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) |
Kalnoch
LazyBoyz Band of Recreational Flyers The East India Co.
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:50:00 -
[2101] - Quote
Captain StringfellowHawk wrote:Cool... so I can push the armor tank on a Freighter... But the shield tankers get Shafted.... :P More Power to gallente ships!
Did you even bother looking at the fitting? You can't fit any sort of tank module on any of them. Can't even fit a DC 2.
EDIT: Missed the Resistance Plating, nevermind :( |
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
293
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:50:00 -
[2102] - Quote
Walter Hart White wrote:My main issue now is that you can't shield tank freighter but you can armor tank...
Now try hull tanking either. The EHP potential difference between Providence/Obelisk - Charon/Fenrir is not as bad as it sounds. |
Shizuken
Venerated Stars
291
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:50:00 -
[2103] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
The base cargo capacity of Freighters is being decreased so that a set of three Tech Two Expanded Cargoholds adds 21-25% cargo above the previous maximum values. For Jump Freighters, three T2 Expanders will increase cargo capacity by 1-2%. This means that Freighters can get significantly higher maximum capacity than before using modules, and we're increasing the volume of packaged capital ships (to 1.3 million m3) and unpackaged station containers (to 2 million m3) to compensate.
I am still not sure why CCP is so afraid of caps in highsec, especially even unassembled ones. It would make trading them easier. |
Draconus Lofwyr
UK Corp RAZOR Alliance
102
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:51:00 -
[2104] - Quote
for the most part, these are much better changes than the original rig proposal, i do have one small issue with the change in regards to the jump freighter cargo space reduction.
with the proposed changes, a fully tanked jump freighter cargo is reduced below the standard hold space of a cargo expanded rorqual. and the rorqual has much higher ability to active tank than a jump freighter with many more fitting options and a lower jump fuel usage. there may need to be some minor tweaks on the jump freighter to make it competitive for use such as a bonus that reduces cargo space penalty on re-enforced bulkheads to keep their utility viable. As it is, with the ore compression changes, the rorqual will already be more advantageous for carrying compressed ore due to the 250k ore hold on top of the 170k of normal storage potential. |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
33
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:51:00 -
[2105] - Quote
Kalnoch wrote:Captain StringfellowHawk wrote:Cool... so I can push the armor tank on a Freighter... But the shield tankers get Shafted.... :P More Power to gallente ships! Did you even bother looking at the fitting? You can't fit any sort of tank module on any of them. Can't even fit a DC 2. Read Fozzies OP again. Read it aloud. Tank example is written right there. |
Valterra Craven
248
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:52:00 -
[2106] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Walter Hart White wrote:My main issue now is that you can't shield tank freighter but you can armor tank... The question is, why would you want to do either?
To boost tank a marginal amount without having to loose what cargo is left after the re balance.... |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22118
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:53:00 -
[2107] - Quote
Vincintius Agrippa wrote:Pay closer attention to what I was trying to say, 1. This game isnt solely about pvp. Never has, Never should be. I doubt anyone would enjoy the game if it was full of nuthing but gankers, greifers, and blobs. Once again its SANDBOX, make of it as you will. 2. Non pvp'ers and non pvp activities ARE the backbone of this game. For, if no one is building and no one is mining, what do you fight in? Capsules? Likewise, Pvp is also a backbone because they buy a significant amount of the things being built. 3. Mining: Carebear activity Missioning: Carebear Activity, Market trading carebear activity. Regardless of where and how you choose to do so. Most of which Is done with alts I assume. 4. Neither you or your alts is mining, missioning, or trading 23hrs a day 7 days a week like carebears in highsec. Or, any more than a few hours a day. If your are its afk. If its afk your a carebear just like the guys in highsec. If you arent, your still a carebear because your mining all day. 5. Your isk alts don't count. 6. Mining in nullsec doesnt make you not a carebear. 7 Missioning in null sec does not make you not a carebear.
8. Major alliances don't count because all of that mining and missioning happens in their space. So all those alts are "secure" so to speak. A few problems with all that, though.
