Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 .. 94 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 29 post(s) |
Peter Powers
Terrorists of Dimensions Free 2 Play
236
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 08:02:00 -
[601] - Quote
whats up with that align time nerf? i don't get why this is comming. 3rdPartyEve.net - your catalogue for 3rd party applications |
Gumpy Bitterhawk
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 08:03:00 -
[602] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Gumpy Bitterhawk wrote:Mag's wrote:We had to put up with some quite distasteful abuse, when we were informing those that asked for this change. In almost each and every thread that came along. So excuse me for laughing at your request and saying the following.
Told you so. So, what you are trying to say is, you got trolled, and thats a good excuse to **** up the thread with 'i told you so' **** every 2 or so posts? Get out. You may wish to label the ones asking for this change, trolls. Seeing the reaction to the changes we predicted, you may indeed be correct. Which only goes to make this change even funnier. We told you so.
The only troll i see here is you. |
Kumiko Kawasumi
Helios Alliance Tactical Narcotics Team
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 08:04:00 -
[603] - Quote
13 Like for this post ?????????????????????? 13 like vs 500 unlike`s..............
Die save and slow
MFG |
Mag's
the united
17254
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 08:06:00 -
[604] - Quote
Gumpy Bitterhawk wrote:Mag's wrote:You may wish to label the ones asking for this change, trolls. Seeing the reaction to the changes we predicted, you may indeed be correct. Which only goes to make this change even funnier.
We told you so. The only troll i see here is you. That's OK, I'm used to it. We got a lot of that in threads where we warned people, asking for a change like this.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
46
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 08:08:00 -
[605] - Quote
Nex Killer wrote:Dirk MacGirk wrote:Nex Killer wrote:Nex Killer wrote:I have a question about this change the Charon is losing about 30% of its base cargo correct? So does that mean in the BPO is it going to use 30% less capital Cargo Bays? So from needing 105 to only needing 74? Because I think that is only fair with this change and it makes sense. In hopes of Fozzie seeing this. LOL are you serious? Like, seriously serious. Build requirements don't go down. Not for supers or titans or anything Yes I'm serious. Why is that crazy? Build requirements have changed in the past with other ships I don't see why they can't change for capital when is such a dramatic change like this. If freighters were only losing like 5% base cargo fine you wouldn't have to change anything, but they are losing 27-30% of their old base. That is a crazy amount seeing how half of the build requirement for a freighters is capital cargo bays. If supercarriers were to lose 30% of their drone bay I would expect to see a reduction in their build requirements of drone cargo bays. If they were to lower the capital cargo bays required to build a freighter you'll save about ~260M in build costs and hopefully lowering the sell price a little for people. With that saved isk they can go buy some rigs, but at the moment there isn't a reason to even put rigs on fighters because the rigs themselves cost to much. Tau Cabalander explains it very well:
I just asked if you were serious, not because there isn't logic. But it's the same logic used when they nerfed supers and titans and nothing about the build costs there changed. In fact, I'm not sure build costs have ever gone down. Just up i.e. tiercide. I could be wrong though. |
Kumiko Kawasumi
Helios Alliance Tactical Narcotics Team
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 08:09:00 -
[606] - Quote
Why we need enemies, we have ccp and Stuff......................
Die save and slow
MFG |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
9918
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 08:11:00 -
[607] - Quote
I liked it when you said you wanted to make it better to live in null. Then you made changes that promise to increase the cost of basically anything if I want to buy it here instead of flying to Jita whenever I want something. GF.
I don't fly freighters or JF, probably never will, and this is bullshit. I never asked for rigs. I vaguely remember saying it was a bad idea. "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
Cheng Chai
Random Awesome Holding Corp
4
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 08:14:00 -
[608] - Quote
For jump freighters I applause these changes, maybe they don't even go far enough.
For normal freighters I strongly disagree with the substantial tank nerf. Every 15yo can box 20 catalysts with some ****** cracked software nowadays, give those big whales at least some kind of protection. |
Vhelnik Cojoin
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
49
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 08:14:00 -
[609] - Quote
I hope people didn't want those NullSec supercap wrecking ball fleets anyway?
The proposed freighter nerf is another alteration to HiSec mining, which just helps making the future of industry in EVE even more unpredictable after the industry expansion launches:
*) NullSec cap manufacturers will only want compressed ore, which in HiSec can only be manufactured at a POS. Uncompressed minerals will only be of interest to local manufacturers.
