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) |
Alghara
Les chevaliers de l'ordre Goonswarm Federation
24
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:54:00 -
[2041] - Quote
look like really better this new draft |
Grenn Putubi
Swag Co. SWAG Co
53
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:56:00 -
[2042] - Quote
Can someone justify to me how altering all the freighters' tanks to rely more heavily on armor or shield and then giving all the freighters low slots but no mids is fair? It's going to provide a clear advantage to the armor tank freighters when they can forgo cargo space in favor of tank modules when traveling through dangerous space and the shield tank freighters can not.
I was fine with them getting rig slots because it would allow all the freighters to still compete on an even field, but giving low slots and no mids really changes the balance. If you're going to start giving the freighters module slots then you need to actually give them all slots they can use effectively.
Shield tank freighters should get at least 1 mid slot and 1 less low slot, then adjust their cargo holds so that they have greater base cargo space and end up competitive with the armor freighters using 3 cargo expanders while using only 2. |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
3650
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:58:00 -
[2043] - Quote
So with rigs I could fit 2x T2 and regain what I already had, plus gain a "utility" rig.
Now even that isn't possible.
Maybe it is just me, but I still don't see any point to all of this. I was happy with my fleet of Charons and Rheas as-is. |
Cardano Firesnake
Les chevaliers de l'ordre Goonswarm Federation
164
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:58:00 -
[2044] - Quote
Quite better than before! We will finally have fitting option on freighters. Thank you. |
MaraudR73
V0LTA Triumvirate.
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:58:00 -
[2045] - Quote
Thank you Fozzie for listening to the players!
I am still not very happy with align-time nerf on the Jump Freighters, but at least we have to option now to refit as we want without having to spend hundreds of millions on rigs that you cant change..
|
Tyr Dolorem
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:58:00 -
[2046] - Quote
Grenn Putubi wrote:Can someone justify to me how altering all the freighters' tanks to rely more heavily on armor or shield and then giving all the freighters low slots but no mids is fair? It's going to provide a clear advantage to the armor tank freighters when they can forgo cargo space in favor of tank modules when traveling through dangerous space and the shield tank freighters can not.
I was fine with them getting rig slots because it would allow all the freighters to still compete on an even field, but giving low slots and no mids really changes the balance. If you're going to start giving the freighters module slots then you need to actually give them all slots they can use effectively.
Shield tank freighters should get at least 1 mid slot and 1 less low slot, then adjust their cargo holds so that they have greater base cargo space and end up competitive with the armor freighters using 3 cargo expanders while using only 2.
I'm fairly sure bulkheads give more ehp than resist mods regardless of freighter race. |
Sven Viko VIkolander
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
222
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:59:00 -
[2047] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:TheMercenaryKing wrote:Love the new update, but one question, when will damage controls become passive mods? That indeed is a good question.
No greater nerf to ganking / would there ever be.
|
Retar Aveymone
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
383
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:00:00 -
[2048] - Quote
Kathtrine wrote:Why don't you just allow all fittings and rigs on them and let the players make up their minds on how to fit them? Though I am sure they will just be fit for fuel and cargo personally. Both of which I don't have a problem with. On this issue I see a lot of waffle and lack of time put it. I know you want to do something... but doing crappy things is not the answer. why don't we let frigates fit titan doomsdays and let the players make up their mind on if they should fit them |
Althalus Stenory
Flying Blacksmiths
18
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:01:00 -
[2049] - Quote
Providence and obelisk are fine as they are now (since they are armor) Fenrir and Charon should have 1 or 2 low slot, and at least 1 (or 2 if only 1 low) med slots for buffers.
Armor freighters can use adaptive nano, why the fenrir or charon couldn't use an invul ?
Anyway, i'm fine with the new rebalance :p (really better and more interesting than rigs) |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1083
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:02:00 -
[2050] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:So with rigs I could fit 2x T2 and regain what I already had, plus gain a "utility" rig. Now even that isn't possible. Maybe it is just me, but I still don't see any point to all of this. I was happy with my fleet of Charons and Rheas as-is.
