open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Tech 3 Industrial Cruiser
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9

Author Topic

Sigras
Gallente
Conglomo
Posted - 2010.10.20 17:42:00 - [181]
 

Originally by: Aeo IV
I think it makes more sense to introduce t3 subsystems for the existing cruisers. For example,

Electronic subsystem:
Remote Mining Package
10% increase in mining laser yield, range, and reduction of cycle time.
Role bonus:
3/1/0 -1 turret slot
Can fit strip miners

Engineering subsystem:
Expanded holds
15% increase in cargo hold per level, 5000m3 base.

Making a whole new ship seems pointless, and I'm tired of seeing ORE ships rather than empire faction industral ships.


Well the problem with this idea is balance, the cargo expanding module could be combined with the interdiction nullifier and the covert ops offensive module to make a super blockade runner.

And what? ORE can't make a T3 ship? Why not?

Horizonist
Yulai Guard 2nd Fleet
Yulai Federation
Posted - 2010.10.20 18:09:00 - [182]
 

Great idea! But the +5000m3/level bonus is just ridiculous. I am sure you will fix that :)

/signed

Nikolai Kondratiev
Sphere Design Inc.
Posted - 2010.10.20 18:56:00 - [183]
 

Pretty nice idea :)

But wouldn't it make more sense for it to be an ORE industrial rather than an ORE cruiser ? (and thus use the to-be-released ORE industrial skill). And then it would make sense that it could have a hauler-like cargo bay.

XXSketchxx
Gallente
Remote Soviet Industries
Posted - 2010.10.24 02:47:00 - [184]
 

To address a few things.

1. I want a separate ship. That is what this thread is for. As Sigras, pointed out, why can't ORE have a T3?

2. I am keeping the 5k m3 ore bay per skill level subsystem. This subsystem essentially results in a dedicated ORE hauler. The miner can't simply be afk either because the cycles are short and the mined ore goes in the cargo hold and must be transferred.

The same goes for the gas harvester subsystem. The idea is that these ships have specialized cargo holds (this being their limitation) but are capable of being in the belt/gas cloud for extended periods of time (without relying on a jet can).

Bump for a while. Thanks for all the support.

Kai Lomu
Posted - 2010.10.27 14:27:00 - [185]
 

/signed

T3 extended to industrial ships would be welcomed and is logical given ORE likely to be one of the first corps poking about in the far-reaches of W/H space etc.

True Sight
Deep Freeze Industries
Posted - 2010.11.04 19:52:00 - [186]
 

giving my ongoing love to this thread.

Casod Sutherland
Posted - 2010.11.08 18:56:00 - [187]
 

Originally by: XXSketchxx
To address a few things.

1. I want a separate ship. That is what this thread is for. As Sigras, pointed out, why can't ORE have a T3?

2. I am keeping the 5k m3 ore bay per skill level subsystem. This subsystem essentially results in a dedicated ORE hauler. The miner can't simply be afk either because the cycles are short and the mined ore goes in the cargo hold and must be transferred.

The same goes for the gas harvester subsystem. The idea is that these ships have specialized cargo holds (this being their limitation) but are capable of being in the belt/gas cloud for extended periods of time (without relying on a jet can).

Bump for a while. Thanks for all the support.

Makes sense. I support this proposal, mining needs more love.

Commander Funyoun
Posted - 2010.11.08 23:49:00 - [188]
 

+1 to this. Yes Please. Twisted Evil

XXSketchxx
Gallente
Remote Soviet Industries
Posted - 2010.11.14 15:34:00 - [189]
 

Bumping this to the top.

Has ORE started development on this yet CCP?

DetCord Saisio
Caldari
UnchainedPotential
Hand That Feeds
Posted - 2010.11.15 11:26:00 - [190]
 

Edited by: DetCord Saisio on 15/11/2010 11:28:55
Originally by: Horizonist
Great idea! But the +5000m3/level bonus is just ridiculous. I am sure you will fix that :)

/signed
What about reducing the rate of "fire" for the tech III mining turret? This would be on par with current tech III vs tech I ship damage per second. I am new to game, but...
I hear the tengu strategic cruiser (t3) has comparable damage output per shot as the drake battlecruiser (t1). Tengu's faster cycle rate makes damage output about double. Why not use this same type of increase for tech III mining ship?

Markus Reese
Caldari
New Eden Weekly Sentinel
Posted - 2010.11.15 23:52:00 - [191]
 

I see this post is older than my idea I did up for the eve design contest. Anyways, is cool that some ideas share amongst the ship ideas. I am currently beginning further development of my design, but here are the links to the thread I did yesterday and the submission.

