Re: Gaps between haulers

Arga wrote:
Gremrod wrote:

Well the cargo module is more for filling in the gaps.

@Arga, I don't subscribe to your arguments for why cargo modules are a bad idea.

Cargo module would slow or add mass like other modules which in turn may slow down a bot by maybe 1 or 2 kph. But I would say that the cargo module would reduce armor like the lwf. This would be the trade off for expanding your cargo holder by X or X%

I see nothing wrong here at all.

At least you didn't add, Eve has them smile

1 to 2 Kph may as well be 'no effect on speed', so issue of trading off speed for cargo only becomes relevant when the loss of speed becomes a detriment to actually using the expander.

So, again, with no appreciable loss of speed, all transports will use the cargo expander, because speed and capactity are the only (2) factors that matter.

For the minority of uses where there is a danger, armor again isn't important, since sheilds provide a much better buffer; and transports don't have to worry about dropping them to shoot.

Without question, we can all agree that a cargo expander is a Benefit.

If a module provides all benefit, with no detriment, then there is never any reason not to use it. At that point, the devs have basically said, "The capacity is too small, so here's some more space". If they've already determined that capacities are too low, and they need to provide more, then why add in a module, they can just up the base amounts.

So, if this is going to be a decision on the players side, there needs to be an acutal detriment to using the expander; and that penalty should be appropriate for BOTH the majority of the transport use, AND the minority of the combat use (or for PVE loot gatherine, ect.).

Speaking of the T4 frame, the one 'real' disadvantage of the frame is the demob resist, not the armor. In most cases, for alpha carriers particulary, the added speed bonus would get you out of most situations before NPC's could lock and demob - now with the faster NPC's that is less likely, so there really is a disadvantage to using the LWF.

But, its already enough. That is, your already demobbed down to 5 kph, adding an additional demob penalty for having a cargo exander doesn't add enough penalty to really make it a penalty.

tl;dt- Actually, I'll just stop here. Because I dont really care if they add it or not.

Very true about the EVE part... LOL

Yeah if thy did add a module like this to the game there would need to be some balance around it.

So I would I agree that it would need to have all the draw backs of a lwf + something else too maybe. Not sure what that "something else" would be.

I was really going for more of an easier way for the DEVs to fill in the gap between the assault hauler and heavy mech without having to design an entire new frame for it.

John 3:16 - Timothy 2:23

Re: Gaps between haulers

Mech Hauler would be awesome to add.

Steam achievement Unlocked:  Being a Badass
http://www.perp-kill.net/kill/239407
Dev Zoom: I think its time to confess, Ville is my alt
Dev Zoom: Ville can be sometimes so sane it's scary.

Re: Gaps between haulers

Smaller version of Scarab, called:

"Tick"  350 or 400u, same slot layout

That is all

Re: Gaps between haulers

80u sequar with T4 frame is 80 kph.

400u Tick, 5x cargo capcity of sequar - how fast should that tick be?

It would have to be faster than the Scarab at 720u with the same slot layout (I can't remember the exact scarab speed with T4, but I'll guess) at 60kph. At 2-3 kph faster, everyone would still use scarab, so it would have to be more like 70kph to be attractive as an alternative to scarab.

Then there's still cost and extensions to consider.

tl-dr: That is all, is not enough.

Re: Gaps between haulers

Arga wrote:

80u sequar with T4 frame is 80 kph.

400u Tick, 5x cargo capcity of sequar - how fast should that tick be?

It would have to be faster than the Scarab at 720u with the same slot layout (I can't remember the exact scarab speed with T4, but I'll guess) at 60kph. At 2-3 kph faster, everyone would still use scarab, so it would have to be more like 70kph to be attractive as an alternative to scarab.

Then there's still cost and extensions to consider.

tl-dr: That is all, is not enough.

You are assuming that they CAN use a scarab though which is a rather big assumption to make for a newbie.

Looking forward to new players and new conflicts.

Re: Gaps between haulers

I wasn't assuming a newbie using a scarab, a 'tick' wouldn't be a newbie transport at 400u either.

If they are trying to create a newbie hauler, that's redundant because the sequar is the goto bot for that.

While there certainly is a capacity gap in haulers, I don't believe there is enough of a gap when you look at speed/cargo/EP to put in anything that wouldn't make something else obsolete. This is especially true at the lower end of the EP/cost spectrum.

Re: Gaps between haulers

Arga wrote:

I wasn't assuming a newbie using a scarab, a 'tick' wouldn't be a newbie transport at 400u either.

If they are trying to create a newbie hauler, that's redundant because the sequar is the goto bot for that.

While there certainly is a capacity gap in haulers, I don't believe there is enough of a gap when you look at speed/cargo/EP to put in anything that wouldn't make something else obsolete. This is especially true at the lower end of the EP/cost spectrum.

By newbie I meant more EP than a sequer less EP than a lithus/scarab. Sequer is more like an arke, completely disposable low capacity hauler.

Looking forward to new players and new conflicts.

33

Re: Gaps between haulers

Sundial wrote:
Arga wrote:

I wasn't assuming a newbie using a scarab, a 'tick' wouldn't be a newbie transport at 400u either.

If they are trying to create a newbie hauler, that's redundant because the sequar is the goto bot for that.

While there certainly is a capacity gap in haulers, I don't believe there is enough of a gap when you look at speed/cargo/EP to put in anything that wouldn't make something else obsolete. This is especially true at the lower end of the EP/cost spectrum.

By newbie I meant more EP than a sequer less EP than a lithus/scarab. Sequer is more like an arke, completely disposable low capacity hauler.

Sequer mk2? tongue

"you're not in an MMO to make friends, you're there to make enemies smile"

34 (edited by Arga 2012-06-11 22:03:45)

Re: Gaps between haulers

That's the point.

A lithus is Indy 8, a significant investment for 240U of cargo. A scarab is 8, plus glider level 5. While a sequar is simply indy 3, assault.

How would you slip a mech hauler in there? It's literally only a 3 days and 9 hours of EP from level 3 to 5 indy. The Seq MK II is at lvl 5, 100U and slightly faster too, so there is already a bot in that gap.

Cost wise, the lvl 5 bot would have to be signifcantly more expensive then the sequar, but less then the MK II, but it can't have more capacity than the lithus...

There just isn't room, unlike combats where the slots matter, in haulers it's only cargo, speed, and to some extent cost. There's room on the top end for frieghters, but the bottom end, there's not enough EP/cargo/speed to make any mech hauler relevant.

Now, if they want to make it a hauling/combat hybrid, there's room for that; but it's going to end up being really slow.

Edit: Not ib4 dan smile