They were changing anyway so we can;t have the superdupergood freighter we had.
Lowslots are better than rigs because it's not millions of ISK/refit. Scrapping T2 rigs because you need cargo or tank on a somewhat regular basic would of killed any profitability of owning a freighter. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22116
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:02:00 -
[2051] - Quote
Grenn Putubi wrote:Can someone justify to me how altering all the freighters' tanks to rely more heavily on armor or shield and then giving all the freighters low slots but no mids is fair? Largely because armour-tanking them still isn't particularly effective compared to hull tanking them.
Best-case scenario is that it buys you ~96k EHP, which should be compared to the ~171k you get if you go the hull route on the same ship. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1083
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:04:00 -
[2052] - Quote
Althalus Stenory wrote:Providence and obelisk are fine as they are now (since they are armor) Fenrir and Charon should have 1 or 2 low slot, and at least 1 (or 2 if only 1 low) med slots for buffers.
Armor freighters can use adaptive nano, why the fenrir or charon couldn't use an invul ?
Anyway, i'm fine with the new rebalance :p (really better and more interesting than rigs)
Use bulkheads for better results in any case. |
Brib Vogt
DC-centre Destiny's Call
45
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:06:00 -
[2053] - Quote
I don't like the whole bunch of changes.
You give all ships the ability of more tank but you decrease cargo hold right from the start. Additionally your bulkheads on the testserver have a 10% cargo penalty too. So tanky fits become even more nerfed cargo wise. And don't forgett the resuction of hull, which make the bulkheads nerfed 2 times.
cr.ap
I can understand the bulkhead change but why stripping the cargo capacity from the start. And why giving them such limited fitting possibilities. |
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
13
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:06:00 -
[2054] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Ok, new tables: GÇó New alignment times depending on base and a more balanced fit (red = worse than Rubicon, Green = better than rubicon). GÇó The full gamut of Tank vs. Cargo (red = worse than both base and Rubicon stats; yellow = better than Rubicon, worse than base; blue = better than base, worse than Rubicon; green = better than both). I haven't really done any other combos because the other sensible modules (CPR, istab, hacc) either have no effect at all or no effect that freighter pilots care about. tl;dr: the only ones who have anything to complain about anything anymore are gankersGǪ
How did you calculate your tanks? The base ehp seems rather high? |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
5245
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:07:00 -
[2055] - Quote
Sven Viko VIkolander wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:TheMercenaryKing wrote:Love the new update, but one question, when will damage controls become passive mods? That indeed is a good question. No greater nerf to ganking / would there ever be. Well I'm more excited about one less standard fit PvP module I have to activate after every single jump that originally was meant to be a passive module. Hopefully they can get drone control units to be passive as well. The Paradox |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
642
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:08:00 -
[2056] - Quote
Brib Vogt wrote: I can understand the bulkhead change but why stripping the cargo capacity from the start. And why giving them such limited fitting possibilities.
They have to reduce the cargo so that when people fit expanded cargoholds, the amount of cargo that freighters can carry does not explode out of control. It's the price you pay for customizability. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Brib Vogt
DC-centre Destiny's Call
45
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:08:00 -
[2057] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Althalus Stenory wrote:Providence and obelisk are fine as they are now (since they are armor) Fenrir and Charon should have 1 or 2 low slot, and at least 1 (or 2 if only 1 low) med slots for buffers.
Armor freighters can use adaptive nano, why the fenrir or charon couldn't use an invul ?
Anyway, i'm fine with the new rebalance :p (really better and more interesting than rigs) Use bulkheads for better results in any case.
No it is not. CCP reduced the hull hp significantly. Therefore bulkheads won't increase the hp much because they work percentage wise. Additionally one bulkhead reduces cargo hold capacity by 10% (TEST server) |
Brib Vogt
DC-centre Destiny's Call
45
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:09:00 -
[2058] - Quote
Querns wrote:Brib Vogt wrote: I can understand the bulkhead change but why stripping the cargo capacity from the start. And why giving them such limited fitting possibilities.