Thread

Submission

The submission has visuals for all subsystems, and basic initial bonus and stats for each. I really think it is a good idea and many people I talk to like it. Also you can see some of my concept ideas in my photobucket where I was test fitting subsystems in design phase.

All was done with blender and gimp.

Prospect Album

Jayne Rayne
Posted - 2010.11.16 06:03:00 - [192]
 

My ideas for subsystems, most are similar to existing:

Defense
Shield Resist
Armor Resist most of cargo space will be Ore Bay instead of cargo bay
Sig Radius
RR Boost

Engineering
Cap Boost
Cap Recharge Boost
PG Boost
Drone Bandwidth This is intended to possibly have 10 mining drones

Electronics
Sig strength and target range
Probe and tractor
Survey scanner range
CPU boost

Propulsion
Max velocity
AB boost
Agi boost
Interdictor immunity

Offensive (yield)
Ore yield less than hulk
Ice yield between hulk and mack
Mining gang boost- 5%, single module
Drone yield make drones comparable to other mining methods

These would produce ships like a fleet support/booster, a hulkish miner, a Dom-ish miner, or a possible unscannable miner.

Horizonist
Yulai Guard 2nd Fleet
Yulai Federation
Posted - 2010.11.16 08:18:00 - [193]
 

Edited by: Horizonist on 16/11/2010 08:38:33
Originally by: XXSketchxx

2. I am keeping the 5k m3 ore bay per skill level subsystem. This subsystem essentially results in a dedicated ORE hauler. The miner can't simply be afk either because the cycles are short and the mined ore goes in the cargo hold and must be transferred.



Makes sense, although I highly dislike the fact that this works against AFK miners. Why do you want to punish us? Let's face it - mining in Eve is fantastically boring (the mining part). It is NOT something you do any other way then AFK, unless you are in a wardec/lowsec/nullsec. Also, the fact that it stops AFK miners does not mean it will stop bots, at all.

There is another aspect that needs considering. Assuming this ship will go up into the same pricerange as the existing T3s, there needs to be something to make it genuinely worth it. The near-Hulk yield with a proper fitting is nice, so is the gas part. However, you do want this to be something more then just a moddable semi-Hulk/Mack, it should be worth all the 500-700m you will spend buying the hull and a good fit for it...as it is, I belive the ship needs something more.

The best idea imho would be to work on survivability. Since the holds are dedicated, why not improve the propulsion and electronics subsystems? Why not let the interdiction nullifier also give a +2 to warp strength? Why not allow for cov ops reconfiguration without sacrificing the mining bonuses?

Speaking of the cov ops part, the 90s delay after deactivating the mining lasers makes no sense...assuming this will not be a heavy tanker, you will be dead before that counter runs out. Therefore, allow the ship to insta-cloak instead (yes, I too can see the possibly macro-exploitations of this, but it can be worked around), which would give the ship a great chance to survive if fast-locking frigs/cruisers warp to the belt, or getting out of a camped system.

Be aware that the above is a rough sketch, it is possibly a little too powerful, and of course not a final resolution.

HeliosGal
Caldari
Posted - 2010.11.16 11:15:00 - [194]
 

if youre adding a tech 3 gas miner with bonus yeild use low end and c1 components to keep it cheap

XXSketchxx
Gallente
Remote Soviet Industries
Posted - 2010.11.18 21:56:00 - [195]
 

Okay folks, a few responses to make:

Originally by: DetCord Saisio
What about reducing the rate of "fire" for the tech III mining turret? This would be on par with current tech III vs tech I ship damage per second. I am new to game, but...
I hear the tengu strategic cruiser (t3) has comparable damage output per shot as the drake battlecruiser (t1). Tengu's faster cycle rate makes damage output about double. Why not use this same type of increase for tech III mining ship?


I'm honestly not entirely sure what you are saying here. Honestly I think some false assumptions about the tengu vs. drake are leading you to make a comparision that isn't needed. No offense meant.

Originally by: Markus Reese
awesome renders


I like these. We need to talk more. Evemail me in-game if you have a chance please.

Originally by: Jayne Rayne
Ice yield between hulk and mack... Drone Bandwidth This is intended to possibly have 10 mining drones


Two things I wanted to pull out of your idea. The first has been addressed but I'll reiterate here. I decided not to do ice yielding because of the problems it would create. This ship is not intended to use modules as large as strip miners or ice harvesters, and thus the problem here is creating new modules similar to Miner IIs and their modulated versions and additionally create new products for them to pull out (smaller pieces, i.e. not 1000m3). I deemed this to be a bit too much work and thus ice mining is not observed here.

