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) |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6184
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 12:51:00 -
[2701] - Quote
Seems that highsec freightering now abounds with rage inducing options.
It's surprising how easily your smaller hold can still be filled with far too much stuff, such that people will want to gank you. Perhaps not with bulkheads though... which would make your hold even smaller.
Now the question arises: how low can you take cargohold on a freighter.
You sure can safely carry some expensive stuff with bulkheads, according to that handy calculator. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers. |
Angelus Arareb
Gates of Purgatory
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 13:04:00 -
[2702] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Angelus Arareb wrote:Stuff Really? 3 T2 expanders takes a Charon with rank 3 in Caldari freighter up to 1,108,361 m3, doesn't it? (rather than the 902k m3 it was) http://xyjax.com/optimizer_kronos/ (no, I've not checked it in Eve, as I don't fly a charon. Works with my Fenrir though)
I am almost positive that at level 2 freighter I had 8oo+K cargo cap the night before and figured after another 5% I would be easily well over 900K. now at level 3 with 3 T2 cargo expanders I am at 1108361.6 and lost a ton of armor. I would gladly trade those 200k for my armor back, It would then let me be a slightly less enticing target, although the people I really feel bad for are the Jump Freighter pilots.....man they REALLY got screwed with their loss of cargo seeing as how it was so much smaller in comparison at 6X's the cost. |
Rainbow Dash
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
123
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 13:05:00 -
[2703] - Quote
This thread is the best |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6184
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 13:06:00 -
[2704] - Quote
Angelus Arareb wrote:although the people I really feel bad for are the Jump Freighter pilots.....man they REALLY got screwed with their loss of cargo seeing as how it was so much smaller in comparison at 6X's the cost. Hmm, I'll pass that on the JF guys I know.
Oddly, I think the maximum sized packages they can take is larger now? Let me see... ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers. |
Angelus Arareb
Gates of Purgatory
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 13:20:00 -
[2705] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Angelus Arareb wrote:although the people I really feel bad for are the Jump Freighter pilots.....man they REALLY got screwed with their loss of cargo seeing as how it was so much smaller in comparison at 6X's the cost. Hmm, I'll pass that on the JF guys I know. Oddly, I think the maximum sized packages they can take is larger now? Let me see... 367k -> 373k, really feel bad for them. Disingenuous sympathy spotted.
Unless I am mistaken........ Hmmmm they lost cargo cap unless they add expanders which in turn causes them to lose armor thus making killing them even easier. It's humorous how founders of Burn Jita are singing the praises and defending the freighter nerf..........Disingenuous defense of the nerf is noted.... |
Lei Merdeau
Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering
15
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 13:20:00 -
[2706] - Quote
Maybe if Jump/Freighters also get a (100%?) reduction on Cargo/Structure penalties - it is what they are about. (base stats adjusted again) It would make for easier balancing and make Adaptive Nano Plating less of an issue favouring the armour factions. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6184
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 13:29:00 -
[2707] - Quote
Angelus Arareb wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:Angelus Arareb wrote:although the people I really feel bad for are the Jump Freighter pilots.....man they REALLY got screwed with their loss of cargo seeing as how it was so much smaller in comparison at 6X's the cost. Hmm, I'll pass that on the JF guys I know. Oddly, I think the maximum sized packages they can take is larger now? Let me see... 367k -> 373k, really feel bad for them. Disingenuous sympathy spotted. Unless I am mistaken........ Hmmmm they lost cargo cap unless they add expanders which in turn causes them to lose armor thus making killing them even easier. It's humorous how founders of Burn Jita are singing the praises and defending the freighter nerf..........Disingenuous defense of the nerf is noted.... Actually, I depend on my friendly JF services as part of living in nullsec*. You might be surprised to know that, no, I'm not the only one. But don't stop raging or anything like that, by all means.
I do note, however, that a series of proposed changes to JFs were reduced in scope before the changes. Or something. It's in this very thread! Though I think it was a fuel thing, they're gonna make it cost more soon, sigh.
* They actually stopped running during Burn Jita, so yeah... had to plan ahead there, luckily we weren't invaded by te deadly Northern Associates. when that was happening.