*) The full mineral supply from reprocessed HiSec mission loot will be removed from the NullSec cap and supercap supply chain, as compressed ore cannot be made from minerals, only raw ore.
*) Cost of POS fuel is likely to increase noticeably due to everybody now wanting and being able to anchor a POS in HiSec. No way to predict if PI can increase production to compensate for increased demand, now that there is a hard cap on the amount of belt ice available for harvesting per time.
*) Changes apparently considered by CCP to limit occupation of moons by offline POSes may result in needing to always keep the compression POS online. This would incur a serious and fixed cost per month for POS fuel. For small mining ops it may be more beneficial to ignore the POS altogether and just take the price hit from selling refined minerals or raw ore to HiSec manufacturers / 'ore compression specialists'.
*) Having a POS makes you vulnerable to wardecs. These can be dodged, of course, yet this creates inefficiency due to the time wasted in moving the POS.
*) Moving uncompressed minerals - and Tritanium - was one of the few 'reasonable' uses for the full cargo capacity of a T1 freighter. The freighter nerf means that either: - Miners are now more limited in the distance they can mine from their compression POS, reducing mobility, if the freighter is rigged for tank. Thus increasing inefficiency due to competition from other miners - and suicide gankers. - Rigging for cargo means lower EHP and higher overall cost in case of ship loss, increasing the risk of being suicide ganked 'for the lulz'. Overall this statistically increases the cost of running a mining op, reducing profits.
*) The reliance of a compression POS means you either need to mine within a reasonable distance (in jumps) from it, or need to spend time moving the POS along with your mining op. Doing either reduces efficiency.
*) The cost of mining increases due to added consumption of mining crystals, caused by a change in hull bonuses from mining yield to cycle timing.
*) The yield from the Mackinaw is nerfed, and due to its limited ore bay size the buffed Hulk is a right bother to use for fleet mining ops when multi-boxing .
The combined effect on the mineral supply of all these changes will be ... 'interesting' to watch for sure. CCP devs never heard of compound interests...? Have you Communicated with your fellow capsuleers today? It is good for the EVE-oconomy and o-kay for you. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
9918
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 08:15:00 -
[610] - Quote
Also sticking it to retards who did ask for this is not a good reason to support this change because it's going to hurt a lot of people who didn't (and who don't even fly these ships at all).
It's just going to make living in remote areas of space suck harder than it does already. "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
|
Wattwatt
Common Sense Ltd Nulli Secunda
2
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 08:16:00 -
[611] - Quote
These nerfs are pretty ridiculous. You all use fanfest for feed back. You mentioned the rigs you should have said something of the nerf and listened to feed back. Prolly one of the poorest changes you are doing in kronos... I would assume you are adding the rigs to try and find a way to increase the use a salvage to increase the aspect of a profession of salvaging, its a poor attempt I feel. |
Dave Stark
5736
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 08:17:00 -
[612] - Quote
Cheng Chai wrote:give those big whales at least some kind of protection. such as the ability to fit tanking rigs? |
Dave Stark
5736
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 08:18:00 -
[613] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Also sticking it to retards who did ask for this is not a good reason to support this change because it's going to hurt a lot of people who didn't (and who don't even fly these ships at all).
