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...

Wednesday, June 19, 2013

QOTW: Mammoth response

CCP Rise has posted a new public thread about his ideas for T1 hauler balancing.

Please go over and read them.  It won't take long, and it's worth your time.  Read the post, then try to predict the thing that caused the most rage.  And yes, the CSM was consulted.  And the response of... ummm... some of the CSM was... ummm... what prompted Rise to write post #2.  Anyway, try to guess the thing many players jumped on first once these proposed changes went public.

It's that the Mammoth is proposed to lose its crown as the largest Minmatar hauler.

If you feel as strongly about this as... ummm... some CSM members do, please feel free to visit the thread in question and express your opinion.  In the meantime, though, enough players have done so that it prompted Rise to explain why the Mammoth was being downgraded.  Here's the explanation:
Why the Hoarder instead of the Mammoth? This basically comes down to art direction. At earlier stages in this rebalance we considered both removing some ships from the game, and also adding more. Part of that discussion led to art asking that we use the Hoarder rather than the Mammoth as one of the primary Minmatar industrials.
So, it's the art team's fault.  But that wasn't good enough for a number fo players who asked for an expanded answer.

So Rise got them one and it's the quote of the week:
About the Mammoth: I just checked in with Art briefly and they confirmed that they simply don't like the way the Mammoth looks. I'll point them to this thread and see what they have to say about your feedback =)
In other words, the Mammoth got a downgrade because the art team thinks it's ugly.  That's it.  That's the only reason.  Hee!  If you're on the art team, I think you should probably expect to receive 20 or 30 3D printed Mammoths come next Fanfest...

Anyway, if after reading Rise's post you have further concerns about the Mammoth or the other haulers and how they are being changed, you should express them.  You may rest assured I have expressed mine.


  1. It's Minmatar, it's supposed to be ugly.

  2. I don't really care much one way or the other about these changes. Especially as a combat pilot.

    However, I honestly think there is two great a disparity between the Type 1 and Type 2. Giving them both the same slot layout is fine. However, the cargo husked is close enough that the Sigil will be choice over the Bestowed.... the Iteron will be choice over the Iteron V.

    A few thousand m3 on the scale of 22k to 30k does not justify halving the defenses. If one is twice as weak in defense it should carry significantly more cargo the its Tanky brother.

    In short I think the tanky ones need to carry about 30% less cargo then they do now with these numbers. Otherwise, good changes.

    1. actualy i think it does its a sliding scale where as people who NEED the extra space will have to take the extra RISK.

  3. Please tell me that's a troll post by Rise. Really. Did he seriously just drop the survivability of industrials?

    Yes I know "We have a choice!", but that's stupid logic. Didn't the Mining Barge rebalance teach them anything about how the non shooty bits of the game actually work? Anyone seen a Hulk lately? Anyone?

    1. Yep. We use them in fleet mining ops all the time. Lots of them.

  4. You know what?

    I actually agree with the Art team!

    Among the three Minmatar haulers, the Mammoth is the least interesting design.

    Now, that doesn't mean all is good. I'd still prefer more variety overall, so I am still not happy. ;)

    1. I do as well, the mammoth seems too rough an too square... But so did the naglfar and they made tiny little changes to it to make it a bit more pleasing to the eye, which is good and could breathe some air onto any ugly eve hull, and bear consistency all around, as we eve players love the status quo of our favorite ships (someone else down the line of comments here correctly argued the desync of the art team with the wishes and desires of its product costumers)

      There's also in my opinion, uglier ships to attend to (helios and moa) and they've made plenty of passes through them to not justify the inaction.

      So one way or the other, as far as art goes, these guys seem to be butting their collective heads against the wall too much lately.

      But don't fret, after all you're just participating in the crowdsourcing of 2011's iceland's constitution, event-wise.

      Good thing I left eve.

  5. Paraphrasing what I posted on Eve-O: The art team is the same bunch of people that thought the vagabonds frills needed to go.