I use a freighter out in nullsec, still thinking if I want more cargo or the better align, probably the align, freighter was far larger than I needed. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers. |
The Slayer
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
165
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 13:51:00 -
[2708] - Quote
Angelus Arareb wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:Angelus Arareb wrote:although the people I really feel bad for are the Jump Freighter pilots.....man they REALLY got screwed with their loss of cargo seeing as how it was so much smaller in comparison at 6X's the cost. Hmm, I'll pass that on the JF guys I know. Oddly, I think the maximum sized packages they can take is larger now? Let me see... 367k -> 373k, really feel bad for them. Disingenuous sympathy spotted. Unless I am mistaken........ Hmmmm they lost cargo cap unless they add expanders which in turn causes them to lose armor thus making killing them even easier. It's humorous how founders of Burn Jita are singing the praises and defending the freighter nerf..........Disingenuous defense of the nerf is noted....
Jump freighters have this wonderful thing called a JUMP drive. The clue is in the name. They shouldn't be used anywhere they can't jump to. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6184
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 13:56:00 -
[2709] - Quote
That reminds me of the time a JF shipment appeared right in the middle of us fighting TEST's "foxcat" fleet in... that staging system across the regional gate from J5A (B-DBYQ).
I suppose you'd have to expand a freighter to carry an ihub, or drop a station egg now. How will we adapt... I think it will still die in one doomsday (can they be DDed?) ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6184
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 14:08:00 -
[2710] - Quote
Lei Merdeau wrote:Maybe if Jump/Freighters also get a (100%?) reduction on Cargo/Structure penalties - it is what they are about. (base stats adjusted again) The way their basic modules fight against each other does not help. It would make for lazier balancing and make Adaptive Nano Plating less of an issue favouring the armour factions. Why not just nerf the armor on the armor freighters so all of them rely on structure.
Though I think people all love the shield ones now, so perhaps some Providence makers are feeling optimistic at the thought of armor tanking freighters being a thing. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers. |
|
Valterra Craven
253
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 15:28:00 -
[2711] - Quote
SO I've been thinking a lot about why these changes are bad and why I hate them.
The answer seems to be that the changes to freighters and giving them lowslots is not inherently bad and the problem seems to lie with the module balance.
Based on what I'm seeing the penalties for cargo expanders and bulkheads are the problem.
So if we compare the charon from two days ago to the charon of today this is what we get.
Rubicon Charon: Cargo is 942k EHP is 180k
Kronos Charon Cargo is 558k EHP is 210k
Now if we start adding modules
x3 t2 Cargo expanders Cargo is 1.15m EHP is 160k
This looks fine so far. We see a modest boost in cargo capacity for a modest reduction in EHP
3x t2 bulkheads cargo is 393K EHP is 303k
What we have here is a significant lose in cargo for a significant gain in EHP. This looks fine at first glance, but when you consider the fact that the ship already lost 384k of its cargo just for the option to fit for EHP, and then combined with the fact that you loose even more cargo to do so, stings to say the least.
This is problematic when you realize that most ship fittings don't work this way. In other words the penalties you suffer for fitting mods (if they even have penalties) never detract from the main purpose of the ship. For example, fitting more tank on a ship doesn't penalize your dps, fitting ewar doesn't comprise your ships sensors, fitting speed doesn't comprise your warp time, etc etc.
What you've failed to realize with the bulkhead changes is that the penalty changes weren't necessary. Eve is a game about fitting choices and even fitting something on the ship in the first place is an opportunity cost. Aka if you fit for cargo you can't fit for EHP. if you fit for EHP you can fit for align, if you fit for align, you can't fit for warp speed. In other words, I think that if you reverted the bulkhead changes then these changes would be alot easier to swallow.
|
Vhelnik Cojoin
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
63
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 17:23:00 -
[2712] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:What you've failed to realize with the bulkhead changes is that the penalty changes weren't necessary. Eve is a game about fitting choices and even fitting something on the ship in the first place is an opportunity cost. Aka if you fit for cargo you can't fit for EHP. if you fit for EHP you can fit for align, if you fit for align, you can't fit for warp speed. In other words, I think that if you reverted the bulkhead changes then these changes would be alot easier to swallow. The module changes were necessary, because in my view one of the main uses of fitting for a higher EHP is to make HiSec suicide ganking less profitable.
