Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Wapu Kashuken
Serenity Rising LLC Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
20
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 23:09:00 -
[1] - Quote
Freighters are the backbone of eve logistics. It goes without saying that much of the economy would come to a grinding halt without them. I [mostly] love them in their current form, but wonder why they have Zero fitting capability.
Suggestion: give 1 or more mid/low/rig slots, but penalize hauling capability for each slot filled. My suggestions: - 2 mid, 2 low, 2 rig - cannot fit cargo-hold expanders or like rigs - 10% reduction in cargo space per mod/rig fitted
This is not an immediate carebear request. Changing up haulers to fit like other ships adds a level of difficulty to everyone, such as:
- fitting requires critical planning/thinking (max cargo/speed/tank/etc) - ganking becomes more complex since it is no longer simple math of scanning what's in the hold - cargo reduction penalties now create a ship that fills in the gap between orca hauling (and itty hauling) and current, unfit freighters (i.e. don't need a separate ship class that has already been requested in separate forum)
As stated, this is not a simple carebear request. Something that plays such an important (if unglorified) role should require more thought than: [hauler] throw stuff in, haul [ganker] scan, shoot
I expect a full flame war on this (both pro & con). Bring it on, would love to elicit others' perspective. |
Daichi Yamato
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
798
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 23:24:00 -
[2] - Quote
comes up a lot. use search function and read the existing threads to find out why this idea is awful. There are no vets in EVE. Only varying levels of Noobery. |
Wapu Kashuken
Serenity Rising LLC Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
20
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 23:41:00 -
[3] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:comes up a lot. use search function and read the existing threads to find out why this idea is awful.
Wow... an excellent, well thought out, detailed response As an addendum to this, or any other post, either provide real/rational input, an actual link to input, or stfu If you don't like this reply, there is precedent elsewhere in the forum so I suggest you go search for it in order to back up my claim
And yes I did read many of the other posts (still am). My input stands: a) this is a slightly new twist so it is not a bump b) ccp has never stated (to my knowledge) that they are happy w/ freighters and have no intention of touching them in the future c) enough people want a change (according to other forum posts) for this to still be a relevant request |
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
112
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 23:54:00 -
[4] - Quote
Wapu Kashuken wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:comes up a lot. use search function and read the existing threads to find out why this idea is awful. Wow... an excellent, well thought out, detailed response As an addendum to this, or any other post, either provide real/rational input, an actual link to input, or stfu If you don't like this reply, there is precedent elsewhere in the forum so I suggest you go search for it in order to back up my claim And yes I did read many of the other posts (still am). My input stands: a) this is a slightly new twist so it is not a bump b) ccp has never stated (to my knowledge) that they are happy w/ freighters and have no intention of touching them in the future c) enough people want a change (according to other forum posts) for this to still be a relevant request Well some people just want to feel somehow superior or something
Anyway, does your idea mean that freighters fully fitted for max cargo space would be about the same as the freighters can currently haul with a let's say 25% loss in ehp?
And with fitted for maximum ehp they would have only half of the maximum cargo but 50% more ehp, of you could go for some number in between them with similar ehp as they currently have but with less cargo space.
Surely would be interesting but for the people who need the current amount of space it would be a nerf. |
Arya Regnar
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
288
|
Posted - 2013.10.04 01:13:00 -
[5] - Quote
We have been over this, use the search function.
Freighters stay the way they are, maybe a new type of ship instead...
EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
|
Wapu Kashuken
Serenity Rising LLC Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
20
|
Posted - 2013.10.04 01:18:00 -
[6] - Quote
Johnson Oramara wrote:Well some people just want to feel somehow superior or something Anyway, does your idea mean that freighters fully fitted for max cargo space would be about the same as the freighters can currently haul with a let's say 25% loss in ehp? And with fitted for maximum ehp they would have only half of the maximum cargo but 50% more ehp, of you could go for some number in between them with similar ehp as they currently have but with less cargo space. Surely would be interesting but for the people who need the current amount of space it would be a nerf.