i agree, these changes are in nobody's interest. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
690
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 08:21:00 -
[614] - Quote
are rigs ever going to get properly balanced? they're pretty horrible compared to what they were intended to be. |
Chinicata Shihari
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
28
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 08:25:00 -
[615] - Quote
Nex Killer wrote:Dirk MacGirk wrote:Nex Killer wrote:Nex Killer wrote:I have a question about this change the Charon is losing about 30% of its base cargo correct? So does that mean in the BPO is it going to use 30% less capital Cargo Bays? So from needing 105 to only needing 74? Because I think that is only fair with this change and it makes sense. In hopes of Fozzie seeing this. LOL are you serious? Like, seriously serious. Build requirements don't go down. Not for supers or titans or anything Yes I'm serious. Why is that crazy? Build requirements have changed in the past with other ships I don't see why they can't change for capital when is such a dramatic change like this. If freighters were only losing like 5% base cargo fine you wouldn't have to change anything, but they are losing 27-30% of their old base. That is a crazy amount seeing how half of the build requirement for a freighters is capital cargo bays. If supercarriers were to lose 30% of their drone bay I would expect to see a reduction in their build requirements of drone cargo bays. If they were to lower the capital cargo bays required to build a freighter you'll save about ~260M in build costs and hopefully lowering the sell price a little for people. With that saved isk they can go buy some rigs, but at the moment there isn't a reason to even put rigs on fighters because the rigs themselves cost to much. Tau Cabalander explains it very well: Tau Cabalander wrote:I was looking forward to the ADDED CHOICE these changes would bring, but instead they REMOVE CHOICEPre-Kronos Charon: 785,000 Post-Kronos Charon: 550,000 Post-Kronos Rigs: Rig 1: No choice GåÆ Capital Cargohold Optimization II (20% for 660,000), -150 Calibration Rig 2: No choice GåÆ Capital Cargohold Optimization II (20% for 792,000), -150 Calibration Rig 3: Limited Choice GåÆ 100 Calibration Cost: 1.45 billion ISK at current market prices [likely higher post-Kronos], more than the Charon itself!, Can't fit a structure rig in the optional slot, as it will reduce cargohold /facepalm I told you that was a bad idea for a drawback.The only logical possibility is a Capital Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer I or II. Now hopefully the price of rigs will go down a few with more people building them. But as of right now there isn't a real reason for people to buy 1.45B in rigs when they could buy a new freighter if they got ganked. Lowering the build price for a freighter and the lowering price of rigs will hopefully get people using rigs on their freighters.
I love how you insist you require T2 cargo rigs. You don't just fit 3 t1's that'll push you over the edge. A
Secondly the reason we pushed for cargo to be the penalty was because why you a freighter become tanky and carry alot. If you improve its weakest ability you should nerf its strongest ability. Simple |
Resgo
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
46
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 08:32:00 -
[616] - Quote
Fozzie, How about changing that +5% Maximum Velocity per level bonus on the freighters to a +5% Warp Speed per level bonus? |
K1netic
Spartan Industries
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 08:35:00 -
[617] - Quote
plz add jump fuel conservation rigs and implants Fozzie come on!! |
Stalker ofeveryone
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
24
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 08:38:00 -
[618] - Quote
http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/MichealJacksonPopcorn.gif |
Ammzi
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
1762
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 08:43:00 -
[619] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:baltec1 wrote:Dealin'lak wrote:Gotta appreciate the irony....
1- Use Fanfest to announce the "Awesome addition of rigs to Freighters and Jump Freighters".
2- Get everybody hyped up and expecting a nice addition for their ships.
3- Eventually come out saying that those "awesome additions" to Freighters and Jump Freighters hide what is actually an "intended" (to quote CCP Fozzie) nerf....
It's a REAL sad day when you realize politicians could learn a trick or two from CCP :( Cant blaim CCP for people thinking they would add rigs without nerfing the freighters to keep them balanced. They were warned this would happen. baltec - seriously does it matter if some players were warned by a handful of other players? Can we just stipulate for the record that a few people knew the outcome and were proven right. Yes, you were right. Dave was right, Trip was right. I completely agree some of you were involved in previous threads combating the idiots. You should get a medal from everyone else.
I am pretty sure you can dig up every single "buff freighter, give them rigs/modules" thread in the past 12 months and EVERY single one of them will have the "CCP could do that, but they would take something away to counter - is that what you want?"
That is not "some players, warned by handful of others". That is every single on-this-forum advocate being warned about it. ~told you so~ |
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
292
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 08:44:00 -
[620] - Quote
So, since we are doing this to freighters/JFs, when can we expect shuttles and pods getting rigs?
P.S., the sad thing is that I'm actually somewhat serious about this question, judging by what I've read/seen happen to this game over the 4 years I've been playing. |
|
Stalker ofeveryone
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
24
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 08:48:00 -
[621] - Quote
Sobaan Tali wrote:So, since we are doing this to freighters/JFs, when can we expect shuttles and pods getting rigs?
P.S., the sad thing is that I'm actually somewhat serious about this question, judging by what I've read/seen happen to this game over the 4 years I've been playing.
Is that a subtle backhand to CCP? "If you're gonna **** up freighters, you may as well do it to pods/shuttles rabble rabble" |
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
293
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 08:57:00 -
[622] - Quote
I'm just being honest (brutally) in what I think about this, and they did ask for what we think about this. I'm just trying to understand the logic, even if it sounds more like I'm questioning or challenging the logic. |
Dave Stark
5736
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 08:59:00 -
[623] - Quote
Stalker ofeveryone wrote:Sobaan Tali wrote:So, since we are doing this to freighters/JFs, when can we expect shuttles and pods getting rigs?