1. Everything in the game is subject to PvP. Everything is a competition against other players in one form or another. It must be full PvP exactly because it's a sandbox. Being a sandbox doesn't mean you get to do what you want; it means everyone gets to do what they want, which includes doing stuff to you that you don't want them to do. The only way for you to be able to do what you want is to force your will onto other players. It's your will (a player) versus someone else's will (a player) GÇö PvP. 2. You are confusing non-combat with non-pvp. Even the non-combat activities in EVE are PvP due to the competition and opposition you face from other players. 3. Just because an activity can be done by carebears doesn't mean it's a carebear activity. Carbear is a mindset, not an activity. All of the things you listed are PvP-based activities that carebears happen to like because they don't blow up so much when doing them. The people who control those activities, though, are PvPers through and through. They are out to beat you. 4GÇô7. The activity does not determine the carebear GÇö the mindset does.
Quote:Long story short, Carebearing supports eve. No matteer how you try to disguise it. End of discussion. No. Industry and combat supports EVE and come together in the engine that is the market. Neither can exist without the other. Carebears are utterly irrelevant to the equation since the activities can and will go on without them.
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. |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
33
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:53:00 -
[2108] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Walter Hart White wrote:My main issue now is that you can't shield tank freighter but you can armor tank... The question is, why would you want to do either? Because DCU2 is ******. |
Celly S
Concord Attraction Services The Ditanian Alliance
270
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:54:00 -
[2109] - Quote
Dersen Lowery wrote: They're already used to taking measures to avoid getting caught
^^This^^
as well as what the other poster said about freighters and fleets.
I almost never tell anyone when I'm flying my JF until after I'm where I need to be... like my hairdresser, "only my cyno alt knows for sure"
o/ Celly Smunt
Don't mistake fact for arrogance, supposition for fact, or disagreement for dismissal. Perception is unique in that it can be shared or be singular. Run with the pack if you wish, but think for yourself. A sandwich can be a great motivator. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
75
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:55:00 -
[2110] - Quote
Draconus Lofwyr wrote:for the most part, these are much better changes than the original rig proposal, i do have one small issue with the change in regards to the jump freighter cargo space reduction.
with the proposed changes, a fully tanked jump freighter cargo is reduced below the standard hold space of a cargo expanded rorqual. and the rorqual has much higher ability to active tank than a jump freighter with many more fitting options and a lower jump fuel usage. there may need to be some minor tweaks on the jump freighter to make it competitive for use such as a bonus that reduces cargo space penalty on re-enforced bulkheads to keep their utility viable. As it is, with the ore compression changes, the rorqual will already be more advantageous for carrying compressed ore due to the 250k ore hold on top of the 170k of normal storage potential.
Then your option would be to use a Rorqual in that case. Especially when talking about hauling ore, Rorquals have always been a better choice. Unless of course you need to go into hisec or through a gate. |
|
TigerXtrm
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
692
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:56:00 -
[2111] - Quote
Lol @ all the capital rig speculants
But thanks for taking a second look at stuff based on our feedback instead of pushing it through anyway. I've noticed this has become a thing for CCP more and more and I like it a lot, so keep it up. My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things! |
Draconus Lofwyr
UK Corp RAZOR Alliance
102
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:57:00 -
[2112] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:Draconus Lofwyr wrote:for the most part, these are much better changes than the original rig proposal, i do have one small issue with the change in regards to the jump freighter cargo space reduction.
with the proposed changes, a fully tanked jump freighter cargo is reduced below the standard hold space of a cargo expanded rorqual. and the rorqual has much higher ability to active tank than a jump freighter with many more fitting options and a lower jump fuel usage. there may need to be some minor tweaks on the jump freighter to make it competitive for use such as a bonus that reduces cargo space penalty on re-enforced bulkheads to keep their utility viable. As it is, with the ore compression changes, the rorqual will already be more advantageous for carrying compressed ore due to the 250k ore hold on top of the 170k of normal storage potential. Then your option would be to use a Rorqual in that case. Especially when talking about hauling ore, Rorquals have always been a better choice. Unless of course you need to go into hisec or through a gate.