My thoughts we to keep everything the same but reduce cargo size. That being said, everything is up for suggestion/debate. |
Montevius Williams
The Scope Gallente Federation
576
|
Posted - 2013.10.04 01:53:00 -
[7] - Quote
My only issue with Freighters are they are way to small (Graphical). It makes no sense that an Obelisk can carry a fitted Megathron when a Mega is totally looks like it would not fit. All Freighters should be twice as big as the biggest battleships to at least LOOK like it's feasable that the Freighter can carry it in it's cargo holds. "The American Government indoctrination system known as public education has been relentlessly churning out socialists for over 20 years". - TravisWB |
Lifelongnoob
The Motley Crew Reborn End of Life
13
|
Posted - 2013.10.04 02:03:00 -
[8] - Quote
the only rigs freighters need is em sheild / explosive armor and align time or warp speed rigs
if it was possible i'd fit 1x em sheild resist rig, 1x exp armor rig and 1x align speed rig.
that way it would be harder alpha but still not impossible, and it would align quicker |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
641
|
Posted - 2013.10.04 02:24:00 -
[9] - Quote
If we're going to propose that freighters should have slots, then I suggest they get high slots. Only high slots. Maybe three of them. But no turrets and no launchers and no high-slot-related bonuses. No mids, no lows and no rigs and certainly no subsystems. Just three unbonused utility highs.
Now, let's talk about how that would or would not be broken. |
Daichi Yamato
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
798
|
Posted - 2013.10.04 02:25:00 -
[10] - Quote
If u insist:
Ideas that concern fittings Freedom for Freighters Give freighters low slots Freighters need fittings!!! Solving the "freighter" problem. Once and for all freighter fits
touched upon in all these threads, and ur own now, is the point that u can add a DC to a freighter and more than double its tank. However, the freighter would only lose a small amount of capacity for fitting it, so its not exactly balanced.
Quote: Or, if you want to put inline w/ other ships, drop the max cargo and add low/rig slots (that will collectively increase your max to current levels). If you need full cargo, fit for it. If you want to trade off for tank or speed, then do so
this is basically every thread i have linked. nerfing freighters for no reason is bads, ur idea is bads.
use search function bro There are no vets in EVE. Only varying levels of Noobery. |
|
Daichi Yamato
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
798
|
Posted - 2013.10.04 02:46:00 -
[11] - Quote
Johnson Oramara wrote:Well some people just want to feel somehow superior or something
mature There are no vets in EVE. Only varying levels of Noobery. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
4229
|
Posted - 2013.10.04 04:03:00 -
[12] - Quote
Don't nerf Freighters. "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
d-£-󦦦º-ó-ꦪ¦¦e¦¦-í-ë-í-󦦦+¦¦¦»-ö¦+b-¥¦º¦¦¦¦¦½¦¦-ö-ëa-Ŧ+-¥¦í¦+-à-à¦ñc¦ó-á¦í-ƒ¦«¦½¦Ö¦¦¦á-ò-çl-Ǧ¢-ü¦+-û¦ƒ¦¦-ô-ë-Ö-ô¦Ñ-ô¦¬¦½e¦+¦¿¦ù¦¦¦ÿ¦ù¦Ñ¦¼-ò-ꦽ¦¦¦+¦+-ö¦¦-à¦á¦ú¦ÿ |
Wapu Kashuken
Serenity Rising LLC Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
20
|
Posted - 2013.10.04 05:27:00 -
[13] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:If u insist: Ideas that concern fittings Freedom for FreightersGive freighters low slotsFreighters need fittings!!!Solving the "freighter" problem. Once and for allfreighter fitstouched upon in all these threads, and ur own now, is the point that u can add a DC to a freighter and more than double its tank. However, the freighter would only lose a small amount of capacity for fitting it, so its not exactly balanced. Quote: Or, if you want to put inline w/ other ships, drop the max cargo and add low/rig slots (that will collectively increase your max to current levels). If you need full cargo, fit for it. If you want to trade off for tank or speed, then do so
this is basically every thread i have linked. nerfing freighters for no reason is bads, ur idea is bads. use search function bro
1) I read the forums, and generally disagree w/ the opposition on why some people consider this a nerf
2) A modification, where the end state has potential for the same existing base state, and additionally provides for greater capability, is NOT a nerf
3) Unless CCP woke up this morning, smoked some crack and handed you the reigns, this is not a nerf because you say its so
-- and finally --
4) for a character that has a reputation for high sec/industrialist ganking (i can do research too), I find your whole argument (or lack there of) opposing this idea disingenuous |
Meyr
SiN Corp
50
|
Posted - 2013.10.04 07:11:00 -
[14] - Quote
It's been proposed before, take away enough cargo capacity that freighters must fit a T2cargo expander to achieve the capacity they have now (an almost 25% hit to cargo capacity) in exchange for 35 CPU, 1 Powergrid, and one low slot.