If you haul anything noticeably more valuable per unit volume than Pyerite (~1200 ISK / m3), then the reduction in cargo for the max. EHP fitting is irrelevant. Almost anything worth hauling in a freighter, excluding uncompressed ore and ice, is way more valuable than 1200 ISK / m3. By the time you have filled the 393k Charon to the brim with valuables, you will be the target of absolutely every ganking group in the game. At this point your newly increased EHP will mean nothing, people *will* kill your ship regardless.
On the other hand, then the old Expanded Cargohold penalty to velocity would have been a nasty trade-off for AFK hauling in your tanked freighter. This is why I basically jumped with two feet and said 'Yes, please!' when Fozzie asked for comments on this suggested change.
And the other way round, fitting for max. cargo, is mostly for hauling uncompressed ore and ice. Here you cannot squeeze enough cargo into the ship to make ganking profitable, regardless of the reduced EHP. Conversely, if people want to gank you 'for teh lulz' then they would do so both with the old and the - slightly lower - new max. cargo EHP. Have you Communicated with your fellow capsuleers today? It is good for the EVE-oconomy and o-kay for you. |
Jeanne-Luise Argenau
Cruis3r's Cr3w Inc. Constructive. Criticism.
108
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 17:42:00 -
[2713] - Quote
CCP pls work on the charon,
i know the changes hitting but i hadnt had a chance to test it beforehand. Possible changes i see on a Charon is making it possible to fit a DC or switching the base shield hp into armor and structure or add alot more base cargohold. The current version of the Charon is unuseable compared to the Providence or Obelisk. |
Yuri Fedorov
Serenity Profits
9
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 18:10:00 -
[2714] - Quote
Vhelnik Cojoin wrote: *snip*
And the other way round, fitting for max. cargo, is mostly for hauling uncompressed ore and ice. Here you cannot squeeze enough cargo into the ship to make ganking profitable, regardless of the reduced EHP. Conversely, if people want to gank you 'for teh lulz' then they would do so both with the old and the - slightly lower - new max. cargo EHP.
Also in some cases like in Aufay, you will get ganked regardless of any factors. Its purely a lottery game and they aren't looking for profit. |
Valterra Craven
254
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 18:16:00 -
[2715] - Quote
Vhelnik Cojoin wrote: On the other hand, then the old Reinforced Bulkhead penalty to velocity would have been a nasty trade-off for AFK hauling in your tanked freighter. This is why I basically jumped with two feet and said 'Yes, please!' when Fozzie asked for comments on this suggested change.
... So basically you want your cake and to eat it to. You're fine with the changes because it made your gameplay better. aka you can now afk with more goods in your freighter at the same speed as before. Sounds like the yes please was a way to screw other people over to your benefit. Seems to me that the trade off should still be speed since you are afking with more HP. You get no trade offs while everyone else gets massive ones that don't afk. |
Vhelnik Cojoin
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
64
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 18:27:00 -
[2716] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:... So basically you want your cake and to eat it to. You're fine with the changes because it made your gameplay better. aka you can now afk with more goods in your freighter at the same speed as before. Sounds like the yes please was a way to screw other people over to your benefit. Seems to me that the trade off should still be speed since you are afking with more HP. You get no trade offs while everyone else gets massive ones that don't afk. If you wish, then I will try and dig out the relevant part of the thread, where the module changes were discussed. *Everybody* approved of the suggested change, including people from the GSF and various HiSec ganking groups. I even went as far as asking CCP Fozzie to try and quickly make up his mind. This before people woke up and realized why the penalty change was actually good for the HiSec haulers.
Apparently no-one bothered to think this though, even though I tried to hit them with a clue-by-four.