i plan on it as i have both options, i just wanted to bring it up as something to be considered and is this working as intended. is this a part of what CCP mentioned about increasing the uses of the rorqual in previous industry changes posts. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
75
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:04:00 -
[2113] - Quote
Draconus Lofwyr wrote:Dirk MacGirk wrote:Draconus Lofwyr wrote:for the most part, these are much better changes than the original rig proposal, i do have one small issue with the change in regards to the jump freighter cargo space reduction.
with the proposed changes, a fully tanked jump freighter cargo is reduced below the standard hold space of a cargo expanded rorqual. and the rorqual has much higher ability to active tank than a jump freighter with many more fitting options and a lower jump fuel usage. there may need to be some minor tweaks on the jump freighter to make it competitive for use such as a bonus that reduces cargo space penalty on re-enforced bulkheads to keep their utility viable. As it is, with the ore compression changes, the rorqual will already be more advantageous for carrying compressed ore due to the 250k ore hold on top of the 170k of normal storage potential. Then your option would be to use a Rorqual in that case. Especially when talking about hauling ore, Rorquals have always been a better choice. Unless of course you need to go into hisec or through a gate. i plan on it as i have both options, i just wanted to bring it up as something to be considered and is this working as intended. is this a part of what CCP mentioned about increasing the uses of the rorqual in previous industry changes posts.
No, I wouldn't think so. Those changes are different. The rorqual just naturally has an advantage when it comes to hauling ore. Even today JF's can't carry as much ore as a fully expanded rorqual (250k + 126k + 30k). The rorq also uses less fuel, so if hauling ore from A to B, it's probably the better choice all around anyway. Except for that hisec and gate thing. |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
130
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:08:00 -
[2114] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:Draconus Lofwyr wrote:Dirk MacGirk wrote:Draconus Lofwyr wrote:for the most part, these are much better changes than the original rig proposal, i do have one small issue with the change in regards to the jump freighter cargo space reduction.
with the proposed changes, a fully tanked jump freighter cargo is reduced below the standard hold space of a cargo expanded rorqual. and the rorqual has much higher ability to active tank than a jump freighter with many more fitting options and a lower jump fuel usage. there may need to be some minor tweaks on the jump freighter to make it competitive for use such as a bonus that reduces cargo space penalty on re-enforced bulkheads to keep their utility viable. As it is, with the ore compression changes, the rorqual will already be more advantageous for carrying compressed ore due to the 250k ore hold on top of the 170k of normal storage potential. Then your option would be to use a Rorqual in that case. Especially when talking about hauling ore, Rorquals have always been a better choice. Unless of course you need to go into hisec or through a gate. i plan on it as i have both options, i just wanted to bring it up as something to be considered and is this working as intended. is this a part of what CCP mentioned about increasing the uses of the rorqual in previous industry changes posts. No, I wouldn't think so. Those changes are different. The rorqual just naturally has an advantage when it comes to hauling ore. Even today JF's can't carry as much ore as a fully expanded rorqual (250k + 126k + 30k). The rorq also uses less fuel, so if hauling ore from A to B, it's probably the better choice all around anyway. Except for that hisec and gate thing.
If you are producing super capitals, you will still just titan bridge a freighter full of compressed ore. The Rorq is still the aborted step child when it comes to hauling stuff (tbh if they removed the restrictions on what can go into the ship maintenance array, then you would see a lot more of them). |
Alexis Nightwish
State War Academy Caldari State
9
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:09:00 -
[2115] - 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 Thanks for the tables. I personally think the numbers look great.