Let the pilot choose according to his need and willingness to risk his ship. In return for fitting a DC II, you gankers out there know with absolute certainty that pilots will be hauling more valuable cargo - you'll just have to work harder to get it.
Risk/reward, at both ends of the equation. If I gimp my cargo capacity in exchange for EHP, that means I need to make two trips - double the exposure, twice the opportunity that I will forget to turn on my DC II, but you have to be willing to hit that harder target to kill me.
Seems reasonable to me. |
Daichi Yamato
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
799
|
Posted - 2013.10.04 15:36:00 -
[15] - Quote
Wapu Kashuken wrote:
1) I read the forums, and generally disagree w/ the opposition on why some people consider this a nerf
2) A modification, where the end state has potential for the same existing base state, and additionally provides for greater capability, is NOT a nerf
3) Unless CCP woke up this morning, smoked some crack and handed you the reigns, this is not a nerf because you say its so
-- and finally --
4) for a character that has a reputation for high sec/industrialist ganking (i can do research too), I find your whole argument (or lack there of) opposing this idea disingenuous
then u've read them and misunderstood how this would end up as a nerf. i'll try and explain, cause i know not everyone gets it.
ur idea is to bring down the base stats of a freighter so that when its fitted, it cannot be exploited by a max cargo fit freighter and start carrying capitals into high sec. This means nerfing its capacity into oblivion (which is fair enough on its own).
However, when u take into consideration the other fittings that can be exploited u must ALSO nerf those base stats to prevent it becoming OP'd in other areas.
Most obviously after capacity is tank. all u have to do is fit one DC and the nature of the freighters HP's will mean u more than double its tank. DC's are way overpowered on freighters for a measly 30cpu and 1grid and a cap cost that is negligible. Add to that reinforced bulk heads, Invuln fields and trimarks, and u'll see why, if freighters are given fittings, ur going to have to also nerfbat their HP into the ground to prevent dreadnought like tanks on industrial ships. Its also worth considering that DC's and reinforced bulk heads are dirt cheap.
u now take ur new fittable freighter and go for a max capacity fit to reach the old capacity of freighters (972km3) but now u have less than half the tank because freighters had to have their stats modified to compensate for those fitting DC's to their freighters. Ur freighter is now worse than it was before. OR u fit a DC first and then fit the rest for capacity and find u now have the tank u used to, but because ur a cargo expander short, u have a lower capacity than the old freighter. Ur freighter is still worse, it has been nerfed.
Nano freighters with warp speed rigs would reduce the effort it takes to transport goods between markets and therefore the supply and demand of items would even out through out new eden. Most trader/haulers would consider this a nerf to their entire career as margins are lowered everywhere and its harder for them to make a buck. for that it may be appropriate to reduce a freighters align time and warp speed (because they are deliberately super slow, for the fact they are logistic beasts) so that travel time and effort remains high for even nano/warpspeed/mwd freighters. So now ur freighter is not only lower on tank when fit for max capacity (972km3) it is also slower as well.