In regards to drone bandwidth, take a look at the second post in this thread.

Quote:
Some hull info

Base: 50m3 drone bay and 50mbit bandwidth

O.R.E Industrial Cruiser Skill Bonus: Can deploy 1 additional mining drone per level.


As you can see, it is already possible to get up to 10 mining drones with maxed skill.

Originally by: Horizonist
Afk, worth the price and cloak


Afk - use a hulk. Seriously, the point of this ship is not to assist afk miners. It is to encourage active miners and the bold.

Worth the price - A lot of the subsystems on this ship focus on survivability. You should be able to get a pretty decent tank on one. There is an option for ECM to help jam a tackler. Increased agility means you align faster when escaping. Interdiction nullifier + covert ops means you can get to your favorite ninja mining spot very easily.

Covert ops subsystem needs a draw back. Look at the current T3 for reference in this regard. I imagine it similar to how I use the covert ops in my tengu - enough to get me into position, maybe do some of the work but optimally switch out to the subsystem that does the job properly. You'll note that the covert ops configuration only does slightly worse than a covetor, and a T3 industrial will be much easier to get max skills for and have more potential low slots for upgrades.

The cloaking delay was put on after some discussion about people simply being able to immediately cloak and warp out if the system goes red. I agreed with the poster that pointed this out; something needed to be done. If you are smart though you still won't be caught (hop safes until the timer is gone).

Originally by: HeliosGal
if youre adding a tech 3 gas miner with bonus yeild use low end and c1 components to keep it cheap


Why?

Thats it for now. Thanks for the feedback.

Bump to top.

Sigras
Gallente
Conglomo
Posted - 2010.12.01 21:49:00 - [196]
 

Idea still supported, but I think the delay on cloaking could maybe be changed to something else?

Perhaps 70% reduction in mining laser range so if you want to use it to sneak in and snipe all the rich ore, its possible but really takes a lot of player skill to do so and stay away from all of the asteroids?

And. . . Back to the top

Horizonist
Yulai Guard 2nd Fleet
Yulai Federation
Posted - 2010.12.07 10:46:00 - [197]
 

Whatever happened to this idea? It was really a great one, had to look almost 10 levels down to bring it up again.

Eve could really use a T3 industrial, it would add even more versatility to nullsec life.

Pharos Pharos
Posted - 2010.12.09 22:17:00 - [198]
 

Definitely good ideas here, they should be bumped.

Vertisce Soritenshi
SHADOW WARD
Tragedy.
Posted - 2010.12.10 01:39:00 - [199]
 

This is one of those really good ideas that ultimately will never happen. Unfortunately...

a newbie
d o o m
Posted - 2010.12.10 01:47:00 - [200]
 

Very well thought out, I love the idea and it definitely has my vote.

One thing that I get an utter laugh is the people who complain about T3 being overkill. Umm.. IT COSTS AS MUCH AS A FACTION BATTLESHIP. YEAH IT SHOULD BE OVERKILL.

*clears throat*

Anyhow, it's like people complaining that .50 cal snipers should never be used against people because its too inhuman. YOUR AIMING TO KILL THE GUY! I honestly don't think it makes a difference WHAT you use.

RE T3 in this regard, if you are spending a fortune on a ship, your not doing it to have it work HALF as good. It better work 10x better and wipe your rear side while at it.

The OP thought this out very well and if I was flying one of these, or killing one, my backside would feel exceptionally clean.

YES all the way.

XXSketchxx
Gallente
Remote Soviet Industries
Posted - 2010.12.20 17:07:00 - [201]
 

Originally by: a newbie
Very well thought out, I love the idea and it definitely has my vote.

One thing that I get an utter laugh is the people who complain about T3 being overkill. Umm.. IT COSTS AS MUCH AS A FACTION BATTLESHIP. YEAH IT SHOULD BE OVERKILL.

*clears throat*

Anyhow, it's like people complaining that .50 cal snipers should never be used against people because its too inhuman. YOUR AIMING TO KILL THE GUY! I honestly don't think it makes a difference WHAT you use.

RE T3 in this regard, if you are spending a fortune on a ship, your not doing it to have it work HALF as good. It better work 10x better and wipe your rear side while at it.

The OP thought this out very well and if I was flying one of these, or killing one, my backside would feel exceptionally clean.