They have to reduce the cargo so that when people fit expanded cargoholds, the amount of cargo that freighters can carry does not explode out of control. It's the price you pay for customizability.
but why adding another cargo penalty on tanky fits? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22117
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:10:00 -
[2059] - Quote
Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:How did you calculate your tanks? The base ehp seems rather high? Sum of base shield/armour/hull HP +ù skill bonuses +ù -+ of Gêæ 1/(1-resist)
Brib Vogt wrote:No it is not. Yes it is, unless you start slapping deadspace or officer resists on them.
3+ù 15% resist bonus = ~48% more EHP on armour 3+ù 25% HP bonus = ~95% more EHP on hull.
In just one case will armour EHP be more than hull EHP, and even then, the difference in EHP increase makes quick work of that tiny gap. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
13
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:13:00 -
[2060] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Azami Nevinyrall wrote:Tippia wrote:Providence: 350k EHP + 383k m-¦ Ark: 577k EHP(!) + 118k m-¦ Any of these strike your fancy? Oh trust me, they do! Until I see *Final* numbers and on TQ, I'm not changing any skillque... Pff. What's this GÇ£being sensibleGÇ¥ stuff you're doing. Getoutahere! On a more serious note, these are the base tank stats I'm calculating from. Can anyone check to see if I've missed something because it doesn't seem like itGǪ These are the base stats from the OP, and the effective EHP for each tier includes skills at V (so +25% from Mechanics, Hull Upgrades, and Shield Mgt, and +50% for the JFs).
How are you calculating the sehp and aehp? those seem really off. Below was my ehp for each of the 4 damage types for the shield of the fenrir.
em 48000 therm 57600 kin 67200 exp 72000 |
|
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
378
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:16:00 -
[2061] - Quote
You can forget about ganking anshars alltogether 670k+ ehp. They can still carry well over 100k m3 at that ehp.
Base hp was increased too much, for everything.
EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
|
Legion40k
Boa Innovations Brothers of Tangra
77
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:16:00 -
[2062] - Quote
Mr Fozzie the revised changes are hereby APPROVEEEDDD
they make so much more sense
thanks!
\o/ |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22117
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:17:00 -
[2063] - Quote
Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:How are you calculating the sehp and aehp? those seem really off. Below was my ehp for each of the 4 damage types for the shield of the fenrir.
[GǪ]
edit: these were calculated with the following equation ehp = base+[base * (resist/100)] You've left out the 25% skill bonus. All my numbers are for all-V setups. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
marly cortez
Mercurialis Inc. RAZOR Alliance
42
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:17:00 -
[2064] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:addelee wrote: JF's are having their fuel usage increase by 50% in kronos.
This is not correct. The fuel change is currently scheduled for Crius.
Makes no odd's when you bring it in, it is just plain wrong headed for the so many reasons already mentioned in this thread, and how far you missed the mark as to how risk averse JF pilots are for the most part. Anything that detracts from logistics in this manner, from increased fuel costs to decreased cargo capacity will not get you what you want in terms of Null Sec industry expansion, taking into account all the other changes your proposing and have already slipped into game no one if they take the time to look at it as an overall picture of Null Sec operations will see all of this as anything other than one massive nerf fest perpetrated and spun off as being good for the game when in reality it's simple an attempt by the PvP lobby to turn Null Sec into a facsimile of Empire stupidity.
Were the thought came from that these things are used in fleets to provide defense I have no idea, again another one of those 'I thought it so it must be so', ideas, freighters rarely move in fleets defensive or otherwise, draws attention see...not good. suggest you study how it's done and ask why Null Sec Alliances do it that way, they are not in the business of allowing CCP or anyone for that matter to gank valuable ships and cargo no matter how much you might think it's fun to do.
all the other tinsel rubbish tinkering with Jump freighters and freighters is just that simply because if it gets caught it's going to die, make it as agile and as fast as in inty if you like, the results will still be the same, once pinned it's done for. so why bother in the first place, nothing in these changes is good news and overall it smacks of change because you have nothing better to do.