So u take ur freighter fit. put a DC in, one cargo expander and a mix of warp speed, align time and capacity rigs. It doesnt have the capacity of the old freighter, probably doesnt have the tank of the old freighter because the rigs and expander are lowering ur tank again, and probably doesnt have the speed of the old freighter because ur expander gimps that too. it has been nerfed.
lol what does 4) refer to? please explain...have u even seen the killboard for this character? There are no vets in EVE. Only varying levels of Noobery. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
4229
|
Posted - 2013.10.04 16:18:00 -
[16] - Quote
Wapu Kashuken wrote:2) A modification, where the end state has potential for the same existing base state, and additionally provides for greater capability, is NOT a nerf
For reasons exhaustively described in so many other "give freighters fittings" threads, any change that gives freighters fittings necessarily precludes the ability to fit it to the capabilities of a current Freighter. "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
d-£-󦦦º-ó-ꦪ¦¦e¦¦-í-ë-í-󦦦+¦¦¦»-ö¦+b-¥¦º¦¦¦¦¦½¦¦-ö-ëa-Ŧ+-¥¦í¦+-à-à¦ñc¦ó-á¦í-ƒ¦«¦½¦Ö¦¦¦á-ò-çl-Ǧ¢-ü¦+-û¦ƒ¦¦-ô-ë-Ö-ô¦Ñ-ô¦¬¦½e¦+¦¿¦ù¦¦¦ÿ¦ù¦Ñ¦¼-ò-ꦽ¦¦¦+¦+-ö¦¦-à¦á¦ú¦ÿ |
Wapu Kashuken
Serenity Rising LLC Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
20
|
Posted - 2013.10.08 07:23:00 -
[17] - Quote
Bump:
Extracted From: CCP Fozzie
Quote:Options like adding rigs to freighters could very well happen someday, as we're fairly open that that idea and have been giving it some thought. However we're not going to commit to anything along those lines at this time. |
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS type X
72
|
Posted - 2013.10.08 11:01:00 -
[18] - Quote
Given that almost all the ships in the game are balanced around having mods and rigs to think CCP couldn't pull off making freighters balanced around the same concept is stupidity on an epic level. Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really. |
Lucas Kell
JSR1 AND GOLDEN GUARDIAN PRODUCTIONS SpaceMonkey's Alliance
1202
|
Posted - 2013.10.08 11:32:00 -
[19] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:A whole bunch of stuff All of this boils down to "onoes! cargo expanders!" this was already debunked. Freighters could easily be given a different bay, which can store the same as is now. This would make cargo expander utterly useless, like they are on barges, etc.
Freighters are too easily ganked for their size. It takes less than 100m of catalysts to pop a freighter, so anyone shipping more than about 1b in a freighter is taking an enormous risk. This is why some many people use the orca to ship stuff. Clearly the fact that a mining support vessel is often being used instead of freighters shows there is a serious imbalance that needs to be addressed... Balancing freighter HP so that with a DC2 and a bulkheads 2, hull is at about 140% of the current EHP, with enough moved to shields and midslots to allow the choice between omnitank and specific tank to matter would just give them an edge over an orca for transport, as well as making it a more interesting ship. As it is at the moment, there's is flat math for the ganking of a freighter, you can literally look it up in a grid and know with certainty what the maximum EHP vs your weapons is. The Indecisive Noob - A new EVE Fan Blog for news and stuff. |
Velicitia
Emergent Avionics
1649
|
Posted - 2013.10.08 11:39:00 -
[20] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:A whole bunch of stuff It takes less than 100m of catalysts to pop a freighter,
*sigh* arguing that something should be stronger because it's more expensive is just wrong. One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia |
|
Lucas Kell
JSR1 AND GOLDEN GUARDIAN PRODUCTIONS SpaceMonkey's Alliance
1202
|
Posted - 2013.10.08 11:40:00 -
[21] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:Given that almost all the ships in the game are balanced around having mods and rigs to think CCP couldn't pull off making freighters balanced around the same concept is stupidity on an epic level. QFT. It's an absolute nonsense argument. The idea that there's no possible way to balance it out, and that the addition of slots would automatically mean they were either drastically overpowered or drastically underpowered is ridiculous. The Indecisive Noob - A new EVE Fan Blog for news and stuff. |
Lucas Kell
JSR1 AND GOLDEN GUARDIAN PRODUCTIONS SpaceMonkey's Alliance
1202
|
Posted - 2013.10.08 11:43:00 -
[22] - Quote
Velicitia wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:A whole bunch of stuff It takes less than 100m of catalysts to pop a freighter, *sigh* arguing that something should be stronger because it's more expensive is just wrong. Yeah, because I mentioned the cost of the freighter in there didn't I? Idiot.