If gankers complain they can HTFU and equip a ship scanner. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
75
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:13:00 -
[2116] - Quote
Allison A'vani wrote:Dirk MacGirk wrote:Draconus Lofwyr wrote:Dirk MacGirk wrote:Draconus Lofwyr wrote:for the most part, these are much better changes than the original rig proposal, i do have one small issue with the change in regards to the jump freighter cargo space reduction.
with the proposed changes, a fully tanked jump freighter cargo is reduced below the standard hold space of a cargo expanded rorqual. and the rorqual has much higher ability to active tank than a jump freighter with many more fitting options and a lower jump fuel usage. there may need to be some minor tweaks on the jump freighter to make it competitive for use such as a bonus that reduces cargo space penalty on re-enforced bulkheads to keep their utility viable. As it is, with the ore compression changes, the rorqual will already be more advantageous for carrying compressed ore due to the 250k ore hold on top of the 170k of normal storage potential. Then your option would be to use a Rorqual in that case. Especially when talking about hauling ore, Rorquals have always been a better choice. Unless of course you need to go into hisec or through a gate. i plan on it as i have both options, i just wanted to bring it up as something to be considered and is this working as intended. is this a part of what CCP mentioned about increasing the uses of the rorqual in previous industry changes posts. No, I wouldn't think so. Those changes are different. The rorqual just naturally has an advantage when it comes to hauling ore. Even today JF's can't carry as much ore as a fully expanded rorqual (250k + 126k + 30k). The rorq also uses less fuel, so if hauling ore from A to B, it's probably the better choice all around anyway. Except for that hisec and gate thing. If you are producing super capitals, you will still just titan bridge a freighter full of compressed ore. The Rorq is still the aborted step child when it comes to hauling stuff (tbh if they removed the restrictions on what can go into the ship maintenance array, then you would see a lot more of them).
Yeah no doubt. Lots of things change when you start talking about the ore required for supers in the future. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6443
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:15:00 -
[2117] - Quote
Alexis Nightwish wrote:Thanks for the tables. I personally think the numbers look great. If gankers complain they can HTFU and equip a ship scanner.
The fact that anyone thinks they can say that in this thread, where the freighter pilots literally just cried their way to an EHP buff, is beyond hilarious.
People like you don't get to talk about HTFU, you don't even know what it is. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
10022
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:16:00 -
[2118] - Quote
Walter Hart White wrote:My main issue now is that you can't shield tank freighter but you can armor tank... No you can't. Go back and look at the modules that you can fit. "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
126
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:18:00 -
[2119] - Quote
If you armor tank your freighter, you're choosing to tank it in a sub-optimal way, and I support you eventual death. |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
33
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:18:00 -
[2120] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Alexis Nightwish wrote:Thanks for the tables. I personally think the numbers look great. If gankers complain they can HTFU and equip a ship scanner. The fact that anyone thinks they can say that in this thread, where the freighter pilots literally just cried their way to an EHP buff, is beyond hilarious. People like you don't get to talk about HTFU, you don't even know what it is. This is so precious, HTFU. |
|
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
59
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:19:00 -
[2121] - Quote
Ammzi wrote:CCP Fozzie 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. The answer to this question is "not in Kronos, but possibly at a later date". Either way that's a discussion for another thread since these ships cannot fit Damage Controls. Don't you think you went a little bit overboard in terms of raw EHP? - there's a very large gap between the obelisk and providence compared to the charon and fenrir - where the fenrir will be beyond the tank of a TQ obelisk according to this: http://eve.beyondreality.se/pics/Kronos/FreighterCargoTank.png
Your numbers are wrong- you rounded cargo expanders to 28%, they should only be 27.5% |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
33
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:19:00 -
[2122] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Walter Hart White wrote:My main issue now is that you can't shield tank freighter but you can armor tank... No you can't. Go back and look at the modules that you can fit.
CCP Fozzie wrote:
(For certain armor tanking fits) Adaptive Nano Platings |
Valterra Craven
248
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:19:00 -
[2123] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Walter Hart White wrote:My main issue now is that you can't shield tank freighter but you can armor tank... No you can't. Go back and look at the modules that you can fit.
Yes, you can. I'd say the same thing to you, but for the sake of not being a d!ck like others, I will just tell you that armor mods exist that don't require cpu and only need 1 grid.... Look under the group called Resistance Plates.... |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6444
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:20:00 -
[2124] - Quote
Walter Hart White wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Alexis Nightwish wrote:Thanks for the tables. I personally think the numbers look great. If gankers complain they can HTFU and equip a ship scanner. The fact that anyone thinks they can say that in this thread, where the freighter pilots literally just cried their way to an EHP buff, is beyond hilarious. People like you don't get to talk about HTFU, you don't even know what it is. This is so precious, HTFU.