Tackle Sov, take on the PoS monster, PoCo's and PI click fests all items already long flagged as game detractors and stop tinkering with stuff that already works and works well |
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
293
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:18:00 -
[2065] - Quote
Althalus Stenory wrote:Providence and obelisk are fine as they are now (since they are armor) Fenrir and Charon should have 1 or 2 low slot, and at least 1 (or 2 if only 1 low) med slots for buffers.
Armor freighters can use adaptive nano, why the fenrir or charon couldn't use an invul ?
Anyway, i'm fine with the new rebalance :p (really better and more interesting than rigs)
Minimum CPU needed for invuls is 27 tf (caldari/DG/gistum C-type). Aside from the DCUII (which is 30 tf), all DCUs need less than that. Stick with bulkheads as far as tank mods are concerned anyways, you get much better EHP values in both armor and shield freighters. |
Moloney
Noob Mercs Monkeys with Guns.
61
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:18:00 -
[2066] - Quote
Just forget the change all together please. There is nothing interesting about a one trick poney getting nerfed into the ground.
Only change needed: NONE.
Only nerf needed: NONE.
purpose of freighter is to get stuff from point A to B. Leave it alone! |
Brib Vogt
DC-centre Destiny's Call
45
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:18:00 -
[2067] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:How did you calculate your tanks? The base ehp seems rather high? Sum of base shield/armour/hull HP +ù skill bonuses +ù -+ of Gêæ 1/(1-resist) Brib Vogt wrote:No it is not. Yes it is, unless you start slapping deadspace or officer resists on them. 3+ù 15% resist bonus = ~48% more EHP on armour 3+ù 25% HP bonus = ~95% more EHP on hull. In just one case will armour EHP be more than hull EHP, and even then, the difference in EHP increase makes quick work of that tiny gap.
your numbers are correct. but "Use bulkheads for better results in any case." is still not true because you would end up in -30% cargo capacity for a freighter! |
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
13
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:18:00 -
[2068] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:How did you calculate your tanks? The base ehp seems rather high? Sum of base shield/armour/hull HP +ù skill bonuses +ù -+ of Gêæ 1/(1-resist) Brib Vogt wrote:No it is not. Yes it is, unless you start slapping deadspace or officer resists on them. 3+ù 15% resist bonus = ~48% more EHP on armour 3+ù 25% HP bonus = ~95% more EHP on hull. In just one case will armour EHP be more than hull EHP, and even then, the difference in EHP increase makes quick work of that tiny gap.
ahh ok now i got it. You're doubling the effect of the resists. a 50% resist for example in your equation would give a 100% bonus to hp.
|
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1084
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:18:00 -
[2069] - Quote
Brib Vogt wrote:Querns wrote:Brib Vogt wrote: I can understand the bulkhead change but why stripping the cargo capacity from the start. And why giving them such limited fitting possibilities.
They have to reduce the cargo so that when people fit expanded cargoholds, the amount of cargo that freighters can carry does not explode out of control. It's the price you pay for customizability. but why adding another cargo penalty on tanky fits?
Because they are trade-off. |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
3650
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:19:00 -
[2070] - Quote
Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:Tippia wrote:Azami Nevinyrall wrote:Tippia wrote:Providence: 350k EHP + 383k m-¦ Ark: 577k EHP(!) + 118k m-¦ Any of these strike your fancy? Oh trust me, they do! Until I see *Final* numbers and on TQ, I'm not changing any skillque... Pff. What's this GÇ£being sensibleGÇ¥ stuff you're doing. Getoutahere! On a more serious note, these are the base tank stats I'm calculating from. Can anyone check to see if I've missed something because it doesn't seem like itGǪ These are the base stats from the OP, and the effective EHP for each tier includes skills at V (so +25% from Mechanics, Hull Upgrades, and Shield Mgt, and +50% for the JFs). How are you calculating the sehp and aehp? those seem really off. Below was my ehp for each of the 4 damage types for the shield of the fenrir. em 48000 therm 57600 kin 67200 exp 72000 edit: these were calculated with the following equation ehp = base+[base * (resist/100)] EHP = base / (1 - Resist Percent) |
|
|
|
|
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 |