A freighter should be able to freight goods. The fact that an orca gets used for that, instead of a freighter due to a freighter being unreasonably weak has nothing to do with it's cost. 100m of catalysts is a low amount of isk to have to put on the line for a gank. Freighters, being the ships designed to transport high volumes of goods, should be designed with defense in mind. The Indecisive Noob - A new EVE Fan Blog for news and stuff. |
Silvetica Dian
Manson Family
155
|
Posted - 2013.10.08 12:07:00 -
[23] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:Given that almost all the ships in the game are balanced around having mods and rigs to think CCP couldn't pull off making freighters balanced around the same concept is stupidity on an epic level.
the irony of your signature has made my day. People have explained why you are wrong and you still can't see it. if freighters had normal fittings then both their cargo and HP would have to be nerfed hugely to avoid the possibility of either rediculous cargobays (preventing moving carriers and dreads to high sec is often mentioned) or the possibility for stupid high tanks on these ships. so you would either end up with a) possibility of insane tank b) possibility of insane high cargo c) possibility of neither a or b and thus a ship that is worse the current freighters either in terms of tank or cargo depending on how you fit it. d) there is no d.
almost no one wants a or b. c is a nerf. thus allowing them to fit modules will result in a nerf. i don't see how this can be made any easier to understand. |
Daichi Yamato
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
800
|
Posted - 2013.10.08 14:56:00 -
[24] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:A whole bunch of stuff All of this boils down to "onoes! cargo expanders!" this was already debunked. Freighters could easily be given a different bay, which can store the same as is now. This would make cargo expander utterly useless, like they are on barges, etc. Freighters are too easily ganked for their size. It takes less than 100m of catalysts to pop a freighter, so anyone shipping more than about 1b in a freighter is taking an enormous risk. This is why some many people use the orca to ship stuff. Clearly the fact that a mining support vessel is often being used instead of freighters shows there is a serious imbalance that needs to be addressed... Balancing freighter HP so that with a DC2 and a bulkheads 2, hull is at about 140% of the current EHP, with enough moved to shields and midslots to allow the choice between omnitank and specific tank to matter would just give them an edge over an orca for transport, as well as making it a more interesting ship. As it is at the moment, there's is flat math for the ganking of a freighter, you can literally look it up in a grid and know with certainty what the maximum EHP vs your weapons is.
so a freighter without the DC2 has tiny ehp? and has therefore been nerfed... OR a freighter with one DC2 and cargoexpanders has almost the same capacity, but a massive tank and is OP'd.
Rigs alone would be much easier to balance, but i have yet to see a thread that has asked for just rigs. u all want low slots so u can fit the OP'd DC2.
the value of the ship should NEVER determine how hard it is to gank. do u even realise the idiocy of that chain of thought? should interceptors and covert ops ships get massive EHP boosts because they can be ganked by catalysts, yet cost much more? hell no! There are no vets in EVE. Only varying levels of Noobery. |
Daichi Yamato
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
800
|
Posted - 2013.10.08 15:21:00 -
[25] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote: Freighters, being the ships designed to transport high volumes of goods, should be designed with defense in mind.
wut?
they were designed with capacity in mind. all other attributes; speed, durability, weapons, electronics etc were all sacrificed in the name of MOAR capacity. defense came after. and it still has the tank of a battleship...what more could u possibly need? There are no vets in EVE. Only varying levels of Noobery. |
Kara Trix
PVE Corporation
5
|
Posted - 2013.10.08 17:37:00 -
[26] - Quote
Freighters..... meh
They serve a purpose...
If you really want to add value to a Freighter, ......
MAKE A FREIGHTER LITE version,
1) Holds Less (300k) 2) Costs Less (500m) 3) Easier to Kill (relatively) (40% less EHP) 4) Maybe 5% faster
That's it. |
Matthew Charbonneaux
Coalescent Dynamics
5
|
Posted - 2013.10.08 19:30:00 -
[27] - Quote
Solution possibility: Instead of allowing to use general modules, create Freighter specific mid or low slot modules. (eliminates the use of DCs, invulns, or other tank items that unbalance the tanks.) Like the others below, make it a short term boost; hell, make it booster run, resistance based on the charge size (come up with a continuum between 2% and 20% or something. Someone else would have to determine what would be reasonable.) Have a set capacity that can take any size, but make it so they only have XX seconds per charge, and only one of the largest charge could fit. Not reloadable in space. NO REP ABILITY. This one could be dangerous as the cycle time compared to the response time of CONCORD would have to be worked out pretty heavily.