YES all the way.


This post made me smile. Thanks for the support all. Leaving today for a small holiday vacation. Bump until the New Year. Cool

Happy Holidays all!

XXSketchxx
Gallente
Remote Soviet Industries
Posted - 2010.12.29 19:24:00 - [202]
 

To the top!

XXSketchxx
Gallente
Remote Soviet Industries
Posted - 2011.01.15 16:43:00 - [203]
 

Bump

True Sight
Deep Freeze Industries
Posted - 2011.01.30 01:37:00 - [204]
 

Further bumping, this remains a solid and good idea.

Magnus Orin
Minmatar
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.01.30 01:56:00 - [205]
 

Edited by: Magnus Orin on 30/01/2011 01:56:53
You know, I usually come into the F&I forums and **** all over the horrible ideas that are constantly spewed here.

I actually opened this thread with that intent.

I find myself completely supporting this idea though.

This is surprisingly well thought out and I think could give industrials a cool new, practical ship to train into after their hulk/orca.

If I can make one simple suggestion;

This idea belongs among other well proposed and thought out ideas in the Assembly Hall, not here with the unwashed masses of the F&I.

True Sight
Deep Freeze Industries
Posted - 2011.01.30 02:32:00 - [206]
 

Originally by: Magnus Orin
Edited by: Magnus Orin on 30/01/2011 01:56:53
You know, I usually come into the F&I forums and **** all over the horrible ideas that are constantly spewed here.

I actually opened this thread with that intent.

I find myself completely supporting this idea though.

This is surprisingly well thought out and I think could give industrials a cool new, practical ship to train into after their hulk/orca.

If I can make one simple suggestion;

This idea belongs among other well proposed and thought out ideas in the Assembly Hall, not here with the unwashed masses of the F&I.


I totally agree, whilst the finite details would likely need work, tweaks changes etc, maybe even a couple of the subsystem suggestions are stupid/imbalanced etc, overall this is a great idea that everyone support:

- A Tech 3 Industrial (ORE) Cruiser sized hull
- Support Various industrial pursuits, like the Tech 3 combat ships currently do
- Interesting tweaks on things like low sec mining, gas mining, salvaging, hacking etc
- Most importantly, give industrial players something new to aim for

I bolded the last, as thats what I personally think is most important, right now industrialists are gimped in comparison to all other aspects of the game

- As a PvPer, I start out in a frigate, get a cruiser, get a hack, fly battleships, I can scale up to Dreadnoughts, Super Carriers, titans etc

- As a PvEer, I start out with a frigate, get a cruiser, get a battleship, I then get a wide range of Faction Battleships like the Paladin, Rattlesnake etc

- As a Miner, I get a frigate, a cruiser, then a hulk.....

- As a Trader, I get a frigate, an industrial, then a freighter....

The freighter has zero customisation, the hulk, beyond the 'god fits' with a small shield booster and such has little to zero customisation, where as a PvEr with a Paladin or whatever can slowly upgrade their ship with more and more faction/officer loot, their pride and joy.

- Give industrialists something they can spend their isk on, pimp out with cool modules, skill specialise at to be better than anyone not specialised

look at the sheer volume of skills needed to fly various PvP ships, or to max-skill a faction battleship for missions, once a hulk pilot can board his hulk, there's very little training left.

XXSketchxx
Gallente
Remote Soviet Industries
Posted - 2011.02.09 11:55:00 - [207]
 

Bump

Amaroq Dricaldari
Amarr
Vengeance Industrial Militia
Posted - 2011.02.09 15:00:00 - [208]
 

This is a pretty good idea. But when will they have Tech III Jove Titans? And When will there be Industrial Subsystems? And other classes of Tech III Ship? Now that Tech III Jove Titan was an obvious joke, but it would still be epic.

Zephris
Posted - 2011.02.09 21:11:00 - [209]
 

Great idea.
A dedicated gas harvester + covert op industrial all in one.
+1.

Kuhn Arashi
Caldari
Wrecking Shots
Posted - 2011.02.10 02:27:00 - [210]
 

I didnt read much of this thread aside from the first page

However the problem I see, is that what happens when your macro miners
start using covert cloaking, interdiction nullifing, unprobable ships?

might or might not have a major impact on such things.
but its something to consider.

that being said.
I agree with many points in this thread. this idea has potential
maybe make miners feel safer in low or 0.0 security systems

get them out there, and experience it, become less afraid of it.
which is good for everyone.

+1


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only