Either that, or many of them realized there will still be plenty of fail-fit freighters to gank, while they themselves can benefit from the change when flying AFK on their hauler alts. Have you Communicated with your fellow capsuleers today? It is good for the EVE-oconomy and o-kay for you. |
Valterra Craven
254
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 19:08:00 -
[2717] - Quote
Vhelnik Cojoin wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:... So basically you want your cake and to eat it to. You're fine with the changes because it made your gameplay better. aka you can now afk with more goods in your freighter at the same speed as before. Sounds like the yes please was a way to screw other people over to your benefit. Seems to me that the trade off should still be speed since you are afking with more HP. You get no trade offs while everyone else gets massive ones that don't afk. If you wish, then I will try and dig out the relevant part of the thread, where the module changes were discussed. *Everybody* approved of the suggested change, including people from the GSF and various HiSec ganking groups. I even went as far as asking CCP Fozzie to try and quickly make up his mind. This before people woke up and realized why the penalty change was actually good for the HiSec haulers. Apparently no-one bothered to think this though, even though I tried to hit them with a clue-by-four. Either that, or many of them realized there will still be plenty of fail-fit freighters to gank, while they themselves can benefit from the change when flying AFK on their hauler alts.
Well I spoke up in that thread and I for sure didn't agree with that change, so no, not everyone did. I'm also sure I wasn't the only detractor either. As far as the opinion of GSF, and ganking groups... well its not worth more than the poop in my toilet, since they both knew that this was far more likely to create juicier targets than not and they were both salivating like rabid dogs at the thought of more meat.
Edit: Post 238: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4590841#post4590841 |
Vhelnik Cojoin
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
64
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 19:31:00 -
[2718] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Well I spoke up in that thread and I for sure didn't agree with that change, so no, not everyone did. I'm also sure I wasn't the only detractor either. As far as the opinion of GSF, and ganking groups... well its not worth more than the poop in my toilet, since they both knew that this was far more likely to create juicier targets than not and they were both salivating like rabid dogs at the thought of more meat. Edit: Post 238: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4590841#post4590841 I stand corrected. Not everybody approved of the change.
Here is my earlier post in that thread, where I kind of suggested that some people may live to regret their support of this change.
I'm confused though, whether that discussion took place before the decision was made to give freighters low instead of rig slots. Have you Communicated with your fellow capsuleers today? It is good for the EVE-oconomy and o-kay for you. |
Valterra Craven
254
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 19:34:00 -
[2719] - Quote
Vhelnik Cojoin wrote:
I'm confused though, whether that discussion took place before the decision was made to give freighters low instead of rig slots.
Considering that the penalty for freighter is the same regardless of it being lows or rigs, its kinda irrelevant when it took place since the effects are the same either way. Aka bulkheads and bulkhead rigs both reduce cargo...
|
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
896
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 22:08:00 -
[2720] - Quote
I swear to god, the capacity of carebears for complaining is endless.
They get a free Corvette, and they complain that it doesn't have cigarette lighters, and then insist on a years supply of smokes in the bargain.
The other guy got it right, this is a large buff for carebears and a major nerf for gankers. Unless Concord response time is doubled, this will double the number of gankships required to tear down most freighters worth ganking.
For any 90% of trade items out there, the max EHP freighter is all that is needed. Only idiots or players moving large amounts of unrefined ice/ore will need to use Cargo Expanders. Most people who have 6-8 Billion ISK in assets to move are usually not idiots, even if a few of them, certainly, go the extra mile.
On the other hand, Red Frog should easily be able to lower their rates now, as the profitability of suicide ganking freighters was just massively decreased. Sure, ganks for laughs can continue - but laughs don't pay for PLEX, or buy new Taloses. |
|
DefConn4
Aliastra Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 23:44:00 -
[2721] - Quote
Gee thanks CCP just tuck another summer patch nerf into indy, like we dont have enough of em already, im gonna call this patch the summer indy nerf, which its all it boils down to, not a single area of indy are in any way buffed, except maybe for that friggin hulk foozie wanted so badly for ppl to play around with, guess waht fuzzie donlop, it aint gonna happend by slapping a useless thing as extra range on it. l2 listen to community and dont go nerfing the one we used to be used majorly by buffing the one with already a significantly good tank and expect ppl to go for a squishy ship like the hulk which at some point was the final goal for every single miner now its become a deathtrap just waitin to happen |
DefConn4
Aliastra Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 23:52:00 -
[2722] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:I swear to god, the capacity of carebears for complaining is endless.
