• *
  • Agent
  • Offline

Topic: Gaps between haulers

New player specializing in the transport can make cash for a Sequer in few days but then what? where he takes 80 million on a new robot!?
There's a huge price gap between Sequer and Lithus and huge cargo gap between Lithus and Scarab.

My suggestion is this:
-create a new mech hauler with 200u cargo.
-Increase capacty of Lithus to 400u.


some numbers

Assault robot
Sequer
actual market price   450.000
Lucius Marcellus shop 490.000
average               470.000
cargo 80U
5875 nic/u

Heavy mech
Lithus
actual market price    92.000.000
Lucius Marcellus shop  77.500.000
average                84.750.000
cargo 240u
353.125 nic/u

Heavy glider
Scarab
actual market price   110.000.000
Lucius Marcellus shop  93.650.000
average               101.825.000
cargo 720u
141.424 nic/u

  • M2S
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Gaps between haulers

If we need another hauler, it would be a super-freighter that can carry insane amounts, and not yet another small-cargo bot.

  • DoY
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Gaps between haulers

Sequer mk2 can haul 100u, they're cheap enough now.

Have a productive day, runner!
R.I.P. Chenoa, you'll never be forgotten.
DEV Zoom: Line, sorry, I was away for christmas.
http://perp-kill.net/?m=view&id=252086
  • *
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Gaps between haulers

Developers can't focus only to end-game when they do't have enough players.

20u is not difference.

  • CIR
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Gaps between haulers

if 25% upgrade is not a difference, then we will be really unable to help you with your problem.

<GargajCNS> we maim to please
  • BKK
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Gaps between haulers

the only problematic gap between hauler, that I see, is the speed gap and their hitpoints

sequer 80U = 80kph if t4lwf only fit (=paperthin)

Lithus 240U ~60kph if t4lwf and shields (=surviveable, but not much)

Scarab 720U ~60kph and paperthin armor no matter what you fit.

*Disclaimer: This post can contain strong sarcasm or cynical remarks. keep that in mind!
Whining - It's amazing how fast your trivial concerns will disappear
  • YBA
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Gaps between haulers

Alauris wrote:

Developers can't focus only to end-game when they do't have enough players.

20u is not difference.

I agree with you on the need for a mech hauler with a capacity somewhere between the Sequer and the Lithus (prob 160U). Newer players need this bot.

In the long run (and its been said in a number of threads already so I won't dwell) we need a new division for transport bots with two or three in each of the light, assault, mech and heavy range.

  • JOKE
  • Champion
  • Offline

Re: Gaps between haulers

Daedalus: 2160u
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_uUn3C9_6Rv0/S … idalos.png

One man army
http://www.perp-kill.net/related/239910
  • STC
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Gaps between haulers

If there is a mech class hauler introduced it needs to be like a blockade runner ....
High shield bonus with limited cargo capacity 200 u mk2 and like 160 mk1 make it a glider would be nice

As for super heavy hauler I think it may be a little too soon for the game .... that bot that carries 2000+ u will/should cost about one billion nice to make

Tux ~ Kill the messenger, he was part of it all along.
Euripides ~ Ten soldiers wisely led will beat a hundred without a head.
Bertrand Russell ~ War does not determine who is right - only who is left.
  • CIR
  • Sportscaster
  • Offline

Re: Gaps between haulers

Why not create a module that will increase the cargo space of any bot/mech.

John 3:16 - Timothy 2:23
  • CIR
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Gaps between haulers

Gremrod wrote:

Why not create a module that will increase the cargo space of any bot/mech.

I'd search for my other 30 post explaining why this is a bad idea, but I'm too lazy, but I'll summerize because we share that trait smile

If cargo expander adds weight/slows hauler, then using it becomes highly situational.
If cargo expander doesn't slow hauler, then it becomes must have.

12 Reply by Lucius Marcellus (edited by Lucius Marcellus 2012-06-08 20:05:57)

  • M2S
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Gaps between haulers

Arga wrote:
Gremrod wrote:

Why not create a module that will increase the cargo space of any bot/mech.

I'd search for my other 30 post explaining why this is a bad idea, but I'm too lazy, but I'll summerize because we share that trait smile

If cargo expander adds weight/slows hauler, then using it becomes highly situational.
If cargo expander doesn't slow hauler, then it becomes must have.

In all the topics discussing this, very few people have called this a 'bad idea' to my knowledge.

The most straightforward approach is probably to make the cargo expander reduce shield efficiency or lower demob resistance.

13 Reply by Tux

  • STC
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Gaps between haulers

or simply increase surface hit size a lot

Tux ~ Kill the messenger, he was part of it all along.
Euripides ~ Ten soldiers wisely led will beat a hundred without a head.
Bertrand Russell ~ War does not determine who is right - only who is left.
  • JOKE
  • Champion
  • Offline

Re: Gaps between haulers

i think haulers are ok now

One man army
http://www.perp-kill.net/related/239910
  • *
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Gaps between haulers

This is probably a stupid idea... but...
We have assault bot industrial (sequer) and heavy mech (Lithus)

What about something in-between, like a Mech? I don't think we really need yet-another-transport bot, but what about a Mech with some utilitary skills, or a transport (120U?) capable of fitting some firearms/tanking ?

