a turret and a launcher, though fitting is going to be tricky.

The specialty haulers will be fun to experiment with.  You can probably blame me for the increase in Hoarder unpackaged size, by the way.  I pointed out to Rise that a Rorq carrying four of them would be able to carry 406,000m3 of citadel torps, just the thing for you mineral compressors out there.  So yeah, sorry about that... but no, no I'm not.  Even with this change, I suspect that a lot of carrier and Rorq pilots will keep a packaged Hoarder nearby.  I'll be one of them.  The ability to carry 50 to 60 thousand cubic meters of ammunition when needed will be hard to resist.

The best thing about the specialty haulers being Gallente and Minmatar is that you can train both Gallente Industrial and Minmatar Industrial to Level II and get the bulk of the benefit of the specialty haulers.  So there's reason to cross-train, but you don't have to let cross-training consume you.

Am I completely happy?  No.  I don't get the fast hauler also being the tanky hauler; I would have split those roles into two distinct haulers.  I still don't care for the fact that every race has one max cargo hauler and one quick hauler; I would have split that up a bit more, too and given each race distinct choices.  I'm uneasy about the only viable way to tank a hauler continuing to be shield-tanking; that seems to me to put the Amarr haulers at a distinct disadvantage.  And I would have liked to have seen a few more interesting bonuses, like a tractor beam velocity instead of a velocity bonus on the specialty ore hauler, for instance.  So I'm not completely happy.

But I'm happy enough.  For now.

Every hauler will now do something interesting.  And CCP Seagull has made it clear enough that big changes for industry-minded players are coming, something that Rise pointed out too.  As that happens, over time, we as players (and your CSM representatives, of course) can argue for a few more tweaks here and there.  Which is a good thing I guess, because Rise is clearly wanting to move on to other things...
...please don't expect version 3, I have to get on with my life at some point
Hee!  OK, then.  On that note, Rise, I have some suggestions as to what should be next.  ;-)


  1. The main problem I have with the new proposal is that especially Gallente industrial will be vastly more "valuable" SP than the other Industrial skills.

    1. Many folks have made the same point in the round 2 rebalance thread. Some suggested reassigning the special-bay haulers to ORE or InterBus, but Rise is unwilling to do that sloppily or to spend art resources on doing it right.

      So I suggested a compromise: leave the hulls ostensibly Gallente/Minmatar, requiring only Gal/Min Industrial at level 1 to fly and retaining its speed bonus from the racial skill, but shift the special bay ship bonus to the ORE skill. That way Gal Indy isn't an overly valuable skill compared to the others, and the ORE Indy skill continues to consistently apply to specialized holds.

    2. Funny that is exactly what he warned us about. Everyone said a little imbalance was ok.

    3. Hardly many. It's just the same 2 guys with 2 more acting as minor support. Everyone else is in love with the changes but after some consideration the objections they raised are correct.

      The Bestower needs its base cargo to be 4900 instead of 4800. The Iteron Mark I needs to lose either a low or mid slot.

  2. If anyone wants to start experimenting with fittings, a patched database file for PyFA 1.1.15 is available here: http://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=253003

    1. Oy, for some reason I thought blogspot had automatic linkification like the forums do.

      Let's try that again:

  3. I make good money off PI. So, the new Iteron III is going to make it much easier. In fact I think it is a too easy. I want wandering monsters to impose a serious tax on PI. As it stands the tax is only in the danger to the pilot, since industrials are cheap and you can prevent the ganker from getting loot by putting it in the POCO before he kills you.

    Currently, there are tradeoffs to be made in your planet-goo ship. Ideally you'd have a fast align time, large cargo (20000 is usually enough for one planet, but larger means you can do planets in sequence), enough tank to take ~10s of fire from a cloaky Loki, and +3 warp core stab. You can't get that from any current industrial.

    With the proposed Iteron III, you can get it. +3 warp core stab and a DCII. Tank is harder to estimate but it will fit a large shield extender and three hardeners. My guess is around 14000 EHP, a bit more if you rig it. Shield hardening rigs are cheap, and the rig slots are open since you don't benefit from expander rigs. With cheap rigs it costs only a few million isk (perhaps 2m) instead of the current ~16m ISK an Iteron V costs with expanders and rigs.

    This thing will do for the planet-goo game roughly what the Venture did for the gassing game -- make it very hard for the wandering monsters to kill anybody. However, at least Ventures have to decide between using their low slot for tank or warp core stabilization. Also, Ventures by their nature are good for, uh, venturing into unfriendly space -- into wspace to mine gas, or into lowsec for gas or rocks. So they are good in the sense that they encourage players to go into unfamiliar space. PIing is never done in unfamiliar space.

    I would suggest to Rise removing at least one low slot from each of the specialized Iterons, and I think even 2 is not unreasonable. If you don't need cargo expanders, having 4 lows means you get everything you really want. 3 lots is most of what you want. 2 lows creates an interesting choice.

    1. Maybe, after this, PI will start being done in unfamiliar space.

      Just a thought.

    2. PI was one of the few areas of the game where I'd see carebears venture into dangerous territory in the past. They wouldn't mine there, but the cost/risk for lowsec PI was good enough to make a lot of folks try it. This change can only make that mroe common.

  4. Dinsdale PirannhaJune 28, 2013 at 7:45 AM

    Yeah, this iteration of haulers is better.

    Of course, once Seagull (what null sec cartel does she hail from, I haven't figured out her allegiances) and the other dev's are done with "the big changes" to industry, there won't be much in the way of high sec industry left to use T1 haulers in high sec.

  5. For anyone that has ever had to fill up POS gun ammo, especially the large guns, the Hoarder is now the goto ship.

  6. yup, he eventually rose to the challenge even if he did not shine.
    I suspect that the shinnies come later and they are doing their damnedest not to give the raw cookie dough away before the full set is baked.
    They would have been better not to open this particular can up before they were ready to fish with the live bait.

  7. "And CCP Seagull has made it clear enough that big changes for industry-minded players are coming..."

    Get her to start by fixing the persistent glut of low and high meta modules.

    As long as metas are easily available on market, cheaper and better than T1 modules, there just won't ever be any reason for any noob to build or sell T1 modules.

    Clamping down on the supply of T2 modules wouldn't hurt either. As it stands now, everyone is expected to always fit T2 - rarely do you see a fit that isn't T2, and almost never do you see a T1 fit. So, why do we even have T1 modules in the game anymore?

    1. +1

      Devs need to take a good look at T1 modules, in general.

      As far as stats go, there really isn't any reason to ever use T1 modules, whenever there are meta, or T2, versions available, which is the case for most modules.

      T2 modules usually have higher fitting reqs than T1, but this isn't as much an issue since the rebalancing buffed CPU/PG so much that nearly everyone can easily fit T2 modules. And, metas have always been as easy (or easier) to fit as T1, but with superior performance.

      In the old days, scarcity and price (and some skill prereqs) were the only reasons to consider using T1, over meta, but, this hasn't been the situation for many years.


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