I reiterate, the people who cried their way out of a nerf don't have a leg to stand on if they try to say that. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1573
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:20:00 -
[2125] - Quote
Vincintius Agrippa wrote: .........And you guys like to pretend that all you do is pvp.
Its genuinely difficult to articulate how much u fail.
Vincintius Agrippa wrote: Pay closer attention to what I was trying to say, 1. This game isnt solely about pvp. Never has, Never should be. I doubt anyone would enjoy the game if it was full of nuthing but gankers, greifers, and blobs. Once again its SANDBOX, make of it as you will. 2. Non pvp'ers and non pvp activities ARE the backbone of this game. For, if no one is building and no one is mining, what do you fight in? Capsules? Likewise, Pvp is also a backbone because they buy a significant amount of the things being built. 3. Mining: Carebear activity Missioning: Carebear Activity, Market trading carebear activity. Regardless of where and how you choose to do so. Most of which Is done with alts I assume. 4. Neither you or your alts is mining, missioning, or trading 23hrs a day 7 days a week like carebears in highsec. Or, any more than a few hours a day. If your are its afk. If its afk your a carebear just like the guys in highsec. If you arent, your still a carebear because your mining all day. 5. Your isk alts don't count. 6. Mining in nullsec doesnt make you not a carebear. 7 Missioning in null sec does not make you not a carebear.
8. Major alliances don't count because all of that mining and missioning happens in their space. So all those alts are "secure" so to speak.
Long story short, Carebearing supports eve. No matteer how you try to disguise it. End of discussion.
Edit: Fine, PVE isnt like regular carebearing. It's like PVE Carebearing.
*sigh* ill try one last time.
1. this game IS about players competing with eachother. They compete for resources, territory, prices and buying power and they attack eachother. Thats PvP.
2. When u mine, u are PvP'ing. When u sell an item on the market, ur PvP'ing. Its all PvP.
In answer to the other point as its just splurg: u can be a miner or a freighter pilot and not think it wrong that ganking is part of the game. i know, im one of those players. Many players contribute to the economy without being anti-PvP. So if all the anti-PvP players left tomorrow, the economy may notice, but it wouldnt break down.
long story short: this game does not depend in anyway on players who think its wrong that non-consensual PvP is part of this game (carebear). It in no way depends on players who think that ganking, scamming, meta-gaming etc should be made impossible. There are more than enough players who PvE and understand these plays are acceptable. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY?No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided""So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time" |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
33
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:21:00 -
[2126] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Walter Hart White wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Alexis Nightwish wrote:Thanks for the tables. I personally think the numbers look great. If gankers complain they can HTFU and equip a ship scanner. The fact that anyone thinks they can say that in this thread, where the freighter pilots literally just cried their way to an EHP buff, is beyond hilarious. People like you don't get to talk about HTFU, you don't even know what it is. This is so precious, HTFU. I reiterate, the people who cried their way out of a nerf don't have a leg to stand on if they try to say that. Keep crying. Please. My tear jar is not full yet! |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22120
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:23:00 -
[2127] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:Your numbers are wrong- you rounded cargo expanders to 28%, they should only be 27.5% Yup. I blame the DB I copied from. It's a whole 13k m-¦ difference at the top end.
Updated. 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
1087
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:25:00 -
[2128] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Kenneth Feld wrote:Your numbers are wrong- you rounded cargo expanders to 28%, they should only be 27.5% Yup. I blame the DB I copied from. It's a whole 13k m-¦ difference at the top end. Updated.
Think of all the PLEX which can fit in 13k m3.
:D |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
10022
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:25:00 -
[2129] - Quote
Adaptive Nano Platings are hardly even worth talking about. "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6444
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:25:00 -
[2130] - Quote
Walter Hart White wrote: Keep crying. Please. My tear jar is not full yet!
I'm not sure that you understand what tears are. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
|
|
|
|
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 |