    Seems pretty self evident they're out of touch with the people that actually play with their creations. Therefore: if the art department doesn't like it, it must be good.

    1. yup the art department seem to be out of touch with the rest of eve and basing a decision to lose a cargo space just because they did not like the design seem too stupid.

  6. They could just swap the model, no?

  7. I haven't played EVE for many years now, but I still haven't forgotten how utterly and irredeemably ugly the Wreathe/Prowler was. I lived in a Prowler, but I couldn't bear to look at it. Hell, the Mammoth is the best-looking of the three.

  8. Save the Mammoth!

  9. The more I go over those numbers in my head, the worse it gets.

    I'm trying to get my head around a 12 second align time with a whopping 1-2 seconds removed being pushed as a bonus to the tanky versions. With nanofiber and the MWD trick, you can probably push align to what... 6 seconds? Maybe 5? Base cargo on the tanky versions is between 2.6-3.7 thousand, with a max listed of around 20 if you spend everything on cargo. Which Rise doesn't want us to do because it's the "Tanky" version. So 3-4 of our low slots are going to look like this. nanofiber, warpstab, DCU, and possibly another nanofiber. Leaving 1-2 slots for a cargo optimisation. So my back of the envelope, top of my head math, puts us at what? 8k cargo? Give or take a k.

    No one will use these things.

    If you need to move high value low M3 goods, it'll be in a blockade runner because... faster align time, covert ops cloak, and the exact same cargo capacity.

    If you need to move the 20k m3 these things will provide at max setup, you're going to be using the max capacity hauler and cram a few more things in there on top of your actual shipment because... wasted space is bad.

    Even Rise is calling these things haulers in his post, but yet he's completely forgot that the purpose of a hauler is to Haul stuff.

    I think Rise needs to spend a solid day picking up corp orders for 21235m3 with a tanky hauler(one more m3 than a tanky hauler will allow), and then get back to us on how we have a "choice". Something tells me that on the second round trip carrying a cargo of exactly 1m3 he'll figure out how badly he's messing this up.

    1. This is exactly why I compare the fastest haulers to frigates - when you want to move something fast in and out of low sec and you don't have an access to a Blockade Runner yet, what do you use? In most cases, a frigate with the largest cargo hold you can find. We don't need a tanky hauler, because no matter the tank, that thing will get destroyed. What we need is a hauler that will have a decent chance of getting through a gate camp intact - i.e. something that has a small sig, that's fast, that has a good warp speed and that can load more than your average frigate.

      As it is, though, I see most people sticking to one of the largest ones, while small hauling jobs will still be handled by frigs. Anyway, the rest of my official response can be found here:


  10. I have to repeat myself because it's an important issue and totally neglected. I'm afraid the devs and CSMs involved never flied any haulers (maybe a covops one carrying fuel for a blops drop or a comedy battle Badger).

    The fundamental problem is that even after the CCP Rise changes, ALL OF THEM remain noobships.

    I mean that battlecruisers are different from battleships and after you own a battleship, you will probably still fly battlecruisers. However after you own an Orca, you have absolutely no reason to fly any of the industrials. Their cargo of the "paper" industrial is less than half of a MAX TANKED Orca, so they will remain stepping stones for the Orca.

    The industrials need a role where they are chosen by someone who already has an Orca and a Freighter.

    1. I agree this is a big issue

      i think we need

      a# a small hauler that are tanky like a Procurer
      b# small hauler with fast aligntime and faster warp time
      c# a large hauler with low ehp (think itty5) ~100km3

      for t2 i think Blockade runner is fine but DST is shit.
      so my sugestion for DST is that give it a Jumpdrive and allow it to work like a mini JF. that gives it a uniqe nich.

      for freighters i think we need a middle ground for freighters
      something in the range of 200-300k m3 with half the tank of a freighter that can be used a steping between industry and freighter.

    2. personally I think an RP division between industrials and haulers can be fleshed out some. I like to imagine industrials save some capacitor and shield shield regen due to shipping inanimate goods in vacumue and not having to pressurise their volumes with gases.
      Whether that concept can be incorporated into fun (not inconvenient) game mechs is another matter entirely.

    3. Possibly not a freighter, given those are still substantial amounts of training and isk. But with the new Orca being so easy to train for, having the increased hold and tank, as well as being the only ship capable of ferrying hulls semi-effectively in high...yea, the Orca just outclasses everything else subcap.

    4. how many semi trucks do u need? yeah the orca solves a lot of problems. thats a good thing.....freighters need to be adjustable somehow imo.The only hauler an orca pilot uses is a blockade runner or a freighter. I think thats fine. id rather see all of the industry and production side fixed.

  11. Is your opinion under NDA, because other than some coy "ummms", you haven't told us which way you fall on the issue. Transparency also means transparency with your opinions.

    Your "ummms" can have you falling on either side of the issue ... which is a favourite tactic of yours when you're unsure from which side people might attack you most strongly from.

    (Personally, I could give a shit. I use Iterons when I do use T1 haulers at all.)

    1. Read my post from a few days ago and I think you'll divine my opinion of these changes pretty readily.


    2. What's your opinion on the Mammoth, specifically, though.

      As for two haulers per race (for the most part), I can get behind that. Too many damned haulers to begin with and not enough to differentiate them.

    3. Well you an me were pretty much on the same page in this, so I'm hoping your reaction was similar to mine;

      Align times way too slow. Cargo space OK for the thin ones, but not enough for the tanky ones. I do see why people are saying no-one would use the tanky haulers, 'cause really, they're not tanky enough to justify that ludicrously slow align. None of them have enough CPU or PG to fit properly, meaning that they'll still all be fit mostly the same and mostly fail fit.

      tl;dr- Nice change, shame it won't make much difference. And WTF with the Mammoth. Tell the Art department to HTFU, they get an opinion on ship balancing when they make new assets.

  12. And still some problems of industrials were not addressed (in addition to what gevlon said about the Orca). Shield tank is mandatory even on an Amarr Tanky Hauler, because low slots are reserved for expanded cargo et al and the rigs lower the armor value. Mandatory choices are no good game design.
    Give Industrials higher base cargo (Like fitted with lets say 4 Expanders), change the disadvantage on cargo rigs to lets say aligntime and give industrials a tag "cannot fit cargohold expanders". Done, armor and shield is now possible.

  13. The Mammoth was a ship I remember from my earliest days in the game: A I was hanging around with some friends and friends-of-friends who all started playing at the same time. I saved up and spent the reward for my first few level 2 missions on a very cheap Mammoth, planning to use it to haul some ore from our newbie mining ops. Before I'd undocked it for the first time, I learned that one of my new acquaintances had just proposed to his gf, so I made an impromptu wedding give of it to him. He used that Mammoth to build a several-billion ISK trading empire (that was huge money back then), and we've been friends ever since.

    In conclusion: when CCP and CSM are discussing ship changes, even to ships that aren't "iconic", please keep in mind that a lot of people will have more invested in them than their ISK value :-)

  14. the "extra" industrials should be have dedicated holds for livestock transport, and be prepared for further integration with DUST.
    I'd like to see bust-ups against militants and radicals on PVE missions some day. Bring on the boarding parties.

  15. Disappointed really... I kind of wanted more variety in hauler types. I was particularly looking forward to a tiny hold but fast jumping ship for transport of shinies... but I guess I'll stick to using fast frigates.

    Like the goblin says, I still don't have much use for T1 indies. If I want something moved fast, I'll use a frigate. If I want something moved in bulk, I'll use an Orca.

    And why isn't there a difference between indy warp speeds listed? Seems like an obvious way to differentiate the ships.

  16. Could this possibly, potentially (I do not know the numbers)make deep space transports more popular? The align times seem to be similar now, cargo capacity as well, but you get additional EHP and a +2 warp strength... I have no idea, just asking the more enlightened readers of this blog their thoughts.

  17. The Mammoth , and especially the T2 Mastodon, are 2 of the most beautiful ships in the game.

  18. Looks like Rise has back-tracked, and is keeping the mammoth as the largest hauler.

    But what drives me batty here, is the concept that there needs to be only 2 t1 industrials per race, and that the 'extra' haulers will have stats that fit between the two extremes.


    Why can't Minmatar have 2 hulls with exactly the same stats? Then folks can fly the one they like. If they have the exact same stats, then they are equal. If a 3rd (or 4th if gallente) hauler is 'somewhere in the middle' between haul or tank, then it won't ever get flown. simply have 2 tanky haulers and 2 fat haulers for gallente, and have minnie folks have 2 fat haulers and one tanky one. Why is it absolutely necessary to have different stats for same race ships?

    I would love to have several frigate hulls with identical stats to say, a rifter. Several of the npc hulls would be fantastic to fly. No need to make them unique (stat wise) just make them identical in every way to a rifter, just with a different hull shape.

    I don't understand the desire to ensure that every hull is unique in its attributes, when the variation in those attributes is being forced, just to make them unique.

    1. Honestly that sounds very dull.

      Hulls are standardized too much already, variation is important.

      I do not want to play your game.

    2. I agree that variation is important. But variation just for its sake is silly.

      I was told that the number one reason we can't fly NPC frigates is that there are too many frigates already, and it would be impossible to find a unique role for the new frigate. What I am asking is why would a new NPC frigate hull have to be unique ? Why can't it have 100% identical stats to a punisher or rifter?

      In the case of haulers, the usual things we care about are align time, cargo capacity and tank. CCP Rise has indicated that they are giving each race a tanky, quick hauler and a volume hauler. They have decided to smear the spots in between with ships that slide between these "extremes". This last point is what I mean by variation just for its sake.

      Lets pull the numbers on t1 mining barge usage. Are all 3 types being used? No, just 2? Then I guess the reasons for using the 3rd aren't sufficient.

      CCP is calling for only 2 haulers. What happens when folks only use 1 of those, and the other sits collecting dust ? What if CCP decides to have 5 t1 haulers for each race, and then notices that only 3 total amongst all the races are frequently used, due to the max/min culture of EVE ? Unless there are distict, viable, unique roles for each ship, you may as well make them damn near identical. At least then the choice will be made on artwork to make their appearance actually count.

      I was under the impression that the ability to do unique fits was the way to get the hauler of your choice. (gee just like t3 cruisers. How many of the hundreds of possible combinations actually get flown). How about we have one t1 hauler per race, but open up the slot configurations allowing a complete range of fits, from tanky to quick to voluminous ?

      Honestly, I'd love to see race matter more. Volume? use Gallente. Tank? use Amarr. Quick? use Minmatar. Caldari, well I'm sure we could figure something out for the Caldari. Battle Bader, perhaps.

  19. Wait - is the Bestower really going to be the largest after expanders, because of its extra low slot, with the Iteron V being the largest base cargohold? That's great, and fits right in with the Impel's place among T2 haulers.

  20. Ultimately any time spent on changing the stats for the "middle" haulers will be wasted, because unless there's a RP reason, they'll likely never be used. And from looking at the math, the Tanky one will never see use either.

    CCP really needs to add some creativity to the T1 haulers, so they aren't all fit the same way, or aren't all Itty V's.

  21. I haven't been playing very long, just over a year, but when I first started playing I specifically skilled to use the mammoth because I like how it looks. It is surprising to hear they think it is ugly.. I think it has style. :-)

  22. Mammoth should be a battleship hull, one of the most awesome in the game if you ask me.

  23. It is a shame that no one on the art team actually plays the game....


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