My blog about MMO design:
http://mmockery.wordpress.com/
  • *
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Gaps between haulers

This is going nowhere everybody's talking about their own turf even if it's the topic about new players.

  • CIR
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Gaps between haulers

Lucius Marcellus wrote:
Arga wrote:
Gremrod wrote:

Why not create a module that will increase the cargo space of any bot/mech.

I'd search for my other 30 post explaining why this is a bad idea, but I'm too lazy, but I'll summerize because we share that trait smile

If cargo expander adds weight/slows hauler, then using it becomes highly situational.
If cargo expander doesn't slow hauler, then it becomes must have.

In all the topics discussing this, very few people have called this a 'bad idea' to my knowledge.

The most straightforward approach is probably to make the cargo expander reduce shield efficiency or lower demob resistance.

Alpha players using bots for transport, simply avoid NPC's 99.9% of the time, so those types of tradeoffs mean nothing to them, so they will always have that expander installed; since it provides more capacity with no negatives, making it basically a must have module. And some what like Nav skill, when something becomes a non-brainer for fitting, and if it was determined that the bots needed extra capcity, then it's simply better game design to raise the built-in capacity instead of a module.

Decreasing the volume of the ores addressed my primary concern for capacity based hauling, which was NIC/hour based on loads. So, I'm not against more cargo, I just don't think we need a module to provide it, and that there are other ways to achieve the end goals of transportation without directly increasing the bot cargo in any manner.

The current cargo haulers are adequate for tactical transport, we'll need the frieghters for strategic logistics, but that will be coming at some point I'm sure.

  • M2S
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Gaps between haulers

Currently the t4 lwf + shield gen is as much of a no brainer for any alpha hauler, so I'm not really sympathising with that. However, outside alpha hauling these trade-offs will be very important. Anyhow, I'd much prioritise a proper freighter rather than a cargo expander, so on that point we agree.

  • JOKE
  • Champion
  • Offline

Re: Gaps between haulers

lol, sequer is assault bot lol) assault) he will overassault all of us)

One man army
http://www.perp-kill.net/related/239910

20 Reply by Gremrod (edited by Gremrod 2012-06-08 22:28:33)

  • CIR
  • Sportscaster
  • Offline

Re: Gaps between haulers

Lucius Marcellus wrote:

Currently the t4 lwf + shield gen is as much of a no brainer for any alpha hauler, so I'm not really sympathising with that. However, outside alpha hauling these trade-offs will be very important. Anyhow, I'd much prioritise a proper freighter rather than a cargo expander, so on that point we agree.


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.

John 3:16 - Timothy 2:23
  • JOKE
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Gaps between haulers

Gremrod wrote:
Lucius Marcellus wrote:

Currently the t4 lwf + shield gen is as much of a no brainer for any alpha hauler, so I'm not really sympathising with that. However, outside alpha hauling these trade-offs will be very important. Anyhow, I'd much prioritise a proper freighter rather than a cargo expander, so on that point we agree.


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.

I don't see anything wrong with cargo expanding modules with a speed reduction and  a lower armour amount.

RIP PERPETUUM
  • M2S
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Gaps between haulers

As long as speed reduction isn't so large as to make the amount hauled/h the same, I think that's a good idea.

23 Reply by Ludlow Bursar (edited by Ludlow Bursar 2012-06-08 23:18:45)

  • YBA
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Gaps between haulers

Alauris wrote:

This is going nowhere everybody's talking about their own turf even if it's the topic about new players.

OP was about the gap. There is one.

Its a long wait to skill up from Sequer to Lithus. I'm a bit of a vet now but I remember how long I had to save up EP (with all the other stuff new players want to skill up on) to get more capacity in a hauler. A mech hauler would really help.

Its a hook.

24 Reply by Sundial (edited by Sundial 2012-06-08 23:25:06)

  • AIC
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Gaps between haulers

Ludlow Bursar wrote:
Alauris wrote:

This is going nowhere everybody's talking about their own turf even if it's the topic about new players.

OP was about the gap. There is one.

Its a long wait to skill up from Sequer to Lithus. I'm a bit of a vet now but I remember how long I had to save up EP (with all the other stuff new players want to skill up on) to get more capacity in a hauler. A mech hauler would really help.

Its a hook.

This is pretty much exactly my experience, i was greatly annoyed by this as a new player... You go from a super cheap EP bot to an EP intensive one. There is a need for a small but fast hauler as well for ninja runs.

OP has a good idea. I agree there is a gap that a mech sized hauler of some kind needs to fill.

Looking forward to new players and new conflicts.
  • CIR
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Gaps between haulers

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.