They get a free Corvette, and they complain that it doesn't have cigarette lighters, and then insist on a years supply of smokes in the bargain.
The other guy got it right, this is a large buff for carebears and a major nerf for gankers. Unless Concord response time is doubled, this will double the number of gankships required to tear down most freighters worth ganking.
For any 90% of trade items out there, the max EHP freighter is all that is needed. Only idiots or players moving large amounts of unrefined ice/ore will need to use Cargo Expanders. Most people who have 6-8 Billion ISK in assets to move are usually not idiots, even if a few of them, certainly, go the extra mile.
On the other hand, Red Frog should easily be able to lower their rates now, as the profitability of suicide ganking freighters was just massively decreased. Sure, ganks for laughs can continue - but laughs don't pay for PLEX, or buy new Taloses.
u seriously dont get it dude, in a patch more or less just stacked with indy nerf, why would we not complain? if they nudge a lil bit on ur pvp ships u wont hear the end of it, they mess up our profit entierely and u call foul? good job gettin the facts. mins prices is in the toilets save for maybe trit and now they messing with our capacity to haul ur products on top of everything else. id like to see pvpers reaction if they got hit with a simular nerf across all boards as this summer patch turns out to be |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
896
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 05:35:00 -
[2723] - Quote
DefConn4 wrote: u seriously dont get it dude, in a patch more or less just stacked with indy nerf, why would we not complain? if they nudge a lil bit on ur pvp ships u wont hear the end of it, they mess up our profit entierely and u call foul? good job gettin the facts. mins prices is in the toilets save for maybe trit. plex price souring to new hights and now they messing with our capacity to haul ur products on top of everything else. id like to see pvpers reaction if they got hit with a simular nerf across all boards as this summer patch turns out to be
Your sub-literate rant doesn't jive with reality.
You can whine that the Charon came out slightly worse than other freighters, but the class as a whole came out much stronger - insanely so. Never before has so much ISK been movable without meaningful risk. DST got a huge buff across the board, as did the Orca (due to the creation of hull rigs).
Carebears crying nerf in this case is just sad and irrational.
Sorta like a man lopping his ding-dong off, taking hormones and dressing up in drag - then having the nerve to demand people pretend that he's a woman. Sane people just laugh and shake their heads. You simply can't change what you are, even if you can find some quack masquerading as a doctor willing to tell you otherwise.
Just saying freighters got nerfed doesn't make it so. And freighters didn't even NEED a buff. As it is, their ganking is quite rare relative to the huge numbers that exist and roam freely.
And what are you on? Minerals are quite high relatively speaking, especially low-ends. I remember Tempest battleships costing less than 70M.
|
cynomakinggirl
No Risk No ISK
14
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 09:56:00 -
[2724] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:SO I've been thinking a lot about why these changes are bad and why I hate them.
The answer seems to be that the changes to freighters and giving them lowslots is not inherently bad and the problem seems to lie with the module balance.
Based on what I'm seeing the penalties for cargo expanders and bulkheads are the problem.
So if we compare the charon from two days ago to the charon of today this is what we get.
Rubicon Charon: Cargo is 942k EHP is 180k
Kronos Charon Cargo is 558k EHP is 210k
Now if we start adding modules
x3 t2 Cargo expanders Cargo is 1.15m EHP is 160k
This looks fine so far. We see a modest boost in cargo capacity for a modest reduction in EHP
3x t2 bulkheads cargo is 393K EHP is 303k
What we have here is a significant lose in cargo for a significant gain in EHP. This looks fine at first glance, but when you consider the fact that the ship already lost 384k of its cargo just for the option to fit for EHP, and then combined with the fact that you loose even more cargo to do so, stings to say the least.