Solution possibility: Modify current resistances to more evenly cover all damage types, just not as good over all. This would amount to a nerf.
Solution possibility: grant high-slots, but only allow freighter specific versions of small or medium weapons that activate on being attacked. Give them large built in capacity (say 500 rounds of small or 250 medium), but no reloads in space. To prevent offensive use, make the ship selects target, not the pilot. To prevent use by AFK pilots, must be activated manually, and reactivated periodically. Keep number allowed small (4 or fewer) and DPS mild, but enough to make gankers decide if its really worth the trouble. (Give freighter pilots a safe feeling without being so OP that they are unreasonable; self escort you might call it.) This option, i would say needs to be debated as to merits, as I don't see to many issues with implementation, but someone else might.
Solution possibility: allow one mid-slot able to use a freighter specific ECM module that breaks all locks on the ship (prevent use as ECM bomber) within XX range (ships at long point range may be able to retain hold) against it for say 3-10seconds. Has to be manually activated, 1 min cool down. Make it unlike the Bursts in that it affects only locks on the ship, and doesn't attract CONCORD on use. Something like that BS thing they added a while ago. This option could cause havoc with gankers, and need balanced against CONCORD response times.
Solution Possibility: Start an escort service for freighters. We got all sorts of improved ships now, especially EAFs that could cause serious issues for gankers if they were implemented right. ECM works pretty well, too. This option could be implemented now... and realistically, while boring, can be worth it depending on cargo.
I can see that having Freighters have tanks like that of capital combat ships is completely stupid OP. It would also require more commitment to pop one. |
Wapu Kashuken
Serenity Rising LLC Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
47
|
Posted - 2013.10.08 22:12:00 -
[28] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote: Rigs alone would be much easier to balance, but i have yet to see a thread that has asked for just rigs. u all want low slots so u can fit the OP'd DC2.
re-read the op
Quote: Suggestion: give 1 or more mid/low/rig slots, but penalize hauling capability for each slot filled. My suggestions: - 2 mid, 2 low, 2 rig
|
Wapu Kashuken
Serenity Rising LLC Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
47
|
Posted - 2013.10.08 22:14:00 -
[29] - Quote
Kara Trix wrote:Freighters..... meh
They serve a purpose...
If you really want to add value to a Freighter, ......
MAKE A FREIGHTER LITE version,
1) Holds Less (300k) 2) Costs Less (500m) 3) Easier to Kill (relatively) (40% less EHP) 4) Maybe 5% faster
ORE could make it.... skills (ORE industrial V, Then Ore Freighter 1 to 5) Or make a special mod that turns an ORCA Maint. bay into a cargo bay.... now we're having fun.
That's it.
I would not be against this idea. I like the idea of a lite-frieghter fitted between an Orca & Freighter. That would be a separate discussion though as I'm sure there's more than enough 2-cents to be spent on that topic. |
Daichi Yamato
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
801
|
Posted - 2013.10.08 23:31:00 -
[30] - Quote
Wapu Kashuken wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote: Rigs alone would be much easier to balance, but i have yet to see a thread that has asked for just rigs. u all want low slots so u can fit the OP'd DC2.
re-read the op Quote: Suggestion: give 1 or more mid/low/rig slots, but penalize hauling capability for each slot filled. My suggestions: - 2 mid, 2 low, 2 rig
yeah i did, and read that u wanted low slots and said ur idea was awful like it really is.
honestly what would stop me from simply fitting a single DC2 and losing a slight amount of hauling capacity for a 150% improvement in my hull tank alone.
re-read the whole thread.
as for the light freighter, its an idea that has come up, and one ive supported and referred to everytime someone comes up with this ridiculous 'give freighters fittings' idea. There are no vets in EVE. Only varying levels of Noobery. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |