For the best experience use full HD.

Friday, June 28, 2013

Let the Industrialist Decide What Role Her Hauler Will Have

CCP Rise has posted details about the latest thinking on industrial ship changes. I decided I'd have a closer look at what CCP is proposing as an industrial "balance." What a mess. You can read them for yourself here.

Though I think it is intriguing they've split the Iteron into cargo specific roles, I don't see the point. I can already haul all of that stuff in a ship that is actually versatile. Under the new proposal, if I want to get max PI hauling capacity for instance, I have to buy another ship. I don't see the sense in that. Let me highlight something I said in my last post concerning these changes.
"We just want to know two things: how much will it haul and can it reach it's destination intact."
That's it. Why should I be burdened with having to think about what it can haul? Why should that even matter? I haul stuff - period. Give me a ship that I can fit to either be fast and agile, or big as hell. In fact, you only need one ship for this. I'll elaborate in a moment.

I think CCP has confused an outcry over aesthetics with a dissatisfaction with the original plan. They are two very different issues. We like the look of the Mammoth. Given a choice between it and another ship, keep that hull. That does not mean keep the Mammoth specs they way they are. That also doesn't mean we want every single hull kept.

The only reason I have any Iteron other than an Iteron V is because training into the Iteron V didn't happen instantaneously; I still had to haul cargo while I trained up. I still have an Iteron III sitting in my original system of Cistuvaert I haven't flown in over four (4!) years. Dropping the skill requirement as proposed means I'd have gone straight to an Itty V. The only other hauler I have is a Viator in the hole. I used to have a Occator, but it's too expensive for life in Anoikis when an Itty V does the job. I gave it to Kao Jai when I handed him MABMM. He also got my Orca. I just don't need them now.

What I do need is a versatile and inexpensive ship. I have a ship with 2 highs, 5 mids and 5 lows. I already have the ability to make that ship either fast or big. That's why I fly an Itty V, not because it looks like a baguette. It's because I can throw 5 Expanded Cargohold II's into it along with Medium Cargohold Optimizers and increase my cargo capacity to damn near 42,000 cubic meters.

Or, if I am concerned about gate camps, I can do this. I now have a ship that only hauls 20,000 cubic meters, but cloaks and insta-warps. BTW, if these changes go through this may not be possible with any of the "rebalanced" ships. I've not run any numbers, but it doesn't look like there is enough grid on any of the proposed ships to support this sort of fit. Those that might have enough augmented grid don't appear to have a max velocity in the sweet zone. But that's just taking a quick glance at the proposed specs. Still, if that capability gets nerfed out of existence... well... I'll let Marvin tell it.
Back to topic now, if I just want it to be fast, all I have to do is fill the lows with Nanofiber Internal Structure IIs and the rig slots with Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizers. I then get a hauler that aligns in 7 seconds and goes nearly 9 au/s. It hauls only 7500 cubic meters of cargo, but there is always a trade off. That tradeoff should be up to me and how I fit my ship.

We don't need a dozen different T1 haulers. That's always been ridiculous. Why not dump all the racial variants and give us one (1!) T1 ORE ship to replace them all? Make that one ship as versatile as the Itty V is now. There is no need to get all wrapped around the axle on what ship will have what role, etc, etc. As I said before, it just has to haul stuff and get there - that's it. Let the pilot decide how to fit it based on the needs of her route. Seriously, hauling stuff isn't like PvP. There are not a lot of different scenarios calling for different ships with various capabilities, and ego/vanity is almost never a consideration. Keep it simple is the best policy here. Let the industrialist decide what role her hauler will have.

Fly Carefully


  1. "Under the new proposal, if I want to get max PI hauling capacity for instance, I have to buy another ship. I don't see the sense in that."

    What do you mean by 'sense'? Realism? Specialized transport vehicles do exist in the real world, so it's realistic, yes. Sensible in the sense of beneficial? Well, the new PI hauler hauls near 70k m^3 of PI, while being quad-stabbed, or less stabs and adding in nanoes. That's really quite a massive buff over hauling PI with an itty5 in the old system. Sensible in the sense of good game design? Well, the new system is definitely better than the old one, where there were 12 t1 indy's but only the itty5 was worth using. Compared to your counterproposal of having only one t1 hauler...well Rise's new system does seem a bit of needless complexity, but EVE seems to embrace needless complexity so that fits right in, eh? I personally do a lot of PI hauling in low/nullsec, so this new PI hauler is definitely something I will use and appreciate.

    If all you want to do is fly an itty5 and not worry about these other ships, that's still an option for you, right? So your basic point here is that you don't want me, and others like me, to have the option to achieve an advantage over you, and others like you, by embracing complexity. Fair enough, you certainly have the right to hold that viewpoint, but I can't say that your viewpoint fits very well into the massively overcomplicated tapestry that is EVE online. Everything I do in EVE is overcomplicated, and the majority of my time is carebearing, not PVP.

    1. Reference the second paragraph: see my point about not having an option to fit an insta-warp Itty V. I won't have the same option. As for the first paragraph, I've hauled a lot of PI too in my day. Put it's not the only thing I haul. I'd rather have a versatile ship over the other options any day of the week. These other options are just a giant ISK sink. TO me, this isn't about giving industrialists what they need. There's a different agenda here. Thanks, but no thanks.

    2. "see my point about not having an option to fit an insta-warp Itty V. I won't have the same option."

      But the impression I get reading the devpost is that if he'd taken your idea, and just based everything on an ORE industrial which is a copy of the itty5, that he would have still removed the insta-warp capability. It appears that this decision was based on reserving that capability for tech2 haulers--so yes, that's a definite nerf of tech1 haulers, and I can see why you're upset with it. Mixing that criticism up with the variety vs. one hauler idea is confusing and incorrect, as far as I can see. Seems to be 2 completely different concepts from my vantage point.

      The rest of your reply seems to be the same, you're saying you'd rather have the old itty5 rather than the new haulers, I'm still saying it's 2 separate issues.

    3. Sorry Bud, I gotta go against you on this and this post makes a good point. Your current viewpoint ISN'T affected. Not in the least. You can do exactly what you want, how you want to do it. Your game play isn't changed even one iota.

      However, what has changed is your OPTIONS on how to play the game. And that, is a HUGE improvement.

  2. LOL Wow... this I did not expect. But, while it does have a certain logic, it just doesn't take into account all the OTHER players in the game.

    Not ALL player who haul, me being one, want just one ship... You do realize that CCP could make just one ship that would be THE pwnmobile for Pve and the same for PvP? ...and everyone would have several of each and everyone would run the exact same fit and oh gods boring, boring, boring...

    The point to multiple haulers is not everyone one JUST want to haul shit. Ever heard of the Infamous Battle Badger? People are people, and variation is the spice of life.

    With more variants (which does occur even in the mass RW market of heavy freight haulers, Tractor Trailers) there are many makes and models and variants and so on and so on to CHOOSE from... It's the way people are. We like CHOICES... even if there might be one best possible make/model.

    That alone ensures we should have variants on the market... but add to that there are those who focus on a small specialized segments of industry, ones we do not take part in... the variation available will give them a chance to rig & fit as they feel is best.

    Lastly, so much variation ensures idiots in failfits will abound to the delight of gankers and pew pewers of all stripes! Fun for all...

    Just ONE ship? Just TWO pwnmobile fits? Oh please... That's akin to offering a car " any color you want, as long as it's black." =]

    1. it seems CCP is designing the uses for the ships. instead of designing the ships and letting the players design the use. do you think CCP originally envisioned the battle badger? designing the new ships CCP seems to be stifling future innovation

  3. One Tornado can pop a T1 industrial like a zit. These joke ships are for poor slobs who never haul over a 100 million isk, or they be fools.

  4. Before Retribution there's only one good T1 frig in the whole universe: rifter.

    Diversity is always a good thing.

  5. While I personally like the idea of specialized cargo bays that are huge compared to what you could haul before I'd prefer if they were ORE owned or heck even Pirate faction to make use of the fact that I will now get training in all industrial race classes. It makes sense to have the specialized bays now because of the direction Eve is moving, where with tiericide ships are being assigned "general" roles of use and you even have the specialized bays in larger ships like Orcas, why should I need to train and purchase an Orca when the only thing I'll use it for is to haul my ore around? Having a cheaper alternative is nice.

    What I'm still not happy about is the racial disparity. For the four major empires the number of ships available - (advanced and faction also included)
    Shuttles = 1
    Frigates = 15
    Destroyers = 3
    Cruisers = 13
    Battlecruisers = 6
    Battleships = 7
    Capital Ships = 6
    Transport Ships = 2

    Industrial Ships however
    Amarr = 2, Caldari = 2, Gallente = 5, Minmatar = 3

    For those that say it's just hauling, well...everything in Eve gets transported because there is no teleport option. Why should this class of ships be neglected as well?

  6. Tericide at its heart has been about the limitation of choice; it is fundementally about anti-sandbox. Essentially CCP is telling us which ships are for what and how we should fly them. In a sandbox game, ships should not have roles - rather players should. IMO the role bouneses should be stripped from the hauls and converted into rigs. Let the players decide what ship should be used for what purpose.

  7. I'm a low end hauler, for friends and for profit so I followed this debate on the Forums pretty closely. Your idea WAS tossed around, and was GREATLY down voted to those who were vocal with the Devs. People wanted more variety in ships. Wanted the extra 4 to be special. They railed for days about it, and the Devs caved. This decision means more coding, more balancing and man-hours... but it was what the people wanted. CCP could have went the simple route and made 2 ORE ships, and scrapped the others... but they wanted to make the players happy. I wholeheartedly agree with the choices and the ship setup. I'm sorry that the most overpowered indy in the game is now one of many choices, but that is what people wanted.

    Speaking of overpowered, I'm REALLY nervous to see what is going to happen to Tech 3 cruisers.

  8. The one thing which i'm concerned with if they do use role specific ships is how this affects courier contracts? Will the wrapped package be its own type of "item" or will it default to something else giving the potential courier a suggestion of what's in the box?


Be civil, be responsible and most of all be kind. I will not tolerate poor form. There will be no James Hooks here. We are all better than that.

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