This is problematic when you realize that most ship fittings don't work this way. In other words the penalties you suffer for fitting mods (if they even have penalties) never detract from the main purpose of the ship. For example, fitting more tank on a ship doesn't penalize your dps, fitting ewar doesn't comprise your ships sensors, fitting speed doesn't comprise your warp time, etc etc.
What you've failed to realize with the bulkhead changes is that the penalty changes weren't necessary. Eve is a game about fitting choices and even fitting something on the ship in the first place is an opportunity cost. Aka if you fit for cargo you can't fit for EHP. if you fit for EHP you can fit for align, if you fit for align, you can't fit for warp speed. In other words, I think that if you reverted the bulkhead changes then these changes would be alot easier to swallow.
best post so far, thank you "The internet is a reliable source of information." - Abraham Lincoln |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6184
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 12:43:00 -
[2725] - Quote
That would be because you aren't fitting balance changes to your ship...
Trying to imply using a lot and fitting (PG, CPU) on a gun or a shield extender has no drawbacks is a bit odd. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers. |
Valterra Craven
259
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 14:51:00 -
[2726] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:That would be because you aren't fitting balance changes to your ship...
Simply noting "there's a cost, give me more benefit" isn't a great argument for where the balance point lies. Of course you rather it lie further away from the nerf side...
I'll note that there's a difference between "there's a cost, give me more benefit", and "there's a cost, give me less penalty". |
Lei Merdeau
Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering
15
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 14:55:00 -
[2727] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote: Considering that the penalty for freighter is the same regardless of it being lows or rigs, its kinda irrelevant when it took place since the effects are the same either way. Aka bulkheads and bulkhead rigs both reduce cargo...
Rig penalties are reduced by the relevant rig skill. |
Valterra Craven
259
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 15:00:00 -
[2728] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote: Your sub-literate rant doesn't jive with reality.
While I agree his post was hard to read, why not instead stick to the meat of what he's saying instead of insulting him? It doesn't change his argument and it doesn't change yours.
Herr Wilkus wrote: You can whine that the Charon came out slightly worse than other freighters, but the class as a whole came out much stronger - insanely so. Never before has so much ISK been movable without meaningful risk. DST got a huge buff across the board, as did the Orca (due to the creation of hull rigs).
I always love how people make the risk vs reward argument. Eve is so squewed in terms of risk vs reward towards griefers that it isnt even funny. What risk is there for people creating accounts solely to spam jita or other trade hubs for isk? They never leave station and even if they did losing a pod wouldn't matter to them since they have no sp invested. OR how about the code butts that bump miner ships? They have no real risk because A they fly nothing of value, and B there are no counter tactics to their greifing. So as a miner you either pay up or find somewhere else to play. As much as the devs want to make this argument I don't think I've ever seen them make meaningfully balancing decisions to ensure that risk vs reward actually exists in this game.
Herr Wilkus wrote: Carebears crying nerf in this case is just sad and irrational.
Well actually its a fact.
Herr Wilkus wrote:
Just saying freighters got nerfed doesn't make it so. And freighters didn't even NEED a buff. As it is, their ganking is quite rare relative to the huge numbers that exist and roam freely.
No, but the fact that they did does make it so, whether how minor or major is up for debate, their abilities are not the same they were. While we agree that they didn't need a buff, people are upset because they didn't need a nerf either. They should have just left well enough alone.
|
Valterra Craven
259
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 15:01:00 -
[2729] - Quote
Lei Merdeau wrote:
Rig penalties are reduced by the relevant rig skill.
They are also never zero. |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1107
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 15:34:00 -
[2730] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Vhelnik Cojoin wrote:
I'm confused though, whether that discussion took place before the decision was made to give freighters low instead of rig slots.
Considering that the penalty for freighter is the same regardless of it being lows or rigs, its kinda irrelevant when it took place since the effects are the same either way. Aka bulkheads and bulkhead rigs both reduce cargo...
I'd rather not have to scrap millions upon millions of ISK worth of rigs whenever I want to do a different fit on a freighter. Full T2 cargo was basically the price of a new freighter every time you rigged it for example. |
|
|
|
|
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 |