P.S., the sad thing is that I'm actually somewhat serious about this question, judging by what I've read/seen happen to this game over the 4 years I've been playing. Is that a subtle backhand to CCP? "If you're gonna **** up freighters, you may as well do it to pods/shuttles rabble rabble"
let's face it, an ehp nerf and a cargo nerf would be irrelevant to shuttles, so small rigs for speed would be a no brainer and a straight buff.
probably the only case where this type of change would be wanted. |
Kaius Fero
45
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 09:01:00 -
[624] - Quote
How about stop the "I told you!" shiatposts and start doing something to stop this madness?
I hate ganking, but If this idiocy will hit TQ I will start bumping day and night every freighter that will pass Uedama and Niarja until people will stop hauling and all industry will go to hell. |
Dave Stark
5736
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 09:06:00 -
[625] - Quote
Kaius Fero wrote:I hate ganking, but If this idiocy will hit TQ I will start bumping day and night every freighter that will pass Uedama and Niarja until people will stop hauling and all industry will go to hell.
i like that you're ambitious, but i think bumping freighters in 1 high sec system isn't likely to cause a shutdown of industry. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
880
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 09:17:00 -
[626] - Quote
I am really digging the tears in this thread. And I fly freighters. Its just that EVE is better and more entertaining when they are getting popped on a regular basis by gankers.
After Burn Jita, carebears were eagerly expecting a 2012 'mining barge' style rebalance: massive upside, no downside.
Then, cry, cry, cry, and he waterworks fire up when the rebalance turns out to be neutral/mild nerf.
The important thing is that no configuration of rigs allows a freighter to have stats strictly superior to what they are today. Now you get to pick (at a cost) - slightly better cargo, more gankable - or jump-freighter EHP and really Orca/JF cargospace.
Capital rigs is the right way to go, as the Freighters use capital components, and forces the freighter pilots to commit to a configuration. If you want to change your stats, it comes at a cost - sounds balanced.
When Orca gets its balance pass it should be adjusted to use capital rigs as well to keep things consistent. |
Esur A'saw Ti
Wont To Buy
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 09:19:00 -
[627] - Quote
fug |
Dave Stark
5736
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 09:22:00 -
[628] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:When Orca gets its balance pass it should be adjusted to use capital rigs as well to keep things consistent. i'd put money on that not happening.
as some one pointed out to me this morning; the show info panel of freighters says that they primarily use XL modules, where as on the orca's show info panel it says Large modules.
having said that; it does require capital ship construction skill, and capital components so i guess there's an argument for both. |
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
152
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 09:27:00 -
[629] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Tippia wrote:SeeGǪ there was a reason why I was against rigs on freighters from the very startGǪ T2 capital rigs and a significant reduction in survivability requried and/or speed to get them back to where they were. Gee thanks. T1 rigs are easily enough to bring normal freighters above their current cargo values.
Regarding industry changes across the board it did appear initially that gankers were getting a nerf. I'm thinking more in terms of changes to mining vessels with that statement.
But from other aspects with the increase to signature radius on POS towers and 'outside' POS defences and now potentially less survivability for freighters if they wish to keep similar cargo holds I've changed my mind.
On balance it seems to be an unnecessary and bad change still. Would be better to leave freighters & jump freighters where they are presently. |
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
152
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 09:35:00 -
[630] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote:When Orca gets its balance pass it should be adjusted to use capital rigs as well to keep things consistent. i'd put money on that not happening. as some one pointed out to me this morning; the show info panel of freighters says that they primarily use XL modules, where as on the orca's show info panel it says Large modules. having said that; it does require capital ship construction skill, and capital components so i guess there's an argument for both.
I hadn't thought about that. It only gets worse doesn't it. Meanwhile heaps of broken elements of the game eg roles & permissions, POSes, lowsec, FW etc do not get any attention.
I'm not sure it would be balanced to reduce EHP on Orca though as they would, due to having module slots and therefore probably having a bulkhead module fitted, take an even greater hit in terms of cargo capacity and EHP.
This happens when the wrong people are taken notice of......... |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 .. 94 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |