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) |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
10056
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 16:11:00 -
[1] - Quote
Hey everyone, here's the skinny on the rebalance to Freighters and Jump Freighters. As we announced at the Fanfest keynote, a big part of this rebalance is the ability to use rigs.
To compensate for the ability to use rigs, the base capacity of all Freighters and Jump Freighters is going down, by between 27 and 30%. This means that Freighters can get significantly higher maximum capacity than before using rigs, 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. Because Jump Freighters only have two rig slots their maximum cargo is only going to be about 4% higher than current (with T2 rigs) and with T1 cargo rigs their cargo holds will be between 4 and 7% smaller than current.
Base HP is dropping on all of these ships, but by a much smaller percentage than cargo. They are gaining armor and shield, and losing some hull. This is especially noticeable on the JFs, which are now getting racial T2 resists to armor and shield at the same level as Marauders. The extra resists mean that Jump Freighters end up with about the same EHP as before.
PROVIDENCE
Amarr Freighter Bonus per level: +5% Cargo Capacity +5% Maximum Velocity
Slot layout: 0H, 0M, 0L; Rigs: 3(+3) Slots, 400 Calibration, Uses Capital Rigs Fittings: 1 PWG, 1 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 5000 / 36000(+12000) / 92500(-20000) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time / warp speed): 70 / 0.0625 / 1,237,500,000 / 107.22s / 1.37 Cargo Capacity: 530000(-205000)m3
CHARON
Caldari Freighter Bonus per level: +5% Cargo Capacity +5% Maximum Velocity
Slot layout: 0H, 0M, 0L; Rigs: 3(+3) Slots, 400 Calibration, Uses Capital Rigs Fittings: 1 PWG, 1 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 15000(+9000) / 20000 / 87500(-18750) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time / warp speed): 60 / 0.0625 / 1,320,000,000 / 114.37s / 1.37 Cargo Capacity: 550000(-235000)m3
OBELISK
Gallente Freighter Bonus per level: +5% Cargo Capacity +5% Maximum Velocity
Slot layout: 0H, 0M, 0L; Rigs: 3(+3) Slots, 400 Calibration, Uses Capital Rigs Fittings: 1 PWG, 1 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 8000(+2687) / 30000(+7500) / 97500(-22500) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time / warp speed): 65 / 0.0625 / 1,292,500,000 / 111.99s / 1.37 Cargo Capacity: 540000(-210000)m3
FENRIR
Minmatar Freighter Bonus per level: +5% Cargo Capacity +5% Maximum Velocity
Slot layout: 0H, 0M, 0L; Rigs: 3(+3) Slots, 400 Calibration, Uses Capital Rigs Fittings: 1 PWG, 1 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 10000(+4375) / 28000(+6750) / 82500(-17500) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time / warp speed): 80 / 0.0625 / 1,127,500,000 / 97.69s / 1.37 Cargo Capacity: 520000(-200000)m3
ARK
Amarr Freighter Bonus per level: +5% Cargo Capacity +5% Agility
Jump Freighters Bonus per level: +10% to shield, armor and hull hitpoints -10% jump fuel requirements
Slot layout: 0H, 0M, 0L; Rigs: 2(+2) Slots, 400 Calibration, Uses Capital Rigs Fittings: 1 PWG, 1 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 6000 / 43200(+14400) / 111000(-24000) Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 20 / 47.5(+7.5) / 62.5(+12.5) Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 50 / 35 / 34.375(+9.375) / 40(+20) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time / warp speed): 84 / 0.0625(+0.0125) / 900,000,000 / 77.98(+15.6)s / 1.5 Signature Radius: 2800(-12) Cargo Capacity: 199000(-76625)m3
RHEA
Caldari Freighter Bonus per level: +5% Cargo Capacity +5% Agility
Jump Freighters Bonus per level: +10% to shield, armor and hull hitpoints -10% jump fuel requirements
Slot layout: 0H, 0M, 0L; Rigs: 2(+2) Slots, 400 Calibration, Uses Capital Rigs Fittings: 1 PWG, 1 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 18000(+10800) / 24000 / 105000(-22500) Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 40(+20) / 47.5(+7.5) / 50 Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 50 / 58.75(+13.75) / 34.375(+9.375) / 10 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time / warp speed): 72 / 0.0625(+0.0125) / 960,000,000 / 83.18(+16.64)s / 1.5 Signature Radius: 2930(-2) Cargo Capacity: 207000(-87375)m3
ANSHAR
Gallente Freighter Bonus per level: +5% Cargo Capacity +5% Agility
Jump Freighters Bonus per level: +10% to shield, armor and hull hitpoints -10% jump fuel requirements
Slot layout: 0H, 0M, 0L; Rigs: 2(+2) Slots, 400 Calibration, Uses Capital Rigs Fittings: 1 PWG, 1 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 9600(+3224.4) / 36000(+9000) / 117000(-27000) Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 30(+10) / 55(+15) / 50 Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 50 / 43.125(+8.125) / 51.25(+16.25) / 10 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time / warp speed): 78 / 0.0625(+0.0125) / 940,000,000 / 81.44(+16.28)s / 1.5 Signature Radius: 2880(-4) Cargo Capacity: 203000(-78250) m3
NOMAD
Minmatar Freighter Bonus per level: +5% Cargo Capacity +5% Agility
Jump Freighters Bonus per level: +10% to shield, armor and hull hitpoints -10% jump fuel requirements
Slot layout: 0H, 0M, 0L; Rigs: 2(+2) Slots, 400 Calibration, Uses Capital Rigs Fittings: 1 PWG, 1 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 12000(+5250) / 33600(+8100) / 99000(-21000) Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 25(+25) / 30(+10) / 40 / 50 Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 70(+10) / 43.125(+8.125) / 25 / 10 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time / warp speed): 96 / 0.0625(+0.0125) / 820,000,000 / 71.05(+14.21)s / 1.5 Signature Radius: 2700(-8) Cargo Capacity: 195000(-75000)m3
Let us know what you think! Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Karen Avioras
Unsung Heroes The Volition Cult
618
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 16:13:00 -
[2] - Quote
This looks great! |
Chinicata Shihari
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
26
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 16:19:00 -
[3] - Quote
Looks okay. Not as bad as we thought they would be. Prepare for destruction either way |
Lazei
Magellanic Itg Goonswarm Federation
34
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 16:21:00 -
[4] - Quote
How are overloaded cargoholds handled when the patch hits for people who had logged off in space with full pre patch cargos? Tough luck that they didn't read patch notes? |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
590
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 16:25:00 -
[5] - Quote
Ouch -- that agility nerf on Jump Freighters is going to suck some. What's the thought process behind that? This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Dramaticus
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
558
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 16:25:00 -
[6] - Quote
Paper thin freighters MINILUV ACTIVATE The 'do-nothing' member of the GoonSwarm Economic Warfare Cabal
The edge is REALLY hard to see at times but it DOES exist and in this case we were looking at a situation where a new feature created for all of our customers was being virtually curbstomped by five of them |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21774
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 16:26:00 -
[7] - Quote
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. 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. |
Retar Aveymone
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
366
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 16:29:00 -
[8] - Quote
man someone doesn't like jump freighters very much :v: |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
10058
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 16:31:00 -
[9] - Quote
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. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21774
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 16:34:00 -
[10] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:T1 rigs are easily enough to bring normal freighters above their current cargo values. Yes, but I fly a JF. I picked it because of its nippy align speed, good tank, and descent-enough cargo hold.
I can restore one of those at a massive cost. 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. |
|
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
622
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 16:34:00 -
[11] - Quote
Why are jump freighters with T1 cargo rigs worse off than now? Even T2 rigs only gives a very small improvement.
How come the fairly pointless speed bonus on T1 freighters was left, rather being replaced with something more useful like agility or HP? |
Steijn
Quay Industries
477
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 16:38:00 -
[12] - Quote
sorry, but that is nothing more than a massive nerf. |
Silvetica Dian
Manson Family Advent of Fate
1028
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 16:39:00 -
[13] - 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.
That wasn't the point. No one thought that getting rigs would leave us with a lower cargobay. The reason people argued against was that you would end up with the same bay but a lower tank. Plus the cost of rigs. Still idc really just need to work out what cargo bay i need and then slam warp speed rigs on. The JF agility nerf if going to be really annoying though. Only 2 rigs to make up the agility and cargo loss and just eat the tank loss i suppose. Money at its root is a form of rationing. When the richest 85 people have as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion (50% of humanity) it is clear where the source of poverty is. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/20/trickle-down-economics-broken-promise-richest-85 |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
10060
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 16:40:00 -
[14] - Quote
Tippia wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:T1 rigs are easily enough to bring normal freighters above their current cargo values. Yes, but I fly a JF. I picked it because of its nippy align speed, good tank, and descent-enough cargo hold. I can restore one of those at a massive cost.
Actually the tank on your JF is about the same as before, thanks to the extra resists. So you get one of the three for free!
But yes, the fact that this is a small reduction in Jump Freighter power is completely intended. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
3421
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 16:40:00 -
[15] - Quote
I guess this is a direct nerf to null-high-null import/export, together with the increase in jump fuel consumption. At least you can produce directly in null now. Time to import some miners. Mineral hauler spawn elimination next? Sovereignty and Population New Mining Mechanics |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates RAZOR Alliance
399
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 16:40:00 -
[16] - Quote
It seems that you really hate freighters and jump freighters. Noted. Now just make it so that jump freighters cannot jump drive out of high sec and the circle of rage will be complete. This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |
Retar Aveymone
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
366
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 16:42:00 -
[17] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Tippia wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:T1 rigs are easily enough to bring normal freighters above their current cargo values. Yes, but I fly a JF. I picked it because of its nippy align speed, good tank, and descent-enough cargo hold. I can restore one of those at a massive cost. Actually the tank on your JF is about the same as before, thanks to the extra resists. So you get one of the three for free! But yes, the fact that this is a small reduction in Jump Freighter power is completely intended. Is the tank the same AFTER the two tech 2 cargo rigs? Because I'm guessing that in practice you get only one of the three, you can just change it based on rig selection. |
Basil Vulpine
Blueprint Haus Get Off My Lawn
22
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 16:45:00 -
[18] - Quote
For the JFs can you please also list the fuel consumption per LY and fuel bay size? Ideally clearly indicating whether this is under current fuel consumption mechanics or already accounting for +50% consumption increase?
Overall I'll admit I'm disappointed by this change. Roughly speaking I'll need to add a T1 and a T2 cargo rig to be able to move as much as before. So I'm paying ISK to attach things to my ship, getting the same cargo capacity but less EHP. The shift of HP from hull to armor, overall reduction of HP so that the addition of T2 resists didn't change the overall EHP also increases the impact of the rig armor reduction. For their primary purpose therefore this is a nerf.
The shift of HP away from structure in to the other sections also makes the resist profile more important. With Kin/therm damage the primary type used by gankers I do hope this has been taken in to account.
I like the idea of being able to make trade offs with rigs, I understand having to tone down the impact of the hull rigs to freighter and JF EHP. I don't like the fact that really you are nerfing my starting point without providing me with any significant option to increase the primary purpose - moving large volumes of things.
Currently though I'm underwhelmed and would prefer to not have the options. Focus the time on other ships that need it. |
Paranoid Loyd
479
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 16:46:00 -
[19] - Quote
The people have got what they asked for, let the bloodbath begin "PvE in EVE is a trap to turn you into PvP content, don't confuse it for actual gameplay." Lipbite |
Tyrrax Thorrk
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
319
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 16:46:00 -
[20] - Quote
What the **** ? That's some dumb changes. |
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
590
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 16:48:00 -
[21] - Quote
Oh -- I think I answered my own question. The JF agility adjustment is meant to compensate for the potential for rigging the Jump Freighter for agility.
My question then becomes "do you think that there is a compelling reason for anyone, ever, to rig for agility?" Jump freighter usage is all about cargo, cargo, cargo. Increasing your cargo reduces the number of trips you have to make, period, which serves to both reduce the amount of fuel you consume and the amount of time you spend running cargo. Messing with the agility only really serves to increase the amount of time you spend doing nothing, without significantly affecting the amount of freight you move.
The only real situation in which you'd want to rig for agility is if you had a habit of jumping to beacons a lot, I guess. Even then, the fuel and time savings of just rigging for cargo would vastly overwhelm the short amount of time you'd save aligning at a beacon. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Tia Hibra
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 16:48:00 -
[22] - Quote
So, on one hand, you want to move industry AWAY from the major hubs.
On the other hand, you nerf freighters cargo capacity, requiring capital sized rigs.
|
Batolemaeus
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
62
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 16:51:00 -
[23] - Quote
Wow, that's a pretty terrible nerf to JF.
So, the cost for a jF is now higher due to the need for t2 capital cargo rigs, their agility is worse, and you want to double/triple/quadruple (really, the sky is the limit here) fuel costs for them.
I'm really not impressed. Any nerf to JF is a direct nerf to 0.0, and more severe the further out you go. With no apparent thrust from CCP to decrease highsec dependency of 0.0, I don't quite get what this is supposed to accomplish. |
Eternal Error
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
427
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 16:52:00 -
[24] - Quote
This is stupid. You're nerfing all possible attributes to compensate for the ability to improve those attributes with rigs, but you only have two slots and are going to have to pick one (maybe two) of those attributes to improve with said rigs. This is a blatant nerf, and not in a way that makes sense depending on what you are trying to accomplish (e.g. a proper range or cargo reduction). |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21776
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 16:55:00 -
[25] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Actually the tank on your JF is about the same as before, thanks to the extra resists. So you get one of the three for free! GǪbut it then gets gutshot by the Nozzle Joints I will have to fit to make it not behave like a drunken cow.
Quote:But yes, the fact that this is a small reduction in Jump Freighter power is completely intended. Figured as much.
Paranoid Loyd wrote:The people have got what they asked for, let the bloodbath begin YeahGǪ again, there's a reason why I've always been against this idea.
Silvetica Dian wrote:That wasn't the point. No one thought that getting rigs would leave us with a lower cargobay. WeeeeellGǪ exactly what it would do and how was always up for grabs, but that you'd end with a net change to the ship that made it worse than before was entirely expected. People just couldn't get that idea through their heads and thought that somehow rigs would only make things better in one area you could pick.
It's exactly what Loyd said GÇö be careful what you ask for and all that. 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. |
Abulurd Boniface
The Scope Gallente Federation
124
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 16:58:00 -
[26] - Quote
My experience with ships is that no sooner am I ready to use a certain class [not by: sp, by the requirement to use it] as CCP nerfs the ship.
Was it something I said? |
Kaeden Dourhand
Capital Fusion. Circle-Of-Two
15
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 16:58:00 -
[27] - Quote
As if freighters weren't expensive enough, now you have to spend big dolla for capital rigs to make them even remotely useful. Fabulous |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21777
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 16:58:00 -
[28] - Quote
Querns wrote:Oh -- I think I answered my own question. The JF agility adjustment is meant to compensate for the potential for rigging the Jump Freighter for agility.
My question then becomes "do you think that there is a compelling reason for anyone, ever, to rig for agility?" Jump freighter usage is all about cargo, cargo, cargo. I will, if I keep it (which is questionable).
I picked a JF over a normal freighter for highsec use because it offered higher survivability and faster movement. The higher cargo was pointless since that just made it more worth-while to attack, and I wanted that improved survivability and movement exactly to avoid that problem.
Eternal Error wrote:This is stupid. It is also exactly what was to be expected by anyone who actually engage a couple of neurons on the topic.
Eff it. I'm just going to use this thread to post a big GÇ£I told you so!GÇ¥ snipe on the top of every page. 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. |
Silvetica Dian
Manson Family Advent of Fate
1028
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 16:59:00 -
[29] - Quote
Abulurd Boniface wrote:My experience with ships is that no sooner am I ready to use a certain class [not by: sp, by the requirement to use it] as CCP nerfs the ship.
Was it something I said? I have only used my JF for one trip to null and back Now this. Money at its root is a form of rationing. When the richest 85 people have as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion (50% of humanity) it is clear where the source of poverty is. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/20/trickle-down-economics-broken-promise-richest-85 |
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
3422
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:01:00 -
[30] - Quote
Everybody! Speculate now in capital rigs! Sovereignty and Population New Mining Mechanics |
|
Boltorano
Devious Chemicals
94
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:01:00 -
[31] - Quote
The cargo reduction from the HP rigs seemed a completely sensible penalty for using them.
This, this is just meh. |
JAF Anders
Quantum Cats Syndicate Repeat 0ffenders
195
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:01:00 -
[32] - Quote
Maybe you can't break up Tech II production, but man, you can sure wash out Tech II demand. QCATS is Recruiting: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=146180 |
Dave Stark
5657
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:02:00 -
[33] - Quote
Steijn wrote:sorry, but that is nothing more than a massive nerf. well it's something people asked for, repeatedly.
they told to be careful what they wished for. |
Perseus Parker
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:03:00 -
[34] - Quote
Are there going to be any compensating changes to maximum contract volume from this? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21777
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:04:00 -
[35] - Quote
Abrazzar wrote:Everybody! Speculate now in capital rigs! Anyone want to buy a Nomad? 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. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
590
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:04:00 -
[36] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Querns wrote:Oh -- I think I answered my own question. The JF agility adjustment is meant to compensate for the potential for rigging the Jump Freighter for agility.
My question then becomes "do you think that there is a compelling reason for anyone, ever, to rig for agility?" Jump freighter usage is all about cargo, cargo, cargo. I will, if I keep it (which is questionable). I picked a JF over a normal freighter for highsec use because it offered higher survivability and faster movement. The higher cargo was pointless since that just made it more worth-while to attack, and I wanted that improved survivability and movement exactly to avoid that problem. Why not rig it for warp speed, instead? You spend a lot more time in warp then you do aligning.
Regarding the safety angle, rigging for hull HP is going to be a lot more effective at safeguarding you than align. Any serious freighter suicide ganker utilizes suicide newbie ships with a point to shut off your warp and stop your align before initiating a bump. Your align time won't be particularly useful in saving you when your align is already terrible (pre- and post-change.) This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Kat Ayclism
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
240
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:05:00 -
[37] - Quote
These changes are ******* stupid. Can you stop just changing things to change things? It does not validate your work to be screwing up the things that are right when there's other ships that actually need the rebalancing efforts.
Also, again these changes are at cross odds with the supposed intent to make localized production more possible in null- YOU STILL WILL ALWAYS HAVE TO IMPORT/EXPORT.
So your solution? LOL EVERYTHING USES MORE FUEL AND ALL THE JFS CAN HOLD LESS AND ARE LESS AGILE
Stop swinging around like a 5yo in the dark with a baseball bat. This isn't quality balancing, it's dogshit |
Retar Aveymone
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
366
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:05:00 -
[38] - Quote
Querns wrote: Why not rig it for warp speed, instead? You spend a lot more time in warp then you do aligning.
you're vunerable when you align but not when you're in warp |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
51
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:06:00 -
[39] - Quote
Why all the Rhea hate?
Most other JF lose about 75,000m3 to 78,000m3 base cargo Rhea loses 87,000m3 base
Rhea use the most fuel by far or is fuel being normalized? like carriers, dreads etc?? |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
593
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:07:00 -
[40] - Quote
Retar Aveymone wrote:Querns wrote: Why not rig it for warp speed, instead? You spend a lot more time in warp then you do aligning.
you're vunerable when you align but not when you're in warp Sure, but even rigged, the align time of a Jump Freighter is awful enough that anyone trying to gank you will have ample time to mess with you. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
|
Gamberone
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:10:00 -
[41] - Quote
This change is stupid. You don't need to change anything on the JF to allow cargo rigs. Increasing the size of capitals and station freight containers makes sense.
CCP Fozzie are you saying here that JF's were OP? Why do they need this Nerf, please explain. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21779
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:10:00 -
[42] - Quote
Querns wrote:Why not rig it for warp speed, instead? You spend a lot more time in warp then you do aligning. Hmm, well yes, with these changes that will certainly be the case. I suppose it also doesn't hurt that much of I lose 10% from my irrelevant 1 tf CPU.
Quote:Regarding the safety angle, rigging for hull HP is going to be a lot more effective at safeguarding you than align. Yes, but with the already low cargo capacity, I'll end up with a ship that will only carry slightly more than an Orca, with the Orca still being (far) faster and more sturdy. If I did it with a regular freighter, it might be an idea (as mentioned in my first post edit), but it won't save my trusty old Nomad.
Also, told you so!
GǪdammit, missed by one post. 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. |
Alcorak
Stealth Tactics and Reconnaissance Service Rebel Alliance of New Eden
49
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:10:00 -
[43] - Quote
T1 freighters already can't use their own cargo holds effectively. Fill it with too much stuff and you're just a kill mail waiting to happen. While I'm all for juicy freighter kills, the fact is that they are not capable of filling their designed role. They actually have TOO LITTLE in the way of EHP and freighter pilots have been crying about it for years. While I like the idea of rigs for customization, this nerf is a step in the wrong direction and is only happening to justify the existence of capital sized rigs.
On another note - I've noticed that many combat ships have been getting some really cool skins lately and that haulers in general don't have them yet. Since freighters are giant haulers of shiney things, I'd like to propose a pi+¦ata themed skin for freighters. |
BackStreet Babe
ZC Industries Dark Stripes
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:11:00 -
[44] - Quote
poor changes. now you have to spend 1.2b extra on a jf to get to the same cargo as before but a with slower align.
don't bother with adding rigs to these ships if this half arsed bollocks is what you come up with |
Veinnail
FinFleet Northern Coalition.
80
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:11:00 -
[45] - Quote
Posting to voice dissatisfaction in these implementations. This is a chain reaction of decisions around the move to rig these hulls. The process isn't flawed, the hulls just shouldn't get rigs. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21779
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:12:00 -
[46] - Quote
BackStreet Babe wrote:poor changes. now you have to spend 1.2b extra on a jf to get to the same cargo as before but a with slower align. Yes, but it will most likely also be a bit weaker too. 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. |
Kember Ibuen
Ufernerfledoodledo
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:12:00 -
[47] - Quote
Yet another win for the gankers as if it isn't already easy enough for them to kill freighters. I don't think I'm going to be playing this game much longer the way things are heading. |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1390
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:12:00 -
[48] - Quote
The jf nerfs are stupid and unnecessary.
You can't start buffing nullsec industry while nerfing jumpfreighters, that's just stupid. GRRR Goons |
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
89
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:12:00 -
[49] - Quote
So left me get this straight.
I have a perfect skilled Charon now, I can haul the most of any non-jumpable ship in the game.. But now, I need to dump another 1.5-2 BILLION isk in Cargo and Tank rigs to get back where I am now ?
How is this fair to anyone ? Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of rigs and all, but you're adding a huge expense to those of us who already have freighters, to keep doing what we are doing. |
Daandrah
DIVINE CHA0S The Bastion
102
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:12:00 -
[50] - Quote
I don't like it |
|
Iris Bravemount
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
308
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:12:00 -
[51] - Quote
Seriously? You are nerfing freighters? I... I can't believe it!
They are flismy enough as they are, the last thing they need is an EHP nerf.
So now I can use rigs. Great, but the freighter is just going to be worse than before, at a higher cost.
I don't really mind that the hold is shrinking, eventhough I don't know why you would do that. I do, however, mind that the EHP/m3 is going down, eventhough the price increases.
What's the point of "rebalancing" freighters, if it's only to reduce the profitable ganking threshhold even more?
The tiericide made it dirt-cheap to suicide-gank freighters, so I was expecting this balance pass to give a massive buff to freighters.
Considering unsubbing my freighter alt now, and I don't think I'd be the only one.
Can't really comment on JFs I don't use those, maybe their nerf is deserved. "I will not hesitate when the test of Faith finds me, for only the strongest conviction will open the gates of paradise. My Faith in you is absolute; my sword is Yours, My God, and Your will guides me now and for all eternity." - Paladin's Creed |
Retar Aveymone
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
367
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:14:00 -
[52] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Querns wrote:Why not rig it for warp speed, instead? You spend a lot more time in warp then you do aligning. Hmm, well yes, with these changes that will certainly be the case. I suppose it also doesn't hurt that much of I lose 10% from my irrelevant 1 tf CPU. Quote:Regarding the safety angle, rigging for hull HP is going to be a lot more effective at safeguarding you than align. Yes, but with the already low cargo capacity, I'll end up with a ship that will only carry slightly more than an Orca, with the Orca still being (far) faster and more sturdy. If I did it with a regular freighter, it might be an idea (as mentioned in my first post edit), but it won't save my trusty old Nomad. . your nomad was already a bad choice because many gankers will kill jfs on sight rather than just cost-effective ones |
Theng Hofses
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
39
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:15:00 -
[53] - Quote
So we have a combination of industry changes which will in all likelihood demand more hauling and add to it a change that makes hauling more difficult/expensive, which should drive prices up.
One would have expected that one would be offset by other other instead they are compounded. The ones that seem to get hurt here are the smaller manufacturers as the large scale manufacturers are simply adding more freighters and jump freighters to the mix. If you lose your only and now more expensive freighter it's a catastrophe for a small guy, if you have ten running simultaneously, then it's no big deal.
I am struggling to see how this makes the game more enjoyable and less of a grind. Can someone explain what the thought process was here and what the intended outcome is? Admittedly, I am with the slow team and I don't catch on how these things in the game actually work. |
Regan Rotineque
Arch Angels Assault Force The Kadeshi
320
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:17:00 -
[54] - Quote
I dont get the heavy nerf to cargo capacity on these ships particularly the JF
You are RAISING the cost of moving goods by 50% with your changes to isotope usage and many of us (now wrongly) thoguht that we could recoup some of that by rigging the JF for additional cargo space.
Now we are rigging just to keep what we had.
This is bad for the game imho - null is already difficult for anyone NEW to get into - its hard for small corps/alliances to set up and they all rely on JF services which will now become even MORE expensive to haul things.
Im sorry but this is a bad change - coupled with TONS of other changes that are not even on SiSi yet that affect the entire fabric of the game and CCP you now have me worried. |
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
3422
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:17:00 -
[55] - Quote
So, what's better: Resistance rigs or trimarks for my Providence? Kinetic or thermal or explosive? Decisions, decisions. Sovereignty and Population New Mining Mechanics |
Dave Stark
5659
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:17:00 -
[56] - Quote
Iris Bravemount wrote:Seriously? You are nerfing freighters? I... I can't believe it!
you can't believe that CCP would introduce something people have been asking for, for a long time?
are you unaware how proud CCP are of their communication with the playerbase, and how willing they are to embrace player ideas than reject everything in some kind of silly power play like other developers?
this thread encapsulates what we love about CCP as a company. that, and the fact that all these tears are delicious. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21781
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:18:00 -
[57] - Quote
Iris Bravemount wrote:Can't really comment on JFs I don't use those, maybe their nerf is deserved. It's kind of deserved from the viewpoint of how easily they can just bypass many dangers with their jump drive. This change balances that out by making all the parts where you can't jump a lot more slow and dangerous.
As for the rest, it was all to be expected. Hence the obligatory GÇ£told you soGÇ¥.
Retar Aveymone wrote:your nomad was already a bad choice because many gankers will kill jfs on sight rather than just cost-effective ones If they're out to get me, yes. But outside of special occasions, that's pretty much never the case. Four years and not so much a a lock-on suggests that it was a pretty good choice since it's such a poor target.
Your perspective is likely to vary with your corp ticker, though. 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. |
Jedediah Arndtz
Warner Bros.
23
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:18:00 -
[58] - Quote
So CCP is effectively doubling the cost of freighters. Thanks. Thanks a bunch. Just this morning I thought to myself that I wanted to spend 3b to get the same utility out of a ship that used to cost 1.5.
Versatility's all well and good, but that's not even close to worth it. Switch them to large rigs, and sure. |
Lyn Fel
Black Frog Logistics Red-Frog
27
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:19:00 -
[59] - Quote
Way to take a dump haulers Fozzie. Less tank+less agility+less cargo space but if you spend a lot more isk on your already expensive ship you can fix one, maybe two of those nerfs. Not to mention the 50% more fuel consumption coming soon.
I assume that your goal is to spread industry out all over null so that local markets can do everything themselves. Unfortunately, I believe that the exact opposite is what's going to happen. Hauling nerfs are going to cause people to congregate even more closely together than they already do, not encourage them to spread out more. There just aren't enough people interested in doing every aspect of industry in every corner of the universe and forcing people to do things that they don't want to do doesn't generally work out well. |
Proton Power
Evolution Northern Coalition.
19
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:19:00 -
[60] - Quote
This is stupid; period....
Yes they have the same EHP's; but rigs are less effective now because of the hitpoints being seperated from hull... So 3 hull rigs wil not be near as effective a before..
Gankability; from what I can tell freighters will be just as gankable now and be valued more due to rigs.
This is in no way helpful to freighters; it is pure nerf unless you only haul small amounts and put in 3 rigs for war/speed/agilty; Everyoen else that uses freighters for what they are meant have been nerfed... |
|
Batolemaeus
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
64
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:21:00 -
[61] - Quote
Abrazzar wrote:So, what's better: Resistance rigs or trimarks for my Providence? Kinetic or thermal or explosive? Decisions, decisions.
Hull rigs (if released) and implants. It's a no-brainer, really. Has always been. |
Eanna Heart
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:22:00 -
[62] - Quote
Fozzie pls go.
"I want to encourage industry in nullsec."
"Let's make nullsec logistics more costly, difficult, and risky." |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6282
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:22:00 -
[63] - Quote
Kember Ibuen wrote:Yet another win for the gankers as if it isn't already easy enough for them to kill freighters. I don't think I'm going to be playing this game much longer the way things are heading.
Just remember, you guys asked for it.
Begged, even. All the while thinking it would come as a net buff. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Dave Stark
5659
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:23:00 -
[64] - Quote
Batolemaeus wrote:Abrazzar wrote:So, what's better: Resistance rigs or trimarks for my Providence? Kinetic or thermal or explosive? Decisions, decisions. Hull rigs (if released) and implants. It's a no-brainer, really. Has always been.
even with the reduced hull values? |
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
3422
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:24:00 -
[65] - Quote
Batolemaeus wrote:Abrazzar wrote:So, what's better: Resistance rigs or trimarks for my Providence? Kinetic or thermal or explosive? Decisions, decisions. Hull rigs (if released) and implants. It's a no-brainer, really. Has always been. But my hull hitpoints just got nerfed while my armor got boosted. Makes no sense to stick with hull when I can't have the benefit of resistances with it. There are no hull resist rigs. Sovereignty and Population New Mining Mechanics |
Triturus Alpestris
Boot Camp. CZECH Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:24:00 -
[66] - Quote
http://i.imgur.com/kejtb.gif |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
1220
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:25:00 -
[67] - Quote
lol
The easy, safe and rapid transport of large volumes of materials is one of the reasons why we have a single big hub. It's too easy to just move everything to Jita. Brave changes. |
Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
338
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:25:00 -
[68] - Quote
I love the fact that we will be able to customize the freighters now but being able to customize them to current or slightly better levels at a much higher cost doesn't make much sense. My basic observation of the numbers without doing any math maybe complete wrong but it looks like this is a major nerf. So the question is then, did freighters require a nerf? Were they too OP in the current form? |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
5192
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:25:00 -
[69] - Quote
Jump Freighters currently are over powered and you guys know it. This change is a slight nerf and still leaves the ship incredibly useful. The Paradox |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21786
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:27:00 -
[70] - Quote
Proton Power wrote:This is in no way helpful to freighters; it is pure nerf unless you only haul small amounts and put in 3 rigs for war/speed/agilty; Everyoen else that uses freighters for what they are meant have been nerfed... *clears throat*
Told you so.
This is exactly what everyone of us who was against this idea said was going to happen. It really shouldn't be any surprise.
Dave Stark wrote:even with the reduced hull values? Should be. The Providence gets an 18% reduction in hull; each T1 hull rig gives a 20% bonus. You should be able to squeeze another 50k EHP out three of them. I haven't checked whether bumping its armour might give you more, though. 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. |
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
593
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:28:00 -
[71] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Jump Freighters currently are over powered and you guys know it. This change is a slight nerf and still leaves the ship incredibly useful. For once, I agree with you -- the changes that most people are complaining about are one-time costs in the form of adding rigs. It's painful, but only once.
The agility thing is also fairly minor, but it just doesn't make a whole lot of sense, I guess. I'd like to hear the justification for it, and if it is indeed because of worries of rigging for agility, I would have to be convinced that anyone sane would ever do that instead of rigging for cargo. Otherwise, it just reduces quality of life for no real reason. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Mr IX
High Flyers The Kadeshi
4
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:28:00 -
[72] - Quote
the changes to freighters I get and it makes a bit of sense .. the JF changes are completely stupid.
I get it you are adding rigs and making players chose current cargo hold size or agility but not both, BUT the fuel consumption changes are again stupid.
What is the thinking behind this? Truly if you wanted to nerf it to this level you would've had to given it something grandiose like 2 low slots 2 medium slots and 1 high slot along with the 2 rigs, OR giving JF an added Mineral only hold so that it can move processed minerals without having to compress ore or put into modules.
Again the fuel nerf why? It is not like the JF had the long legs of a carrier to begin with ..... dumb
|
Dave Stark
5661
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:29:00 -
[73] - Quote
Niko Lorenzio wrote:Were they too OP in the current form? give and take.
they gave you rig slots, they took away some base stats.
can't say i've done the maths thoroughly but it seems that with the appropriate rigs you can probably get better than current performance from one aspect of your freighter, at the cost of the other aspects. time for people to make some decisions, i think. |
Batolemaeus
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
65
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:32:00 -
[74] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Batolemaeus wrote:Abrazzar wrote:So, what's better: Resistance rigs or trimarks for my Providence? Kinetic or thermal or explosive? Decisions, decisions. Hull rigs (if released) and implants. It's a no-brainer, really. Has always been. even with the reduced hull values?
Rigs add a percentage value. The providence has 2.5 as much hull as armor and a t1 resist profile. So yeah, it's not even a contest unless you fly around with a maxed armor boost alt. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11524
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:39:00 -
[75] - Quote
I warned you bears this would happen if rigs became a thing on freighters. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Regan Rotineque
Arch Angels Assault Force The Kadeshi
321
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:39:00 -
[76] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Jump Freighters currently are over powered and you guys know it. This change is a slight nerf and still leaves the ship incredibly useful.
I agree that they are a bit o/p and can avoid most entanglements - however the change they are making is not the only one - its the 50% increase in fuel costs coupled with a nerf to their cargo that has me wondering. That change was to help offset the POS changes they fear on the isotope markets - but has the net effect of driving up the price of all goods in null. Yes we will be making more things there - but logistics are not done with small haulers or regular freighters roaming about - lets face it the only way to get things around null is to jump.
Its basically going to make any new/small renter corps have to spend even more than they do now.
Not everyone in null has the luxury of a fully stocked station next to their home - though the proliferation of stations these last few years is making that less and less - i still think that raising the costs of living in null will not attract more people out.
They are modifying soooo many industrial things that each have dependencies upon other parts of the game. And these changes were thankfully rolled back to a later release - they are not even on SISi yet for testing.
Im fine with raising the price of everything I sell |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6283
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:42:00 -
[77] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:I warned you bears this would happen if rigs became a thing on freighters.
That's the funniest part about it for me. For years now, people have asked for rigs like it was just some innocent thing, thinking it would be a net buff overall.
Reap the whirlwind, folks. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
TheButcherPete
Incompertus INC Fatal Ascension
433
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:42:00 -
[78] - Quote
They still have the velocity bonus.... which is *mostly* useless.
oh yay my Freighter goes 100m/s. Yay. Totally could use that bonus over say, an agility or mass bonus to make FLYING a freighter less than soul crushingly boring.
I was excited for these changes, and then suddenly I was not. :( THE KING OF EVE RADIO
If EVE is real, does that mean all of us are RMTrs? |
Doctor Who-Dat
Stuff Direct Holdings Inc
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:42:00 -
[79] - Quote
Since you are basically now having the Freighter / Jump Freighter hulls built 80% complete now, maybe they should take 80% of the build cost/components. |
Kerplakershtat Rova
EVE University Ivy League
7
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:42:00 -
[80] - Quote
Great, so if you're wanting to go for cargohold over align time and use Capital Cargohold Optimization rigs, you get to sacrifice a bunch of armor HP too. I know they have the biggest cargoholds to begin with, but considering Fozzie is shaving a bunch of HP from hull and adding it to shields and/or armor, it feels like he's trying to force everyone into a Charon or Rhea.
Marlona Sky wrote:Jump Freighters currently are over powered and you guys know it. This change is a slight nerf and still leaves the ship incredibly useful.
Yeah, and the 50% increase in fuel usage is already huge for anyone flying the damn things, the fact they're making you have to get T2 capital rigs (because making people shell out for T2 large rigs isn't enough) just to undo one of Fozzie's nerfs is a huge finger up to anyone who owns a jump freighter, let alone a regular one. |
|
Makari Aeron
The Shadow's Of Eve TSOE Consortium
97
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:43:00 -
[81] - Quote
IMHO, make T1 rigs give the same (or very nearly the same) m3 as the JFs and Freighters were before the patch CCP RedDawn: Ugly people are just playing life on HARD mode. Personally, I'm playing on an INFERNO difficulty...
|
Joram MacRorie
Black Frog Logistics Red-Frog
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:45:00 -
[82] - Quote
I had high hopes for the freighter changes, but with this being Eve I had expected to be disappointed.
I would like to point out that the changes even with rigging for EHP will not matter a whole lot since gankers will just choose their targets a bit more carefully since the new changes will mean ganking will be easier if you apply the right damage. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
502
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:45:00 -
[83] - Quote
Yay, we need to compensate. No improvement at all, only compensation for the loss of stats. And the compensation costs even more stats. So wonderful. |
Batolemaeus
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
66
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:46:00 -
[84] - Quote
Regan Rotineque wrote: Yes we will be making more things there
How exactly?
Am I supposed to extract non-local isotopes from my behind? Will non-local T2 materials into being? Found a praying circle to wish for a divine delivery of non-local rig parts? Perform a summoning of faction modules? Sacrifice a newbie in hopes for plentiful datacore harvest? Wish for decryptors? |
Desert Ice78
Gryphons of the Western Wind
389
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:46:00 -
[85] - Quote
Why? I am a pod pilot: http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/DesertIce/POD.jpg
CCP Zulu: Came expecting a discussion about computer monitors, left confused. |
Pubbie Spy
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
70
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:48:00 -
[86] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:lol
The easy, safe and rapid transport of large volumes of materials is one of the reasons why we have a single big hub. It's too easy to just move everything to Jita. Brave changes.
I like having one single market hub. Centralisation is great.
That said, the amount of tears in this thread has more than justified the nerf. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1503
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:48:00 -
[87] - Quote
Proton Power wrote:Gankability; from what I can tell freighters will be just as gankable now and be valued more due to rigs.
u could use hull rigs for buffer or are armour resist rigs with logi. or low friction rigs with a webber. Its only just as gankable if ur not really trying. seems fair.
Niko Lorenzio wrote: So the question is then, did freighters require a nerf? Were they too OP in the current form?
Naw, they were just fine. They are widely used and popular ships. They were in no need of a nerf nor buff. But soooo many threads came up asking for customizability. They were told every time 'u cant straight buff freighters' and 'freighters are already perfect' so any customisation would come in the form of specialisations and trade-offs.
honestly, T1's could have been nerfed more. the only thing they lost is capacity, which can still be made to go above previous amounts. Everything else is the same or close enough to make no difference before rigs. 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" |
Iris Bravemount
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
310
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:48:00 -
[88] - Quote
Ok, again, I want to state that this change is going in the wrong direction. However, if you insist on nerfing freighters, at least adjust the building cost accordingly, so that the hull+rigs cost after the change is about the same (or less) than the current cost, since the perfomance is going that way. "I will not hesitate when the test of Faith finds me, for only the strongest conviction will open the gates of paradise. My Faith in you is absolute; my sword is Yours, My God, and Your will guides me now and for all eternity." - Paladin's Creed |
Aliath Sunstrike
Aviation Professionals for EVE
48
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:48:00 -
[89] - Quote
The problem with rigging these is not the long term, but the short term Fozzie.
What was fine before is now going to cost me a few billion extra for T2 capital rigs. Stealth ISK Sink much?
I like the changes again, but what about a credit or free rigs or something to compensate. WTF?
Edit: Where is my down vote / take a like away button? |
Vchera
We are not bad. Just unlucky Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:48:00 -
[90] - Quote
Sincerely, to do this, pls let freighters and JF alone |
|
Arline Kley
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
293
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:49:00 -
[91] - Quote
I shall join Tippia on the "I told you so" bus, however with a slight difference:
This is another major issue I have had with the ship changes over the last 18 months or so. They are proposed, people state that they are not welcome whilst giving clear and valid reasons why and.... nothing. Complete ignorance. Then months later "oh dear, we're sorry, we're gonna change the ++insert ship type here++ because of XYZ issues that were actually pointed out to us, but we failed to listen to the people that play the ships day in day out."
Yet the smaller minority that go "yes I wholeheartedly approve of this product and/or service" get their way, with some truly hideous changes getting put into game.
Still, I'm holding out on a proper ship rebalancing effort to be done what with the shorter times between deployments of releases... Blessed are those that carry the Empress' Light; with it they destroy the shadows |
Dave Stark
5666
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:50:00 -
[92] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:I warned you bears this would happen if rigs became a thing on freighters. you did indeed. |
Poke InTheEye
Anti-BoB Flash Mob
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:51:00 -
[93] - Quote
This is really dumb. These changes seem like they are being made just for the sake of change. Seriously, what's the point here? |
Dave Stark
5666
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:52:00 -
[94] - Quote
Poke InTheEye wrote:Seriously, what's the point here? to teach people a harsh and valuable lesson; you repeatedly ask for bad ideas to be implemented, you get bad changes. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21793
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:52:00 -
[95] - Quote
Because people asked for this nerf. We tried to tell them that it was going to be a nerf, but they wanted it anyway because the prospect of more m-¦ suppressed all rational thought. 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. |
B33R
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:52:00 -
[96] - Quote
i was hoping for the JF ability to move an ihub, guess not. If the fuel change really goes thru with this, it is going to be bad. the t1 rigs should make it equal the previous m3 amount. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1503
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:53:00 -
[97] - Quote
TheButcherPete wrote:They still have the velocity bonus.... which is *mostly* useless.
oh yay my Freighter goes 100m/s. Yay. Totally could use that bonus over say, an agility or mass bonus to make FLYING a freighter less than soul crushingly boring.
I was excited for these changes, and then suddenly I was not. :(
really? cause if u read the hull rig thread u see ppl saying 'please dnt make hull rigs penalize velocity. my afk freighter will cry' 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" |
Petya Gladiator
Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation
12
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:54:00 -
[98] - Quote
Miniluv sends their regards... |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
502
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:54:00 -
[99] - Quote
Poke InTheEye wrote:This is really dumb. These changes seem like they are being made just for the sake of change. Seriously, what's the point here?
Make all non-PVP activities less viable and ease the access to low-level PVP. Welcome to EVE Online in the age where you need to appeal to Angry Birds players instead of real players. |
Aliath Sunstrike
Aviation Professionals for EVE
48
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:55:00 -
[100] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Because people asked for this nerf. We tried to tell them that it was going to be a nerf, but they wanted it anyway because the prospect of more m-¦ suppressed all rational thought. Poke InTheEye wrote:This is really dumb. These changes seem like they are being made just for the sake of change. Seriously, what's the point here? The point here is to give people something they've been asking for for a very long time. They asked for something dumb, so they got something dumb. Go figure.
And my question to Fozzie is....why make it a nerf!? Can't this be a "power creep" buff all across the board and just ADD rigs. Why does it have to be #$@#@ $ painful. |
|
Regan Rotineque
Arch Angels Assault Force The Kadeshi
321
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:55:00 -
[101] - Quote
Batolemaeus wrote:Regan Rotineque wrote: Yes we will be making more things there How exactly? Am I supposed to extract non-local isotopes from my behind? Will non-local T2 materials into being? Found a praying circle to wish for a divine delivery of non-local rig parts? Perform a summoning of faction modules? Sacrifice a newbie in hopes for plentiful datacore harvest? Wish for decryptors?
Point taken - you are correct - i can see more basic needs being met in null - on the t1/ammo side but anything that requires the luxuries that ONLY exist in high sec markets is going to take its toll - and be more expensive.
Why would I ever do research or anything in null ? Its going to cost me more to stay in null when i can just set up my pos in some ass backwards part of high sec and let my alts toil there.
I can move t2 products around high sec much more efficiently and cheaply so t2 production stays in and around high sec.
And we still end up exporting to null - just costing us more in jump fuel - which in turn ends up being paid by the line grunt - who may or may not see any point in fleeting up anymore since his bomber now costs 100m isk. (im being sarcastic now)
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21797
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:55:00 -
[102] - Quote
Told you so.
e: Dammit!! Missed by one post again. 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. |
Nightingale Actault
Divided Unity The Night Crew Alliance
25
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:55:00 -
[103] - Quote
Excellent changes.
Freighter pilots now have to choose between tank, time into warp, or warp speed. If you were filling your cargo full before you were likely doing it wrong anyways creating a giant gank target, and by going max cargo after the changes you are doing the same. Choosing to cut short time from your align or massive combined time from your warp speed is another choice that freighter pilots will need to ask themselves. With the changes to warp speed affecting freighters the way they have, I definitely like the option of choosing a safe amount of materials to transport at a faster warp speed for less total transport time. |
Dave Stark
5666
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:56:00 -
[104] - Quote
Aliath Sunstrike wrote:Can't this be a "power creep" buff all across the board and just ADD rigs. Why does it have to be #$@#@ $ painful. no, power creeps are bad. |
Powers Sa
1356
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:56:00 -
[105] - Quote
Kat Ayclism wrote:These changes are ******* stupid. Can you stop just changing things to change things? It does not validate your work to be screwing up the things that are right when there's other ships that actually need the rebalancing efforts.
Also, again these changes are at cross odds with the supposed intent to make localized production more possible in null- YOU STILL WILL ALWAYS HAVE TO IMPORT/EXPORT.
So your solution? LOL EVERYTHING USES MORE FUEL AND ALL THE JFS CAN HOLD LESS AND ARE LESS AGILE
Stop swinging around like a 5yo in the dark with a baseball bat. This isn't quality balancing, it's dogshit lmao lol |
Sigras
Conglomo
765
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:58:00 -
[106] - Quote
Abrazzar wrote:Batolemaeus wrote:Abrazzar wrote:So, what's better: Resistance rigs or trimarks for my Providence? Kinetic or thermal or explosive? Decisions, decisions. Hull rigs (if released) and implants. It's a no-brainer, really. Has always been. But my hull hitpoints just got nerfed while my armor got boosted. Makes no sense to stick with hull when I can't have the benefit of resistances with it. There are no hull resist rigs. it doesnt matter, on the most armor tanky freighter (the ark) your resist profile gives you 71,820 armor EHP while you still have 111,000 hull (before skills)
This means that a T2 trimark will give you 14,364 extra EHP, and a T2 hull HP rig will give you 27,750 EHP
The only time I can see trimarks being better would be if you had a damnation follow you around with links on. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
502
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:58:00 -
[107] - Quote
Nightingale Actault wrote:Excellent changes.
Freighter pilots now have to choose between tank, time into warp, or warp speed. If you were filling your cargo full before you were likely doing it wrong anyways creating a giant gank target, and by going max cargo after the changes you are doing the same. Choosing to cut short time from your align or massive combined time from your warp speed is another choice that freighter pilots will need to ask themselves. With the changes to warp speed affecting freighters the way they have, I definitely like the option of choosing a safe amount of materials to transport at a faster warp speed for less total transport time.
Filling your freighter with Tritanium worth 400M makes you a big gank target? Please give me something from your mushrooms. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21797
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:59:00 -
[108] - Quote
Aliath Sunstrike wrote:And my question to Fozzie is....why make it a nerf!? Can't this be a "power creep" buff all across the board and just ADD rigs. Why does it have to be #$@#@ $ painful. Because it wouldn't be GÇ£power creepGÇ¥ GÇö it would be a ridiculously overpowered mega-buff. Counter-balancing the potential bonuses from rigs with nerfs to ensure that the end results were not insane was inevitable.
GǪoh, and power creep itself is bad, especially for a ship class that didn't particularly need any buffs. 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. |
Nightingale Actault
Divided Unity The Night Crew Alliance
25
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:01:00 -
[109] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Nightingale Actault wrote:Excellent changes.
Freighter pilots now have to choose between tank, time into warp, or warp speed. If you were filling your cargo full before you were likely doing it wrong anyways creating a giant gank target, and by going max cargo after the changes you are doing the same. Choosing to cut short time from your align or massive combined time from your warp speed is another choice that freighter pilots will need to ask themselves. With the changes to warp speed affecting freighters the way they have, I definitely like the option of choosing a safe amount of materials to transport at a faster warp speed for less total transport time. Filling your freighter with Tritanium worth 400M makes you a big gank target? Please give me something from your mushrooms.
Choosing one of the cheapest materials you would be transporting is a great way to counter my point, however I don't believe that a majority of the items being transported are going to be along these same lines.
Additionally, and off that topic, I believe these changes are also a great way to increase the viability of localized nullsec manufacturing. If less items are being JF into nullsec it will give greater opportunity for those items to be created locally at profitable levels. |
Dr Drugs
Never Ignorant Gettin' Goals Accomplished
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:01:00 -
[110] - 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.
what about drawback on cargo rigs ?
|
|
l0rd carlos
Friends Of Harassment The Camel Empire
931
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:01:00 -
[111] - Quote
As a non freighter Pilot I like those changes. Now people have to decide if they want max cargo, max agility or max tank.
It adds a choice to the game :) German blog about smallscale lowsec pvp: http://friendsofharassment.wordpress.com |
Cardano Firesnake
Les chevaliers de l'ordre Goonswarm Federation
150
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:02:00 -
[112] - Quote
So I will have to rig my Fenrir with capital rigs to have the same cargohold or to make it more tanky but so slow that it will be a pain to transport anything. As if it was not already horrible to transport things with a freighter.... |
T-N-T
Elite-crew corporation Jokers.
10
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:02:00 -
[113] - Quote
So many carebears tears! |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
32
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:03:00 -
[114] - Quote
Keep your rigs. If you're going to go full popsicle with the changes to compensate, I'm just not sure any of it was worth it. Drawbacks on rigs are one thing, but seriously, nothing good has come of this.
Those cheers you heard at FanFest? Silenced, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in utter fricken disbelief. I fear something terrible has happened. |
Qoi
Exert Force
3
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:03:00 -
[115] - Quote
To offset a 30% nerf, you need a 43% increase with rigs. T1 Rigs only give you 36.6% more and 2xT2+1xT1 Rigs (you can't use three T2 rigs because of Calibration) only gives you a 46% increase.
So you need to buy two Tech II capital rigs for your freighter to offset the nerf, you get marginally more cargo space (A bit more than two percent on a Charon).
So you have a ship that costs twice as much, doesn't carry more goods, aligns slower and has lower EHP. Also don't forget that cargo rigs remove armor hit points and some of these ships are now armor tankers, and the fact that freighter warp speed just got nerved with the change in the warp mechanics. |
Zebs Clone
Zebra Corp Gentlemen's Agreement
23
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:05:00 -
[116] - Quote
l0rd carlos wrote:As a non freighter Pilot I like those changes. Now people have to decide if they want max cargo, max agility or max tank.
It adds a choice to the game :)
in a way yes. I now need 2 jf's and 2 freighters. one for cargo and one for everything else. so that's one expensive choice.
better to just leave them as they are and cancel the rig changes for them imo |
Batolemaeus
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
66
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:05:00 -
[117] - Quote
Nightingale Actault wrote: Additionally, and off that topic, I believe these changes are also a great way to increase the viability of localized nullsec manufacturing. If less items are being JF into nullsec it will give greater opportunity for those items to be created locally at profitable levels.
I did a short look through my "shipping manifests" in recent times. About 10% of my cargo could have been produced in 0.0. Mostly ships and some ammo.
So...how exactly is this supposed to improve 0.0 manufacturing? |
Dave Stark
5666
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:05:00 -
[118] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:Those cheers you heard at FanFest? Silenced, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in utter fricken disbelief. I fear something terrible has happened.
what disbelief? you've been told for a long time that this would happen. |
T-N-T
Elite-crew corporation Jokers.
10
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:06:00 -
[119] - Quote
funny thing what only nulli goons and pl doesnt like these changes))others fine with them |
Vivi Udan
Multiplex Gaming Li3 Federation
15
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:08:00 -
[120] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Because Jump Freighters only have two rig slots their maximum cargo is only going to be about 4% higher than current (with T2 rigs) and with T1 cargo rigs their cargo holds will be between 4 and 7% smaller than current. ... Let us know what you think!
Call me crazy but I don't want to spend $7,000,000,000+ isk on a Jump Freighter anymore. The only rigs that seem to be viable on a JF are cargo rigs and if T1 rigs are going to REDUCE the overall cargo compacity [T2 cargo rigs only cost $732,949,999.98 isk in Jita right now] than what was the point of adding rig slots in the first place?
The only reason [I can think of] to but something other than cargo rigs on a JF is if you plan on flying it into High Sec...where you you might as well use a normal Freighter/Red Frog.
I am confused by this proposition for Jump Freighters. The Mittani of House GoonWaffe,-áFirst of His name, King of the Goons and VFK,-áMaster of griefing,-áLord of the CFC, Warden of the West,-áand Protector of Deklein. |
|
ZheoTheThird
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
238
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:08:00 -
[121] - Quote
I assume this is aimed against people living in big nullsec blobs by making it harder to live in null?
If yes, then this will backfire so badly, I don't even know how Fozzie didn't predict that.
By making it harder to live in nullsec you only make it harder for small groups, big ones will do fine by simply absorbing highsec carebear corps, once again encouraging nullsec groups to become even bigger. |
Tyrrax Thorrk
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
323
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:09:00 -
[122] - Quote
T-N-T wrote:funny thing what only nulli goons and pl doesnt like these changes))others fine with them
The people this is worst for are fine with the changes ? That's funny. |
ArmyOfMe
Origin. Black Legion.
301
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:10:00 -
[123] - Quote
Im all for a nerf of jf's, as they make 0,0 life way to easy. I dont really see the point in nerfing normal freighters in such a way though, as you'r allready seeing them beeing popped all over empire space anyhow. QUOTE CCP Dolan and the EVE Online development team:-áThe battle was relatively even for some time with CFC and Russian forces holding moderate lead at first and only have a slight lead in Titan kills. Then came a turning point in the battle. Manfred Sideous, the initial Fleet Commander for PL/N3, handed over command to the CEO of Northern Coalition., Vince Draken |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21798
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:10:00 -
[124] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:Those cheers you heard at FanFest? The ones fuelled by ignorance of what was obviously going to happen, like so many of us had been saying all that time? Yeah, they just woke up and understood what we've been saying.
Quote:I fear something terrible has happened. Nothing that wasn't entirely expected.
GǪno, the amount of Gǣtold you soGǥ smugging isn't likely to go down any time soon.
T-N-T wrote:funny thing what only nulli goons and pl doesnt like these changes))others fine with them No, we're not. 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. |
Adrien Crosse
Black Frog Logistics Red-Frog
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:11:00 -
[125] - Quote
So what point am I missing here?
These changes will have zero effect on how logistics work these days. The only thing they do is **** haulers and logi guys off, for no tradeoff whatsoever. You know, those guys who have the most fun jobs as it stands already.
I can understand the "jf op nerf" argument, but these changes don't even do anything of note to help in that regard. If things go live as they stand, or slightly changed for the sake of slightly changing them, we'll suck it up, buy the rigs, and go back to business as usual while aligning slightly slower.
Nobody is going to stop doing large scale logistics by jump freighter, nobody is going to start doing exciting escorted freighter runs.
So, what's the point of all this? |
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
1858
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:13:00 -
[126] - Quote
i am fine by this... as the JF have reduced HP due to semi tech II resist now all i have to do if figure out each ships resist hole and bam. faster ganks! There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Winter Expansion new ship request |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21798
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:14:00 -
[127] - Quote
Adrien Crosse wrote:So, what's the point of all this? Giving people what they want. vOv 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. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
502
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:14:00 -
[128] - Quote
T-N-T wrote:funny thing what only nulli goons and pl doesnt like these changes))others fine with them
I am certainly not fine with this garbage.
|
probag Bear
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
37
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:14:00 -
[129] - Quote
Thanks for the increased demand for capital rigs Fozzie! |
Dave Stark
5669
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:14:00 -
[130] - Quote
Adrien Crosse wrote:So, what's the point of all this? so that you can choose to make 1 aspect of your freighter better than it currently is, at the cost of all the other aspects. that whole "player choice" thing people have been wanting for so long. |
|
Zebs Clone
Zebra Corp Gentlemen's Agreement
23
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:17:00 -
[131] - Quote
found a new roll for the rorq then ccp. well done |
DelBoy Trades
Trotter Independent Traders.
619
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:18:00 -
[132] - Quote
T-N-T wrote:So many carebears tears! I feel like this will affect none carebears just as much. As someone who lives in low/null and PVPs, getting my ships and corp ships from a hub to where we're based from is the slow, boring, monotonous task that already takes considerable time and really is the thing you put off doing, the kind of thing that makes people not want to log in and delays PVP. Just think of all the lowsec entities, NPC null entities, basically sub-coalition size pvp groups who are going to be hindered getting on and having fun. If you're trying to inspire industry in these places, it's not going to work. PVP groups want to do exactly that, that isn't going to change.
Small/medium pvp corps who dare to leave hisec and actually create some content are going to be hit worst...
"Who wants to jump freighter in replacement ships guys?"... "No?......F*%k it, let's play battefield"
Because I can't be bothered to make another post in the other thread:
Medium MJD??? This will achieve one thing; reducing subcap kills. How the hell is blueballing fleets going to advance the game? Surely you're not this out of touch already Fozzie? Damn nature, you scary! |
Steijn
Quay Industries
481
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:18:00 -
[133] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Adrien Crosse wrote:So, what's the point of all this? so that you can choose to make 1 aspect of your freighter better than it currently is, at the cost of all the other aspects. that whole "player choice" thing people have been wanting for so long.
no, to do that you would leave everything as it is and then the rigs let you make it better than it currently is. |
Nys Cron
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
20
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:19:00 -
[134] - Quote
This is a bad idea and will (again) make it harder for smaller groups to live in Lowsec or Nullsec and by forcing people to invest even more into Freighters/JFs just to make them roughly equivalent to before the changes even less new people will have a chance to get into the business. |
Kazanir
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
477
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:20:00 -
[135] - Quote
I had a big post written up about this. Since I ran Goonswarm's JF service for 3 years and personally moved several billion cubic meters of EVE goods all across the universe, I have a pretty good idea of the issues involved here.
So let me ask Fozzie before writing 2,000 words about this:
Why do you want to nerf JFs? What good gameplay results do you think will come from these nerfs? What are you trying to accomplish? |
Dave Stark
5669
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:22:00 -
[136] - Quote
Steijn wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Adrien Crosse wrote:So, what's the point of all this? so that you can choose to make 1 aspect of your freighter better than it currently is, at the cost of all the other aspects. that whole "player choice" thing people have been wanting for so long. no, to do that you would leave everything as it is and then the rigs let you make it better than it currently is. the rigs do let you make it better than it currently is....
... at the expense of the things you chose not to make better. |
Khanh'rhh
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3134
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:22:00 -
[137] - Quote
Kat Ayclism wrote:These changes are ******* stupid. Can you stop just changing things to change things? It does not validate your work to be screwing up the things that are right when there's other ships that actually need the rebalancing efforts.
Also, again these changes are at cross odds with the supposed intent to make localized production more possible in null- YOU STILL WILL ALWAYS HAVE TO IMPORT/EXPORT.
So your solution? LOL EVERYTHING USES MORE FUEL AND ALL THE JFS CAN HOLD LESS AND ARE LESS AGILE
Stop swinging around like a 5yo in the dark with a baseball bat. This isn't quality balancing, it's dogshit
From someone taking quotes out of context in order to yell "Goon tears!" just this week, ahahahahahhahahahahahaahahah
Eanna Heart wrote:Fozzie pls go.
"I want to encourage industry in nullsec."
"Let's make nullsec logistics more costly, difficult, and risky."
That's consistent with the design goal of people doing industry in nullsec, rather than importing everything.
You guys should use your space~~
To everyone else: You got what you asked for. I'm sorry you're not very good at asking for things that actually help you "Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual, issued in the 1930 |
Cardano Firesnake
Les chevaliers de l'ordre Goonswarm Federation
151
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:23:00 -
[138] - Quote
Seriously this modification is terrible. The freighters are already so slow! They will be even, slower. |
Takanuro
Kill-Switch Engage
106
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:23:00 -
[139] - Quote
I think these changes pretty much suck.
Surely with such massively reduced Cargo Bay sizes the mass on these ships could go down and positive effects be found on Agility. Just gonna mean even more stuff I contract to PushX to move instead of bothering to do it myself. Yes, we're going to die, but you're coming with us!
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21804
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:23:00 -
[140] - Quote
Steijn wrote:no, to do that you would leave everything as it is and then the rigs let you make it better than it currently is. That was never going to happen. Hell, some of the GÇ£player choiceGÇ¥ advocates even said that nerfs would be fine because choice trumps all.
So here we are: the player choice asked for is here, and to make it fit and still retain any sense of balance, nerfs will have to happen. Ask and ye shall receive. 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. |
|
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
34
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:25:00 -
[141] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Dirk MacGirk wrote:Those cheers you heard at FanFest? Silenced, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in utter fricken disbelief. I fear something terrible has happened. what disbelief? you've been told for a long time that this would happen.
Told rigs. Unless you were told more than that. Which they were not when "rigs coming to freighters" was proudly proclaimed on stage to wild applause. Or did I miss an announcement someplace?
|
Buzz Dura
Epsilon Lyr Mordus Angels
3
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:26:00 -
[142] - Quote
double nerf for JF... Fuel cost goes up in one thread and now cargo and align time is nerfed...
So nox for the same volume, i will pay more and in certain case i will need a second trip... |
Steijn
Quay Industries
481
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:27:00 -
[143] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Steijn wrote:no, to do that you would leave everything as it is and then the rigs let you make it better than it currently is. That was never going to happen without a counter-balancing that made them proportionally worse. Hell, some of the GÇ£player choiceGÇ¥ advocates even said that nerfs would be fine because choice trumps all. So here we are: the player choice asked for is here, and to make it fit and still retain any sense of balance, nerfs will have to happen. Ask and ye shall receive.
I know.
btw, if anyone cant fly your Nomad and wants an Ark instead, send them to me |
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
1858
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:28:00 -
[144] - Quote
Buzz Dura wrote:double nerf for JF... Fuel cost goes up in one thread and now cargo and align time is nerfed...
So nox for the same volume, i will pay more and in certain case i will need a second trip...
yes and a big boost to local 0.0 markets... crazy eh? There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Winter Expansion new ship request |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11536
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:28:00 -
[145] - Quote
T-N-T wrote:funny thing what only nulli goons and pl doesnt like these changes))others fine with them
Goons are about the only people happy with this change as it will mean even easier kills for us and even more bloated freighters to blow up.
Miniluv sends its regards. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Dave Stark
5669
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:28:00 -
[146] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Dirk MacGirk wrote:Those cheers you heard at FanFest? Silenced, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in utter fricken disbelief. I fear something terrible has happened. what disbelief? you've been told for a long time that this would happen. Told rigs. Unless you were told more than that. Which they were not when "rigs coming to freighters" was proudly proclaimed on stage to wild applause. Or did I miss an announcement someplace?
seems you missed the discussion in every thread for the last god knows how long. every time some one made the idea of "give freighters low slots/fittings/rigs/etc" the reply was "no, let's not do that due to the massive across the board nerf freighters will get".
you didn't have to work at ccp, or be psychic to know this was going to be the outcome. |
Nightingale Actault
Divided Unity The Night Crew Alliance
25
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:29:00 -
[147] - Quote
Batolemaeus wrote:Nightingale Actault wrote: Additionally, and off that topic, I believe these changes are also a great way to increase the viability of localized nullsec manufacturing. If less items are being JF into nullsec it will give greater opportunity for those items to be created locally at profitable levels.
I did a short look through my "shipping manifests" in recent times. About 10% of my cargo could have been produced in 0.0. Mostly ships and some ammo. So...how exactly is this supposed to improve 0.0 manufacturing?
With the increases to cost per m3 to JF materials from HS to NS, especially low value materials such as tritanium, the localized ore gathered becomes increasingly viable to use in and around the area where it is gathered. More specialized materials may still need to be JF, but rather than those who are complaining about JF ALL their items from HS it gives more margins for the localized items to be profitable. When you start with an increase in these small items, you give the local economy a foothold to grow from.
A local economy is primarily going to be compromised of these small groups that everyone thinks are now being nerfed, when in fact it gives them a reason to not jump everything to and from HS, and more reason to use what they create from their space. |
Khanh'rhh
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3135
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:29:00 -
[148] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Steijn wrote:no, to do that you would leave everything as it is and then the rigs let you make it better than it currently is. That was never going to happen without a counter-balancing that made them proportionally worse. Hell, some of the GÇ£player choiceGÇ¥ advocates even said that nerfs would be fine because choice trumps all. So here we are: the player choice asked for is here, and to make it fit and still retain any sense of balance, nerfs will have to happen. Ask and ye shall receive.
Because Eve-O commentators ask to eat the cake, but hope they can secretly keep it at the same time and CCP won't notice. When they realise that's not going to happen, and changes like this happen, they throw a big hissy fit. "Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual, issued in the 1930 |
Batolemaeus
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
66
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:30:00 -
[149] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Buzz Dura wrote:double nerf for JF... Fuel cost goes up in one thread and now cargo and align time is nerfed...
So nox for the same volume, i will pay more and in certain case i will need a second trip... yes and a big boost to local 0.0 markets... crazy eh?
Explain how. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11536
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:30:00 -
[150] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Dirk MacGirk wrote:Those cheers you heard at FanFest? Silenced, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in utter fricken disbelief. I fear something terrible has happened. what disbelief? you've been told for a long time that this would happen. Told rigs. Unless you were told more than that. Which they were not when "rigs coming to freighters" was proudly proclaimed on stage to wild applause. Or did I miss an announcement someplace?
We knew what adding rigs would mean. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21804
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:30:00 -
[151] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:Told rigs. Implicitly told that rigs will have to be balanced, if you have any sense.
Quote:Unless you were told more than that. Which they were not when "rigs coming to freighters" was proudly proclaimed on stage to wild applause. Or did I miss an announcement someplace? Every time people have suggested that freighters be given rigs, a number of us have pointed out that this addition must be accompanied by nerfs to make the rigged ships fit within the overall balance of the game. Every time.
Anyone who has suggested this addition has seen the warning of what will inevitably accompany it. Disbelief is not the right way of describing it. Recovery from temporary loss of common sense or wilful ignorance is more accurate. 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. |
Ammzi
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
1761
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:31:00 -
[152] - Quote
We told you this was gonna happen. Every single one of you advocates for low slots and rigs to freighters. We told you they would take some of your candy away in return for giving you a cake. But ooh, did you listen? Nope.
The changes are to be expected, except JF align nerf. That's a bit uncalled for.
|
dexter xio
TURN LEFT
53
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:32:00 -
[153] - Quote
RIP (Jump) Freighters. Dexter xio - That cool guy |
Vivi Udan
Multiplex Gaming Li3 Federation
15
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:32:00 -
[154] - Quote
Querns wrote:... My question then becomes "do you think that there is a compelling reason for anyone, ever, to rig for agility?" Jump freighter usage is all about cargo, cargo, cargo. Increasing your cargo reduces the number of trips you have to make, period, which serves to both reduce the amount of fuel you consume and the amount of time you spend running cargo. Messing with the agility only really serves to increase the amount of time you spend doing nothing, without significantly affecting the amount of freight you move.
The only real situation in which you'd want to rig for agility is if you had a habit of jumping to beacons a lot, I guess. Even then, the fuel and time savings of just rigging for cargo would vastly overwhelm the short amount of time you'd save aligning at a beacon.
I understand CCP wanting to make the remote places of New Eden self sustaining, however, when moving from one part of the universe to another [aka like what Li3 has been doing] you NEED JF to make obserd amounts of trips back and forth to move personal/Corporate/Alliance assets. aka undock, jump, dock, then rinse and repeat. This is probably how most people use their JF making anything other than cargo rigs pointless. Even after moving to a new location in New Eden, you still need JF to sell off loot and salvage in High Sec because there is rarely a market for those items in Null Sec. aka the people buying them on the Null Sec market are most likely shipping it to High Sec where there is a demand for those items. The Mittani of House GoonWaffe,-áFirst of His name, King of the Goons and VFK,-áMaster of griefing,-áLord of the CFC, Warden of the West,-áand Protector of Deklein. |
Mr JewBearJr
No Progress
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:32:00 -
[155] - Quote
ArmyOfMe wrote:Im all for a nerf of jf's, as they make 0,0 life way to easy. I dont really see the point in nerfing normal freighters in such a way though, as you'r allready seeing them beeing popped all over empire space anyhow.
This.. a million times this.. |
Kat Ayclism
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:34:00 -
[156] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote:Kat Ayclism wrote:These changes are ******* stupid. Can you stop just changing things to change things? It does not validate your work to be screwing up the things that are right when there's other ships that actually need the rebalancing efforts.
Also, again these changes are at cross odds with the supposed intent to make localized production more possible in null- YOU STILL WILL ALWAYS HAVE TO IMPORT/EXPORT.
So your solution? LOL EVERYTHING USES MORE FUEL AND ALL THE JFS CAN HOLD LESS AND ARE LESS AGILE
Stop swinging around like a 5yo in the dark with a baseball bat. This isn't quality balancing, it's dogshit From someone taking quotes out of context in order to yell "Goon tears!" just this week, ahahahahahhahahahahahaahahah Eanna Heart wrote:Fozzie pls go.
"I want to encourage industry in nullsec."
"Let's make nullsec logistics more costly, difficult, and risky." That's consistent with the design goal of people doing industry in nullsec, rather than importing everything. You guys should use your space~~ To everyone else: You got what you asked for. I'm sorry you're not very good at asking for things that actually help you
While I appreciate that you are talking from the standpoint of an illiterate without the ability to think things through that has to have blinders on to make it through the day lest you be distracted by some fanciful new lie, your point here is still dipshitted and wrong. What is intended to drive industry to null is the advantages contained there to production.
There's not really any effective change that negates the need for importing- nor should there be, since no space should be an island. So no, this is at a cross purpose to what the **** they are trying to achieve by making the importing that will always be necessary more of a needlessly complicated mess and serves as a higher barrier to entry.
But I suppose my simple pointing out of facts will fall flat on your dulled mental facilities and all you'll see is "Grr Goon" again. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21804
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:34:00 -
[157] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Goons are about the only people happy with this change as it will mean even easier kills for us and even more bloated freighters to blow up.
Miniluv sends its regards. Grr goons.
Ammzi wrote:We told you this was gonna happen. Every single one of you advocates for low slots and rigs to freighters. We told you they would take some of your candy away in return for giving you a cake. But ooh, did you listen? Nope.
The changes are to be expected, except JF align nerf. That's a bit uncalled for. So much this. Especially the agility nerf GÇö it's the only part that threw me a bit and makes me wonder how to compensate for it. Since I'm going to have to join the minions of semi-AFKers anyway, it currently looks like downgrading to a freighter will be the best move, and as a bonus, that frees up a lot of capital. 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. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
34
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:34:00 -
[158] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Dirk MacGirk wrote:Told rigs. Implicitly told that rigs will have to be balanced, if you have any sense. Quote:Unless you were told more than that. Which they were not when "rigs coming to freighters" was proudly proclaimed on stage to wild applause. Or did I miss an announcement someplace? Every time people have suggested that freighters be given rigs, a number of us have pointed out that this addition must be accompanied by nerfs to make the rigged ships fit within the overall balance of the game. Every time. Anyone who has suggested this addition has seen the warning of what will inevitably accompany it. Disbelief is not the right way of describing it. Recovery from temporary loss of common sense or wilful ignorance is more accurate.
No need for you and that other genius Dave Stark to be douches about it. But since you've gone down that path, kudos to you for being the sage prognosticators of EVE. Nerfing was to be expected. I think it's the level that drew my attention. Just a tad much. Bit I'm sure your crystal ball already knew that. |
Batolemaeus
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
66
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:35:00 -
[159] - Quote
Nightingale Actault wrote:
With the increases to cost per m3 to JF materials from HS to NS, especially low value materials such as tritanium, the localized ore gathered becomes increasingly viable to use in and around the area where it is gathered.
Nobody used a JF to move trit. We use mineral compression. Which has always been efficient enough that it was only needed for t1 heavy doctrines. Demand for those (and for caps) far outstrips what you can mine without continuous interruption and without the huge expenses involved with moving ore from refinery to manufacturing outpost.
The bulk of my cargo is and has always been things that can not be built locally. Or, to just quote myself:
just a few pages back I wrote: Am I supposed to extract non-local isotopes from my behind? Will non-local T2 materials into being? Found a praying circle to wish for a divine delivery of non-local rig parts? Perform a summoning of faction modules? Sacrifice a newbie in hopes for plentiful datacore harvest? Wish for decryptors?
|
Dawn Harbinger
Corp 54 Curatores Veritatis Alliance
20
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:36:00 -
[160] - Quote
First, if the goal of the JF nerf is to encourage industry in null sec why not just limit the jump range (+ the increased fuel cost) rather than just make them worse overall and even less fun to fly?
Secondly, asking someone who has already invested a lot of time and effort into acquiring such an expensive ship to pay nearly 2 billion more isk on capital rigs with nothing to show for it is a huge disappointment. If I'm going to invest that much into a ship I want to be excited about the benefits. Let us gain enough armor HP to take advantage of our T2 resists, let us increase our agility to warp off from beacons faster, etc. A return to the "baseline" does nothing to excite players or show off their prized ships. |
|
Shinnan Krydu
Hedion University Amarr Empire
9
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:36:00 -
[161] - Quote
Dear CCP
Have you ever heard of the straw that broke the camel's back?
I've played EVE since 2005. I've taken a couple of breaks but I've been a pretty loyal customer. I've spent years of subscription time (and thousands of subscription dollars) training my characters into their specialized roles to be able to do what I need them to do. And now suddenly I feel like the enemy, that CCP has decided that my playstyle is no longer desired in the game.
What do I do? I mine nullsec ice with a small multibox fleet and haul the compressed ice to empire, where I refine it and sell it on the empire market. Doesn't sound like much, but I can (and have) cause large market swings in ice product prices if I'm not careful to space out my trips to empire and my sell orders, so it's not an insignificant operation in the EVE economy. It's enough to PLEX all of my accounts the past year or so, plus save most of the way towards what I need for a super plus fit and implants, while I train the pilot.
When you nerfed the Hulk so that it could no longer stand up to nullsec rats without support, I switched to Mackinaws. Having every pilot in a mack meant I didn't need a dedicated hauler pilot, so it worked out. You made the mack the best compromise between defense and productivity and now you are surprised that they are used so much, so it's time for nerf. Switching a pilot to a Miasmos and the rest to Skiffs gives me most, but not all, of my production capability back, and seems a waste of an exhumer pilot. I can deal with that, but you aren't done yet.
You seem to forget that you deliberately made empire ice mining not sufficient for New Eden's ice needs back during the Odyssey ice changes. You seem to forget that capital ships use racial isotopes that are only found in certain areas of space. You seem to think that the centralization of the economy and power projection in the game is a result of logistics being too easy, and not a result of the game and the pilot's skill levels maturing as the game grows older. Somehow you have created a Utopia in your mind where Eve is Balkanized like it was back in the 2005-2009 era, completely ignoring the fact that it is a natural progression of competitive human organizations to ally together against enemies until only two coalitions face each other.
Until and unless you make it where capital ships and POS towers can use nonspecialized fuel, we need trade in New Eden. I can't believe you honestly expect nullsec dwellers to crosstrain all the racial capital ships and use only those that use the local fuel, their purposes vary too widely. Same goes for POS towers. In order for that trade to happen, all nullsec movers are already looking at double to triple the transport cost, and who knows how high it will go.
These jump freighter changes are ill-considered and an additional burden on top of the same people you have been slamming repeatedly the past month or so with all your nerfs and changes. At some point, even the loyal among us reach a breaking point. I'm not willing to spend for 5-6 months worth of PLEX at 700mil each to retrain my JF pilot, that I took years training to excel at his job (freighter 5 and jump freighter 5 are NOT short skills people) and retrain him into a Rorqual so that I can kind of get back to where I was.
Before all of the "so long carebear" posts come rolling in, let me further say that most of my characters serve a dual purpose. The Rorqual pilot is fully trained leadership pilot that provides fleet links, several exhumer pilots are also carrier and dread pilots, some are scouts and hotdrop cynos, and my main combat pilot is an FC and a new pilot trainer.
Do you hear what I'm saying? I'm not just a carebear that mines ice. I'm a small but not inconsequential cog in the EVE economy as well as a content creater, a veteran pilot and a loyal customer. Until now.
Now I've had enough. I've watched you deliberately cultivate a more vicious and rude playstyle and playerbase until the community has turned from enjoyable to toxic. The impetus for my breaks has generally been the excesses of that community, but this time it's you, CCP.
8 accounts logging off. And this time, I don't intend to come back. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11538
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:39:00 -
[162] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:
No need for you and that other genius Dave Stark to be douches about it. But since you've gone down that path, kudos to you for being the sage prognosticators of EVE. Nerfing was to be expected. I think it's the level that drew my attention. Just a tad much. Bit I'm sure your crystal ball already knew that.
I was expecting worse to be honest. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Adrien Crosse
Black Frog Logistics Red-Frog
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:39:00 -
[163] - Quote
Mr JewBearJr wrote:ArmyOfMe wrote:Im all for a nerf of jf's, as they make 0,0 life way to easy. I dont really see the point in nerfing normal freighters in such a way though, as you'r allready seeing them beeing popped all over empire space anyhow. This.. a million times this..
Except this change does nothing to that end. People who use JFs now are still going to use them after the change. |
Dave Stark
5669
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:40:00 -
[164] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:No need for you and that other genius Dave Stark to be douches about it.
we're really not. you asked, we told. |
Nightingale Actault
Divided Unity The Night Crew Alliance
25
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:41:00 -
[165] - Quote
Batolemaeus wrote:Nightingale Actault wrote:
With the increases to cost per m3 to JF materials from HS to NS, especially low value materials such as tritanium, the localized ore gathered becomes increasingly viable to use in and around the area where it is gathered.
Nobody used a JF to move trit. We use mineral compression. Which has always been efficient enough that it was only needed for t1 heavy doctrines. Demand for those (and for caps) far outstrips what you can mine without continuous interruption and without the huge expenses involved with moving ore from refinery to manufacturing outpost. The bulk of my cargo is and has always been things that can not be built locally. Or, to just quote myself: just a few pages back I wrote: Am I supposed to extract non-local isotopes from my behind? Will non-local T2 materials into being? Found a praying circle to wish for a divine delivery of non-local rig parts? Perform a summoning of faction modules? Sacrifice a newbie in hopes for plentiful datacore harvest? Wish for decryptors?
Yes, some of those items will need to be brought in. Most of those however, are small items (though I do feel your pain with isotopes). Mineral compression going away will still mean that localized gathering of ore becomes exponentially more important. More miners in space means more targets. More targets equals more chances for smaller gang pvp. |
Khanh'rhh
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3135
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:43:00 -
[166] - Quote
Kat Ayclism wrote:While I appreciate that you are talking from the standpoint of an illiterate without the ability to think things through that has to have blinders on to make it through the day lest you be distracted by some fanciful new lie, your point here is still dipshitted and wrong. What is intended to drive industry to null is the advantages contained there to production.
There's not really any effective change that negates the need for importing- nor should there be, since no space should be an island. So no, this is at a cross purpose to what the **** they are trying to achieve by making the importing that will always be necessary more of a needlessly complicated mess and serves as a higher barrier to entry.
But I suppose my simple pointing out of facts will fall flat on your dulled mental facilities and all you'll see is "Grr Goon" again.
You might want to look over some (or any) of the recent moves CCP have been making in this area. Your argument is silly on the face of it, because "importing will always be necessary" is what CCP are working towards changing systemically.
Importing will always happen, but leaving it the only logical option is something CCP are trying to steer the game away from, and making JF logistics slightly harder (and more expensive) are directly aimed at that.
Seems easier to just jump around and go "grrrrCHANGE!!" instead though, right? "Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual, issued in the 1930 |
Kat Ayclism
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
246
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:45:00 -
[167] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote:Kat Ayclism wrote:While I appreciate that you are talking from the standpoint of an illiterate without the ability to think things through that has to have blinders on to make it through the day lest you be distracted by some fanciful new lie, your point here is still dipshitted and wrong. What is intended to drive industry to null is the advantages contained there to production.
There's not really any effective change that negates the need for importing- nor should there be, since no space should be an island. So no, this is at a cross purpose to what the **** they are trying to achieve by making the importing that will always be necessary more of a needlessly complicated mess and serves as a higher barrier to entry.
But I suppose my simple pointing out of facts will fall flat on your dulled mental facilities and all you'll see is "Grr Goon" again. You might want to look over some (or any) of the recent moves CCP have been making in this area. Your argument is silly on the face of it, because "importing will always be necessary" is what CCP are working towards changing systemically. Importing will always happen, but leaving it the only logical option is something CCP are trying to steer the game away from, and making JF logistics slightly harder (and more expensive) are directly aimed at that. Seems easier to just jump around and go "grrrrCHANGE!!" instead though, right? What changes negate the need of importing?
Go on, find them. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21808
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:46:00 -
[168] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:No need for you and that other genius Dave Stark to be douches about it. You know, with the kind of abuse and ignorance we've had to endure when explaining this all these yearsGǪ yes, yes there is.
Quote:Bit I'm sure your crystal ball already knew that. My crystal ball predicted it quite nicely, aside from the JF agility nerf. If anything, it's not as bad as expected. The crystal ball certainly predicted the amount of complaints that would follow and that we'd be able to say I told you so. SoGǪ
I told you so. 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. |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
105
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:46:00 -
[169] - Quote
This is possibly one of the worst changes I have ever seen. Anyone who actually flies jump freighters a lot will tell you that this is an awful change. For my rhea to even get to where it is right now I have to dump 1.2b on rigs + buy a high grade nomad set. Thank CCP for a dumb change that makes me waste 3 - 4b.
You are directly nurfing Alliance level logistics. The amount of burn out that already exists is staggering. You now want people to have to carry 50% more fuel without increasing the size of the fuel bay, thus further nurfing how much cargo I can hold due to having to carry 200K+ isotopes in my cargo hold (instead of 100k).
TL:DR, increase in Jump cost + cargo hold nurf + agi nurf = 3-4b to get your JF back to just a bit less **** than before. |
Gevlon Goblin
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
198
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:47:00 -
[170] - Quote
Before all things: I support nerfing freighters and JFs. JFs made low/null hauling risk free, Freighters made highsec hauling effort free. I'm happy about these changes.
However, this not a rebalance and CCP does a disservice to itself calling it that way. "Rebalance" is "this ship was a bit out of line, let's fix it". You are not changing a ship, but the gameplay status quo: "get everything in Jita an jump it to our HQ" will be changed to "mine it locally, build it locally, move only speciality items". This should be announced and explained like you did with drone assist limiting, because these changes are at the same magnitude.
About the details: I'm not sure that people who casually throw "with T2 rigs" around notice that T2 capital rigs are 0.5-1B. T2 rigging a freighter will surely cost more than the hull. Even with full T1 tanking rigs, the EHP/ISK of a freighter will likely be worse than now. Remember that you can't insure rigs, while the T1 hulls or Freighters were pretty well covered. My blog: greedygoblin.blogspot.com |
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
5197
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:48:00 -
[171] - Quote
You guys also seem to think everything in null still hinges on Jita. Industry still needs work, but to carry on that all is lost and null will implode into nothing because your JF took a slight nerf is ridiculous. Maybe look into building stuff out in null so you don't have to ship in 100% of everything?
Then again that may have more to do with mineral availability so I'm not sure. I think I'll just sit back and watch the world burn a bit. The Paradox |
Aliath Sunstrike
Aviation Professionals for EVE
48
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:48:00 -
[172] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Aliath Sunstrike wrote:And my question to Fozzie is....why make it a nerf!? Can't this be a "power creep" buff all across the board and just ADD rigs. Why does it have to be #$@#@ $ painful. Because it wouldn't be GÇ£power creepGÇ¥ GÇö it would be a ridiculously overpowered mega-buff. Counter-balancing the potential bonuses from rigs with nerfs to ensure that the end results were not insane was inevitable. GǪoh, and power creep itself is bad, especially for a ship class that didn't particularly need any buffs.
Yes Tippia - queen of forum warrioring...I get that.
Anyone with a moderate view of life though would get my point darling. It is to say just a moderate buff to current to balance out the cost of rigs. I didn't say it had to be HUGE. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates RAZOR Alliance
402
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:49:00 -
[173] - Quote
Dawn Harbinger wrote:First, if the goal of the JF nerf is to encourage industry in null sec why not just limit the jump range (+ the increased fuel cost) rather than just make them worse overall and even less fun to fly? Secondly, asking someone who has already invested a lot of time and effort into acquiring such an expensive ship to pay nearly 2 billion more isk on capital rigs with nothing to show for it is a huge disappointment. If I'm going to invest that much into a ship I want to be excited about the benefits. Let us gain enough armor HP to take advantage of our T2 resists, let us increase our agility to warp off from beacons faster, etc. A return to the "baseline" does nothing to excite players or show off their prized ships. *that JB align nerf
This is the real kick in the balls. It would be one thing if adding two rigs to the JF could actually make it better in some respect, even if it was not massively better. This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11538
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:50:00 -
[174] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:You guys also seem to think everything in null still hinges on Jita. Industry still needs work, but to carry on that all is lost and null will implode into nothing because your JF took a slight nerf is ridiculous. Maybe look into building stuff out in null so you don't have to ship in 100% of everything?
Then again that may have more to do with mineral availability so I'm not sure. I think I'll just sit back and watch the world burn a bit.
Get yourself into that DST thread, you are going to love what you see. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
36
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:50:00 -
[175] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dirk MacGirk wrote:
No need for you and that other genius Dave Stark to be douches about it. But since you've gone down that path, kudos to you for being the sage prognosticators of EVE. Nerfing was to be expected. I think it's the level that drew my attention. Just a tad much. Bit I'm sure your crystal ball already knew that.
I was expecting worse to be honest.
Well, I guess it's always safest to expect a worst case scenario when changes are announced on a stage in Iceland. Though, there is only so deep I'm willing to go into that hole in order to manage my own expectations. But I hear ya. Hey guys, look at the bright side, it could have been worse. There, all fixed. lol |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6291
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:51:00 -
[176] - Quote
Shinnan Krydu wrote:Dear CCP
*mega snip*
8 accounts logging off. And this time, I don't intend to come back.
Can I have your stuff? "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
806
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:52:00 -
[177] - Quote
shouldn't the caldari ones have more shields than armour? Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
105
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:53:00 -
[178] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote:Before all things: I support nerfing freighters and JFs. JFs made low/null hauling risk free, Freighters made highsec hauling effort free. I'm happy about these changes.
However, this not a rebalance and CCP does a disservice to itself calling it that way. "Rebalance" is "this ship was a bit out of line, let's fix it". You are not changing a ship, but the gameplay status quo: "get everything in Jita an jump it to our HQ" will be changed to "mine it locally, build it locally, move only speciality items". This should be announced and explained like you did with drone assist limiting, because these changes are at the same magnitude.
About the details: I'm not sure that people who casually throw "with T2 rigs" around notice that T2 capital rigs are 0.5-1B. T2 rigging a freighter will surely cost more than the hull. Even with full T1 tanking rigs, the EHP/ISK of a freighter will likely be worse than now. Remember that you can't insure rigs, while the T1 hulls or Freighters were pretty well covered.
Based on what you just said it is pretty obvious you have zero clue what you are actually talking about when it comes to risk nor effort required to move massive amounts of stuff.
|
theelusiveyoda
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
42
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:53:00 -
[179] - Quote
In the thread: ccp realizes that a cargo rig expanded freighter could move a packaged capital ship so Nerf the storage of them so that they don't have to rethink the rigs changes. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
36
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:54:00 -
[180] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Dirk MacGirk wrote:No need for you and that other genius Dave Stark to be douches about it. You know, with the kind of abuse and ignorance we've had to endure when explaining this all these yearsGǪ yes, yes there is. Quote:Bit I'm sure your crystal ball already knew that. My crystal ball predicted it quite nicely, aside from the JF agility nerf. If anything, it's not as bad as expected. The crystal ball certainly predicted the amount of complaints that would follow and that we'd be able to say I told you so. SoGǪ I told you so.
Well, I imagine you probably did catch some grief along the way. It's why I try to not read every thread in this cesspool. As for the complaints? Any change gets complaints. It's EVE. Too many will complain about anything just for the sake of complaining. It's why its hard to have any semblance of a rational thread for the devs to respond to. |
|
Axe Coldon
Coldon Enterprises Axion Bionics
28
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:54:00 -
[181] - Quote
I think its a horrible change. I was all looking forward to being able to haul 500k in my jf. To compensate for the 50% increase in isotopes ...and well to haul ihub upgrades without needed a titan.
Now instead i will be forced to have rigs just to haul what i was hauling so increased cost to ship, increased cost to fuel.
Once again industrialist/miners get crapped on. Just when I thought things were looking up. Oh well. |
Chic Botany
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
81
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:54:00 -
[182] - Quote
Just what have you got against industry CCP?
Scrapping the mod/mineral compression making anyone who builds capitals haul loose ore around to compress then haul it some more.
Then you say "I know, let's give freighters rig slots" "Yaaay cry the industrialists, we might be able to cut the upcoming 34 freighter loads of veldspar down to 30 if we put in cargo expanders "
But then the mighty hand of CCP exclaims "THOU SHALT NOT CARRY THAT MUCH VELDSPAR IN THINE CARGO HOLD" and verily proceeds to shrink said ships to the poor slaves have to spend much isk getting it back to where it was before.
"HA!" cries CCP "NOT ONLY DID WE SHRINK YOUR SHIPS, WE ALSO SHOT YOUR ELITE JUMP FREIGHTER IN THE LEG SO NOW IT MANEUVERS LIKE A SICK PIG IN CUSTARD!"
".............................." says the player
And just what does
Quote:This means that Freighters can get significantly higher maximum capacity than before using rigs, 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. It's like giving you a candy and just as you take it, you get punched in the face. You seriously need to work on your announcement skills, at least break the good and bad news over 2 sentences.
You give us the potential to move more, but then increase the size of things that people might want to move. I understand increasing packaged capital ship sizes as otherwise people would put a carrier into their freighter in low sec and then fly it into high sec, but why station containers, they hold 1 million m3 and take 1 million m3 space, so why change it?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21811
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:55:00 -
[183] - Quote
Aliath Sunstrike wrote:Anyone with a moderate view of life though would get my point darling. It is to say just a moderate buff to current to balance out the cost of rigs. I didn't say it had to be HUGE. GǪexcept that it's the rigs themselves that make it huge. Unless you want to nerf all capital rigs, or introduce a completely new rig category, the freighters would have to be nerfed to accommodate the potential rig bonuses.
And that's part of the point: it would have to accommodate all of those potential bonuses GÇö after all, all eventualities will have to be balanced GÇö and the rigs would only be able to counteract one of the nerfs. So no matter how much you restrict the bonuses, be it by inventing new rigs or by limiting the number of rigs, or by nerfing the rigs, or by limiting which rigs can be fitted, the ship nerf to compensate will have to be the worst imaginable for every single stat and the sum total of those nerfs will always end up as a net nerf for the final fitted ship as a whole.
This is hardly rocket science, and therefore it is not even remotely surprising that we get this kind of change: because anything else would make them silly overpowered and completely imbalanced. 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. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
887
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:55:00 -
[184] - Quote
Very disappointed with these changes. They amount to nothing more than a giant freighter nerf. It's not even like freighters were overpowered before. They're incredibly easy to gank as it is, they don't award anything for being at the keyboard vs afk piloting, and they already were expensive.
If you wanted to add "customization," then you should have just added a single low slot. That way the pilot could have chosen a nanofiber for quicker aligns, reinforced bulkhead for safer afk travel, a damage control for at-the-keys higher active tank, expanded cargohold for cargo room, etc. That's all the customization you needed. Further "customization" could come from pilot implants.
But the changes that you have suggested--and are likely already locked in--are just an asinine nerf to a ship line that didn't need it. Adding tremendous cost to get what we already have, in an already expensive ship, doesn't make any sense. There's FAR better ways you could have gone about freighter customization without the huge nerf you're pushing here. Hell, you could have just introduced a "T3 freighter" that would have customization options.
This nerf though, no. Terrible. Bad.
-1 CCP Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day.
>> Play Dust 514 FREE! Sign up for exclusive gear today! << |
Khanh'rhh
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3135
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:55:00 -
[185] - Quote
Kat Ayclism wrote:Khanh'rhh wrote:Kat Ayclism wrote:While I appreciate that you are talking from the standpoint of an illiterate without the ability to think things through that has to have blinders on to make it through the day lest you be distracted by some fanciful new lie, your point here is still dipshitted and wrong. What is intended to drive industry to null is the advantages contained there to production.
There's not really any effective change that negates the need for importing- nor should there be, since no space should be an island. So no, this is at a cross purpose to what the **** they are trying to achieve by making the importing that will always be necessary more of a needlessly complicated mess and serves as a higher barrier to entry.
But I suppose my simple pointing out of facts will fall flat on your dulled mental facilities and all you'll see is "Grr Goon" again. You might want to look over some (or any) of the recent moves CCP have been making in this area. Your argument is silly on the face of it, because "importing will always be necessary" is what CCP are working towards changing systemically. Importing will always happen, but leaving it the only logical option is something CCP are trying to steer the game away from, and making JF logistics slightly harder (and more expensive) are directly aimed at that. Seems easier to just jump around and go "grrrrCHANGE!!" instead though, right? What changes negate the need of importing? Go on, find them.
None of them.
But, to make a post which isn't just swinging at your lazy straw-man argument:
The JF + fuel changes should be seen as the stick. The industry changes wrt manufacture in 0.0 are the carrot.
You then let the system start adjusting before you try to "negate" something in a much more comprehensive way.
But you already know this, which is why you are against it. "Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual, issued in the 1930 |
Sophaya Fortelleren
Big Johnson's Red Coat Conspiracy
8
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:57:00 -
[186] - Quote
The intention of the changes are to give freighters and ostensibly JFs more flexibility, I'll only speak for freighters though.
In the case of freighters the rigs are for giving flexibility, not necessarily buffs if I'm understanding CCP's intentions correctly. However the reduction in base cargo, has such a wide impact that it effectively negates any flexibility that can come from rigs, the reasoning being:
- Industry deals with materials that take up a lot of m3
- These minerals take up so much m3 that freighters have to move them.
- Nerfing the base cargo m3 means before rigs, less can be held.
- Therefore freighters have to do more hauls to transport these large loads
- Additional loads means that any increases possible to align or warp speed will not yield a net time saving due to the time it takes to do these additional jumps
- So freighters will have to use cargo rigs in order to negate the above.
- This means the other rigs are useless. And so there is no flexibility, you have to use cargo rigs.
If we assume that most sensible freighter pilots carrry <1bil ISK in their cargo hold, in the event where you're not carrying high volume m3, the EHP reduction/redistribution still serves to make the freighter more gankable than they were before, given the self defeating rig situation as described above, it wouldn't make as much functional sense to go with the HP rigs. Another use of a freighter is to reliably move high value cargo rather than just big cargo, so the HP nerf is a valid concern here. Ultimately as things are it's very difficult to avoid a freighter ganking, and relies on the gankers making a mistake rather than anything you can do on your end to escape or with the incoming changes, mitigate risk.
It's worth bringing up while we're talking about freighters another issue with them though. As someone who likes to gank things.. a lot. It seems that in the case of freighters, it's just too easy mainly due to the fact that you can reliably interdict a freighter in high sec without incurring any sort of timer whatosever by simply using EVE's bumping mechanics.
So all in all, this doesn't seem to be making freighters flexible, or making them better, it's just making them worse at their function and making them a more expensive and now riskier investment as they're a softer target.
Not to say freighters should be better or worse, but I don't see how this can be seen as a rebalance as much as an effective nerf. Although I do think as things stand, a freighter should be more difficult to gank than it is. As it stands, there's nothing a freighter pilot can really do to avoid a gank, where's with a miner there's plenty they can do. |
Khanh'rhh
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3135
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:57:00 -
[187] - Quote
Axe Coldon wrote:I think its a horrible change. I was all looking forward to being able to haul 500k in my jf. To compensate for the 50% increase in isotopes ...and well to haul ihub upgrades without needed a titan.
Now instead i will be forced to have rigs just to haul what i was hauling so increased cost to ship, increased cost to fuel.
Once again industrialist/miners get crapped on. Just when I thought things were looking up. Oh well.
Good news buddy, you can haul more than you could before in the same freighter. You just can't do it whilst also having more EHP. "Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual, issued in the 1930 |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
887
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:57:00 -
[188] - Quote
Tippia wrote:make them silly overpowered and completely imbalanced. Overpowered? Imbalanced? Compared to what? LOL. Not all terms apply to all classes. You want to talk about "overpowered?" How about look at the Orca. That's got enough meaningful room, FULL CUSTOMIZATION THROUGH MODULES, huge tank, quick align, etc. That's overpowered. A freighter than can do nothing but watch itself get bumped or suicide ganked? Overpowered? Imbalanced? Ha. No. Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day.
>> Play Dust 514 FREE! Sign up for exclusive gear today! << |
Aliath Sunstrike
Aviation Professionals for EVE
48
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:57:00 -
[189] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Aliath Sunstrike wrote:Anyone with a moderate view of life though would get my point darling. It is to say just a moderate buff to current to balance out the cost of rigs. I didn't say it had to be HUGE. GǪexcept that it's the rigs themselves that make it huge. Unless you want to nerf all capital rigs, or introduce a completely new rig category, the freighters would have to be nerfed to accommodate the potential rig bonuses. And that's part of the point: it would have to accommodate all of those potential bonuses GÇö after all, all eventualities will have to be balanced GÇö and the rigs would only be able to counteract one of the nerfs. So no matter how much you restrict the bonuses, be it by inventing new rigs or by limiting the number of rigs, or by nerfing the rigs, or by limiting which rigs can be fitted, the ship nerf to compensate will have to be the worst imaginable for every single stat and the sum total of those nerfs will always end up as a net nerf for the final fitted ship as a whole. This is hardly rocket science, and therefore it is not even remotely surprising that we get this kind of change: because anything else would make them silly overpowered and completely imbalanced.
OMG you are dense.
I am not talking about changing rigs...just decreasing the nerf a tad on the ships. JEBUS CRIST! |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
36
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:57:00 -
[190] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:
Then again that may have more to do with mineral availability so I'm not sure. I think I'll just sit back and watch the world burn a bit.
That's the issue in that regard. Is what it is. We'll see where it shakes out. |
|
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
629
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:58:00 -
[191] - Quote
Tippia wrote:it currently looks like downgrading to a freighter will be the best move, and as a bonus, that frees up a lot of capital.
Not when everyone else is selling off JFs :)
Shinnan Krydu wrote:8 accounts logging off. And this time, I don't intend to come back.
You know this is a feedback thread, right? These are planned changes, not final changes. Go look at how the other stickied threads around here have resulted in amendments. How about making a case for alternatives rather than spitting out a 100-paragraph dummy?
With that in mind, I'd like to question the need for a cargo penalty to HP rigs when combined with the sizeable reduction to base JF cargo. Outside of high-sec you're probably just better off using a Rorqual than using a HP-rigged JF. I see two options here: 1) A JF role bonus to reduce the HP rig cargo penalty, or 2) Adjust JF base stats so that Cargo, EHP and agility are all on par with their current levels when used with T1 rigs of that type. T2 rigs should provide a bonus over the current levels.
Anyone T1 rigging for cargo would see the same cargo levels as now with slightly worse agility and EHP, but T2 rigs would give more cargo than now. Anyone T1 rigging for HP would suffer a reduction in cargo and agility compared to now, but T2 rigs would give more EHP than now. Anyone T1 rigging for agility would have less cargo and EHP than now, but T2 rigs would give better agility than now. |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
806
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:59:00 -
[192] - Quote
i also find it strange that you have left the shield/armour and hull HP bonuses on the JF's..
surely increasing shield HP for caldari and armour HP for the rest would make more sense allowing you remove off racial HP bonuses and hull bonus? Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21814
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:00:00 -
[193] - Quote
theelusiveyoda wrote:In the thread: ccp realizes that a cargo rig expanded freighter could move a packaged capital ship so Nerf the storage of them so that they don't have to rethink the rigs changes. Everyone realised that, which is how we could predict this nerf such a long time ago.
You'll note that they also changed the size of repackaged capitals, so that particular reason for rethinking it doesn't fly as well any more. Really, short of opting for GÇ£let's not give them rigs at allGÇ¥, there is no way to rethink the rig change and end up with the same kind of nerfs.
Maximus Andendare wrote:If you wanted to add "customization," then you should have just added a single low slot. That would have required the same kind of nerfs. Actually, it would have required even bigger ones since a single low slot can do a whole lot more than a couple of rigs can.
This was also a part of the oft-repeated GÇ£told you soGÇ¥ package.
CynoNet Two wrote:Not when everyone else is selling off JFs :) Dammit. Good point. It should free up some capital, though, because even with these nerfs, I don't expect freighter + rigs to beat a JF in price. 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. |
Khanh'rhh
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3135
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:00:00 -
[194] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:Very disappointed with these changes. They amount to nothing more than a giant freighter nerf. It's not even like freighters were overpowered before. They're incredibly easy to gank as it is, they don't award anything for being at the keyboard vs afk piloting, and they already were expensive.
If you wanted to add "customization," then you should have just added a single low slot. That way the pilot could have chosen a nanofiber for quicker aligns, reinforced bulkhead for safer afk travel, a damage control for at-the-keys higher active tank, expanded cargohold for cargo room, etc. That's all the customization you needed. Further "customization" could come from pilot implants. A low slot would have been a massive net buff. There was no need for a massive buff. This lets you customize your freighter, whilst keeping the relative power about where it was overall, but actually makes it better if it's trying to do one thing well. "Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual, issued in the 1930 |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11540
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:01:00 -
[195] - Quote
Aliath Sunstrike wrote:Tippia wrote:Aliath Sunstrike wrote:Anyone with a moderate view of life though would get my point darling. It is to say just a moderate buff to current to balance out the cost of rigs. I didn't say it had to be HUGE. GǪexcept that it's the rigs themselves that make it huge. Unless you want to nerf all capital rigs, or introduce a completely new rig category, the freighters would have to be nerfed to accommodate the potential rig bonuses. And that's part of the point: it would have to accommodate all of those potential bonuses GÇö after all, all eventualities will have to be balanced GÇö and the rigs would only be able to counteract one of the nerfs. So no matter how much you restrict the bonuses, be it by inventing new rigs or by limiting the number of rigs, or by nerfing the rigs, or by limiting which rigs can be fitted, the ship nerf to compensate will have to be the worst imaginable for every single stat and the sum total of those nerfs will always end up as a net nerf for the final fitted ship as a whole. This is hardly rocket science, and therefore it is not even remotely surprising that we get this kind of change: because anything else would make them silly overpowered and completely imbalanced. OMG you are dense. I am not talking about changing rigs...just decreasing the nerf a tad on the ships. JEBUS CRIST!
Cant do that, the nerfs are needed to keep them balanced. (Aside from that agility nerf)
I spent years telling people this is what would happen and now we all get to suffer together. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Aliath Sunstrike
Aviation Professionals for EVE
48
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:01:00 -
[196] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Aliath Sunstrike wrote:Tippia wrote:Aliath Sunstrike wrote:Anyone with a moderate view of life though would get my point darling. It is to say just a moderate buff to current to balance out the cost of rigs. I didn't say it had to be HUGE. GǪexcept that it's the rigs themselves that make it huge. Unless you want to nerf all capital rigs, or introduce a completely new rig category, the freighters would have to be nerfed to accommodate the potential rig bonuses. And that's part of the point: it would have to accommodate all of those potential bonuses GÇö after all, all eventualities will have to be balanced GÇö and the rigs would only be able to counteract one of the nerfs. So no matter how much you restrict the bonuses, be it by inventing new rigs or by limiting the number of rigs, or by nerfing the rigs, or by limiting which rigs can be fitted, the ship nerf to compensate will have to be the worst imaginable for every single stat and the sum total of those nerfs will always end up as a net nerf for the final fitted ship as a whole. This is hardly rocket science, and therefore it is not even remotely surprising that we get this kind of change: because anything else would make them silly overpowered and completely imbalanced. OMG you are dense. I am not talking about changing rigs...just decreasing the nerf a tad on the ships. JEBUS CRIST! Cant do that, the nerfs are needed to keep them balanced. (Aside from that agility nerf) I spent years telling people this is what would happen and now we all get to suffer together.
Yes you can. Just take the numbers Fozzie is throwing out and decrease the nerf a tad. Make it less painful. Do I need to start pulling numbers here>? |
Dave Stark
5672
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:03:00 -
[197] - Quote
Aliath Sunstrike wrote:Yes you can. Just take the numbers Fozzie is throwing out and decrease the nerf a tad. Make it less painful. Do I need to start pulling numbers here>?
pull out all the numbers you want, but they are what they are in order to keep things balanced when people got the rig slots they so desperately desired. |
Kat Ayclism
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
247
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:04:00 -
[198] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote:Kat Ayclism wrote:Khanh'rhh wrote:Kat Ayclism wrote:While I appreciate that you are talking from the standpoint of an illiterate without the ability to think things through that has to have blinders on to make it through the day lest you be distracted by some fanciful new lie, your point here is still dipshitted and wrong. What is intended to drive industry to null is the advantages contained there to production.
There's not really any effective change that negates the need for importing- nor should there be, since no space should be an island. So no, this is at a cross purpose to what the **** they are trying to achieve by making the importing that will always be necessary more of a needlessly complicated mess and serves as a higher barrier to entry.
But I suppose my simple pointing out of facts will fall flat on your dulled mental facilities and all you'll see is "Grr Goon" again. You might want to look over some (or any) of the recent moves CCP have been making in this area. Your argument is silly on the face of it, because "importing will always be necessary" is what CCP are working towards changing systemically. Importing will always happen, but leaving it the only logical option is something CCP are trying to steer the game away from, and making JF logistics slightly harder (and more expensive) are directly aimed at that. Seems easier to just jump around and go "grrrrCHANGE!!" instead though, right? What changes negate the need of importing? Go on, find them. None of them. But, to make a post which isn't just swinging at your lazy straw-man argument: The JF + fuel changes should be seen as the stick. The industry changes wrt manufacture in 0.0 are the carrot. You then let the system start adjusting before you try to "negate" something in a much more comprehensive way. But you already know this, which is why you are against it. And they've stated that there will be little or no need for importing where? And that lines up with having certain resources necessary for production only available in certain space how?
Have a think at it again, we'll wait while you catch up with the rest of the class.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21814
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:05:00 -
[199] - Quote
Aliath Sunstrike wrote:OMG you are dense. No. You're just not understanding why we're getting this nerf.
Quote:I am not talking about changing rigs...just decreasing the nerf a tad on the ships. They are reduced compared to what one might expect. Balance has to be maintained and that balance must include all eventualities. Thus, it will always end up a net nerf to the ship as a whole, even if you can restore (or even surpass) some of the old abilities.
Quote:Yes you can. Just take the numbers Fozzie is throwing out and decrease the nerf a tad. Make it less painful. You mean make it unbalanced. Yeah, seeGǪ that doesn't work for when you're trying to make things balanced. 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. |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1397
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:05:00 -
[200] - Quote
T-N-T wrote:funny thing what only nulli goons and pl doesnt like these changes))others fine with them
Whenever something like that happens you can be pretty sure that something is seriously wrong. GRRR Goons |
|
Rittel
Band of Valence
5
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:07:00 -
[201] - Quote
Nightingale Actault wrote:Batolemaeus wrote:Nightingale Actault wrote:
With the increases to cost per m3 to JF materials from HS to NS, especially low value materials such as tritanium, the localized ore gathered becomes increasingly viable to use in and around the area where it is gathered.
Nobody used a JF to move trit. We use mineral compression. Which has always been efficient enough that it was only needed for t1 heavy doctrines. Demand for those (and for caps) far outstrips what you can mine without continuous interruption and without the huge expenses involved with moving ore from refinery to manufacturing outpost. The bulk of my cargo is and has always been things that can not be built locally. Or, to just quote myself: just a few pages back I wrote: Am I supposed to extract non-local isotopes from my behind? Will non-local T2 materials into being? Found a praying circle to wish for a divine delivery of non-local rig parts? Perform a summoning of faction modules? Sacrifice a newbie in hopes for plentiful datacore harvest? Wish for decryptors?
Yes, some of those items will need to be brought in. Most of those however, are small items (though I do feel your pain with isotopes). Mineral compression going away will still mean that localized gathering of ore becomes exponentially more important. More miners in space means more targets. More targets equals more chances for smaller gang pvp.
Its all well and good saying that the aim is to push miners in to 0.0 but a single ship can completely shut down mining operations indefinitely. The fact is that for the majority of miners null sec is too unstable and risky for their tastes, compression exists because there inst a viable alternative.
You are also forgetting you cant just a freighter from a refinery a couple of jumps away to the local factory station like you can in empire. You need to have a heavy escort and even then all it takes is a single frigate to cyno in a system. Again most industrialists are in this for the risk and the majority of pvpers dont care for the industry side of things.
Like I said in a previous post - stop nerfing and making worse some of the most boring and time consuming jobs in the game. If you did this to the pvpers you would have them climbing out of their pods in man-handling the ammo into their guns by now. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
5197
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:07:00 -
[202] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:You guys also seem to think everything in null still hinges on Jita. Industry still needs work, but to carry on that all is lost and null will implode into nothing because your JF took a slight nerf is ridiculous. Maybe look into building stuff out in null so you don't have to ship in 100% of everything?
Then again that may have more to do with mineral availability so I'm not sure. I think I'll just sit back and watch the world burn a bit. Get yourself into that DST thread, you are going to love what you see. Let me put on my scuba gear first.
*dives in* The Paradox |
Aliath Sunstrike
Aviation Professionals for EVE
48
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:07:00 -
[203] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Aliath Sunstrike wrote:Yes you can. Just take the numbers Fozzie is throwing out and decrease the nerf a tad. Make it less painful. Do I need to start pulling numbers here>? pull out all the numbers you want, but they are what they are in order to keep things balanced when people got the rig slots they so desperately desired.
Last post, to quote a great movie, "Did IQ's just drop slightly while I was away?"
Un-Nerf the proposed capacity nerf to where you don't need T2 Rigs on JF's to match capacity, only T1's. Then Fozzie can look at ihubs and whatever may be small enough to fit in JF's and adjust their packaged size if that is the concern. In the mean time you get rigs, but owners don't ***** about the nerf and it is a tad power creep. And by POWER CREEP I MEAN, some more cargo space, some more HPs, etc etc. It will not ruin the game people. EVERYONE wins / loses a tad.
We get rigs, but we get a slight buff to compensate. I think people are complaining in this forum because it is just too much on one side. Fozzie is looking for feedback. Provide it. If I need to start pulling numbers I will because I know DEVs love that stuff but I have a RL and I am not going to sit here explaining common sense to people that can't think their way out of a paper bag.
FLAME ON. FIN. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1503
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:09:00 -
[204] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:Tippia wrote:make them silly overpowered and completely imbalanced. Overpowered? Imbalanced? Compared to what? LOL. Not all terms apply to all classes. You want to talk about "overpowered?" How about look at the Orca. That's got enough meaningful room, FULL CUSTOMIZATION THROUGH MODULES, huge tank, quick align, etc. That's overpowered. A freighter than can do nothing but watch itself get bumped or suicide ganked? Overpowered? Imbalanced? Ha. No.
precisely, imagine the stat changes the orca would get if it had its mid low and rig slots removed but needed to keep the same functions.
it would get near max cargo as standard 10 second align time as standard massive ehp as standard
now the opposite us happening to the frieghters. its getting the option to focus its fittings (just like the orca) but at the expense of some other functions (just like the orca).
and trust me, this really could have been a heavier nerf. They could have made it so u couldnt exceed current capacity amounts. There was little need to buff max capacity on freighters, but they've done it. 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" |
probag Bear
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
38
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:11:00 -
[205] - Quote
Axe Coldon wrote:Once again industrialist[...] get crapped on. Just when I thought things were looking up. Oh well.
As an industrialist, I actually love this change. Now the T2 Capital rig market isn't just trims and caps, and more importantly, it opens up to a flood of carebears. Since carebears are significantly more likely to bling out their ship unnecessarily (800mil T2 cargo rigs vs 80mil T1 cargo rigs), this all just means more money in my wallet.
My JF alt is getting very sad though. That's ok though; I think I made it a Minmatar. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21816
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:12:00 -
[206] - Quote
Aliath Sunstrike wrote:In the mean time you get rigs, but owners don't ***** about the nerf and it is a tad power creep. And by POWER CREEP I MEAN, some more cargo space, some more HPs, etc etc. Power creep inherently means that everyone loses.
Quote:We get rigs, but we get a slight buff to compensate. Compensate for what? The rigs are the buff. The nerfs are there to compensate for this and to maintain balance. And no, a bit of power creep is not acceptable because it means your implementation is a failure.
The addition of rigs must be accompanied with a net nerf to the ships. There is no way around that that isn't inherently bad for the game. That's why some of us were against them all along. 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. |
Khanh'rhh
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3135
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:13:00 -
[207] - Quote
Kat Ayclism wrote:And they've stated that there will be little or no need for importing where? And that lines up with having certain resources necessary for production only available in certain space how?
Have a think at it again, we'll wait while you catch up with the rest of the class.
Word of advice: no-one cares about your Eve-O likes. You can stop the kugu-style angry ad-hominem rants for attention and swap them for an argument that makes sense, if you dare.
I guess at this point I just need to make a confession: I am smarter than you.
I must be, because I can see that the: - hell nerfs to compression-importing - the industry changes - the fuel changes - the freighter changes
All add up to weaning 0.0 off the teat of all imports, all the time. No, the announced changes on the table don't do this in one fell swoop, because that would be really silly.
You would have to be really far in denial to have not picked this up as one of the aims of the balance passes. But I say again, you know what CCP are aiming at which is why you're against it; nerfs to importing would hurt your bottom-line more than other 0.0 powers. "Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual, issued in the 1930 |
Gevlon Goblin
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
198
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:13:00 -
[208] - Quote
The whole drama is based on bad CCP communication. They should stand out and say "we don't like everything built in Sobaseki, sold in Jita and moved to everywhere else. We want you to build stuff locally. Hauling from Jita is meant to be an auxiliary source of items. Because of this, we nerf Freighters and JFs to the ground, like we did with AFK-sentry fleets and AoE Doomsdays"
Again: I like this change and I believe it will revitalize industry in nullsec, which is very much needed. My blog: greedygoblin.blogspot.com |
Batolemaeus
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
71
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:18:00 -
[209] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote:Again: I like this change and I believe it will revitalize industry in nullsec, which is very much needed.
The components for just about any t2 item are of higher volume than the end product. The components have to imported no matter what.
So, you don't know much about 0.0 industry, do you? |
Dave Stark
5675
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:20:00 -
[210] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote:They should stand out and say "we don't like everything built in Sobaseki, sold in Jita and moved to everywhere else. We want you to build stuff locally. you mean, the thing they've been saying for a long time? |
|
Charlemeign
Concordiat Spaceship Samurai
29
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:20:00 -
[211] - Quote
Nice to see another utterly ******** update by ccp. Way to go guys, break out the champagne. |
Dave Stark
5675
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:22:00 -
[212] - Quote
Charlemeign wrote:Nice to see another utterly ******** update by ccp. this was a change demanded by the playerbase, don't blame ccp for giving the people what they wanted. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
5201
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:22:00 -
[213] - Quote
Charlemeign wrote:Nice to see another utterly ******** update by ccp. Way to go guys, break out the champagne. The word amazing is censored? The Paradox |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6293
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:25:00 -
[214] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Charlemeign wrote:Nice to see another utterly ******** update by ccp. Way to go guys, break out the champagne. The word amazing is censored?
Damn you for making me like one of your posts. But above all else, I am a fair man. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
502
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:26:00 -
[215] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote: and trust me, this really could have been a heavier nerf. They could have made it so u couldnt exceed current capacity amounts. There was little need to buff max capacity on freighters, but they've done it.
I laughed for a second. You get meager 4% more cargo space for over a Billion more ISK and much reduced HP, or you go T1 and have less cargo, less HP and still increased cost for the ship. That is not a buff at all, that's not even a buffy. |
Batolemaeus
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
72
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:28:00 -
[216] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote: All add up to weaning 0.0 off the teat of all imports, all the time. No, the announced changes on the table don't do this in one fell swoop, because that would be really silly.
I would agree with you if this was actually what CCP was doing. But the order of changes is backwards.
First, the components for 0.0 industry need to be available. That is, resources for rigs and t2 production and fuel. All of those are heavily regional, as you might be aware.
If it was possible to produce effectively in 0.0 I'd be doing it already. Spending 120M per jf roundtrip plus two accounts worth of cynoalts is kind of expensive.
Imports won't cease or reduce by raising costs for importing when it is literally impossible to replace importing with production. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
502
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:30:00 -
[217] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Charlemeign wrote:Nice to see another utterly ******** update by ccp. this was a change demanded by the playerbase, don't blame ccp for giving the people what they wanted.
I am pretty certain this is exactly not what the player base wanted.
|
Kat Ayclism
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
248
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:30:00 -
[218] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote:Kat Ayclism wrote:And they've stated that there will be little or no need for importing where? And that lines up with having certain resources necessary for production only available in certain space how?
Have a think at it again, we'll wait while you catch up with the rest of the class. Word of advice: no-one cares about your Eve-O likes. You can stop the kugu-style angry ad-hominem rants for attention and swap them for an argument that makes sense, if you dare. I guess at this point I just need to make a confession: I am smarter than you. I must be, because I can see that the: - hell nerfs to compression-importing - the industry changes - the fuel changes - the freighter changes All add up to weaning 0.0 off the teat of all imports, all the time. No, the announced changes on the table don't do this in one fell swoop, because that would be really silly. You would have to be really far in denial to have not picked this up as one of the aims of the balance passes. But I say again, you know what CCP are aiming at which is why you're against it; nerfs to importing would hurt your bottom-line more than other 0.0 powers. You know who cares about my eve-o likes the least? Me. It's not ad-hominem when you explain why someone is wrong, friend, so toss out your Fallacy of the Day calendar because it clearly didn't explain that one well enough for you.
They eliminated the need for compression-importing via modules and shifted it to compression importing via raw materials. Still importing.
The industry changes provide benefits to production within null, that does nothing to the importing aspect. It is a driver to get people into null. This driver is then effectively neutered by the other two changes you listed. They're big sticks smacking the ever-living **** out of those same people they are trying to draw to null. They add needless expense and difficulty to producing in null, which is going to make it a very hard sell to drag anyone that might shift to null.
You see what I did there? I didn't just make blind assertions, I explained out the hows and whys of what I'm saying- unlike you, who chose to stop simply at "this change totally means this, you're stupid," while also ignoring the content of the post you were responding to, specifically: "And they've stated that there will be little or no need for importing where? And that lines up with having certain resources necessary for production only available in certain space how?"
You know... the entire meat of the post.
I also didn't have to attack your affiliations to make my point- I addressed your argument, rather than attacking you. If only there was some fallacy I could point to...
Say, you didn't throw that Fallacy of the Day calendar out yet, did you? |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1503
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:31:00 -
[219] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote: and trust me, this really could have been a heavier nerf. They could have made it so u couldnt exceed current capacity amounts. There was little need to buff max capacity on freighters, but they've done it.
I laughed for a second. You get meager 4% more cargo space for over a Billion more ISK and much reduced HP, or you go T1 and have less cargo, less HP and still increased cost for the ship. That is not a buff at all, that's not even a buffy.
im surprised it took u a second to realise ur wrong and stop laughing.
max possible capacity has gone up. more than 4% for T1 freighters. perhaps freighters over all havent been buffed, but in the respects of max capacity, yes, yes they have. 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" |
Scarlet Thellere
University of Caille Gallente Federation
12
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:33:00 -
[220] - Quote
I don't like Idea of nerfing tank on freighters. You mean if I want to have same/better tank as I had I need to buy CAPITAL rigs?
Before some number crunching it seems that if someone moved high volume - low value stuff they got short end of stick:
-yes you can improve your cargo but you will loose on tank -get little more money(cos rigging for cargo will not yield much higher cargo-space compared to pre-patch with much more risk
-yes you improve your tank and you move much less stuff with a little more safetly compared to pre-patch, so again you earn less. (whole lot less).
AND in both cases you need to buy some capital rigs to even get near pre-patch values in some attributes. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21819
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:34:00 -
[221] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Dave Stark wrote:this was a change demanded by the playerbase, don't blame ccp for giving the people what they wanted. I am pretty certain this is exactly not what the player base wanted. No, it pretty much is. They were just too blinded by ~~moar m-¦~~ to listen to pick up on what their dream GÇ£improvementGÇ¥ would cost them.
It's kind of like how can flipping and ninja looting and similar annoyances were born. 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. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
503
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:35:00 -
[222] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote: and trust me, this really could have been a heavier nerf. They could have made it so u couldnt exceed current capacity amounts. There was little need to buff max capacity on freighters, but they've done it.
I laughed for a second. You get meager 4% more cargo space for over a Billion more ISK and much reduced HP, or you go T1 and have less cargo, less HP and still increased cost for the ship. That is not a buff at all, that's not even a buffy. im surprised it took u a second to realise ur wrong and stop laughing. max possible capacity has gone up. more than 4% for T1 freighters. perhaps freighters over all havent been buffed, but in the respects of max capacity, yes, yes they have.
4% is "gone up" for you? No wonder that the current state of the societies is so rotten if we are pleased with and praise such awesome improvements. |
nahjustwarpin
SUPER DUPER SPACE TRUCKS
135
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:36:00 -
[223] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote:The whole drama is based on bad CCP communication. They should stand out and say "we don't like everything built in Sobaseki, sold in Jita and moved to everywhere else. We want you to build stuff locally. Hauling from Jita is meant to be an auxiliary source of items. Because of this, we nerf Freighters and JFs to the ground, like we did with AFK-sentry fleets and AoE Doomsdays"
Again: I like this change and I believe it will revitalize industry in nullsec, which is very much needed.
If you think people will lower their income to mining level, you're wrong. If this would happen people will just leave null for better income in lvl4s or incursions and just stop having 3+ accounts. If CCP really wants people to start mining in null (and this is how it looks like with industry changes) then i lee playerbase nothing but dropping |
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
1810
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:36:00 -
[224] - Quote
We're nerfing cargo, agility, and hull tank of your JFs, but hey with rigs you might get one of those back at the expense of the others. Maybe.
Yay.....you made one of the most mind numbingly boring and dull aspects of the game slightly more tedious. What joy! Well done. Out of curiosity, do any other MMOs come with an integrated EuroTruck Simulator 2014?
|
Drak Fel
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
51
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:37:00 -
[225] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:You guys also seem to think everything in null still hinges on Jita. Industry still needs work, but to carry on that all is lost and null will implode into nothing because your JF took a slight nerf is ridiculous. Maybe look into building stuff out in null so you don't have to ship in 100% of everything?
This might come as a surprise, but not everyone that plays Eve enjoys having to deal with industry and find it to be a very tedious activity. We would prefer to buy our shooty things. I did not know that what Eve needed to really get people to enjoy playing the game was to force more nonfun activities on the entire player base. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11545
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:37:00 -
[226] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Charlemeign wrote:Nice to see another utterly ******** update by ccp. this was a change demanded by the playerbase, don't blame ccp for giving the people what they wanted. I am pretty certain this is exactly not what the player base wanted.
No this is exactly what they asked for. What they didn't think about is the nerfs that would have to accompany the rigs. Now, if all of these people against this change had spoken up every time a thread popped up demanding rigs and not kept quite while a handfull of us tried to tell people getting rigs would result in nerfs we might not be in this situation.
But we are and so we have to get on with it. Fortunately I have been expecting this for years and this nerf is an indirect buff to ganking Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
105
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:38:00 -
[227] - Quote
I can understand nurfing the cargo for the rigs, that is fair, but a 18s increase in align time is absolutely brutal. No one is ever going to rig for agility ever. JF is 100% about cargo hold so you can reduce the amount of trips. If you reduced the agi nurf then this would be a decent change imo. Especially since the Rhea with t2 rigs only nets 4% increase in cargo capacity. |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
105
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:39:00 -
[228] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Charlemeign wrote:Nice to see another utterly ******** update by ccp. this was a change demanded by the playerbase, don't blame ccp for giving the people what they wanted. I am pretty certain this is exactly not what the player base wanted. No this is exactly what they asked for. What they didn't think about is the nerfs that would have to accompany the rigs. Now, if all of these people against this change had spoken up every time a thread popped up demanding rigs and not kept quite while a handfull of us tried to tell people getting rigs would result in nerfs we might not be in this situation. But we are and so we have to get on with it. Fortunately I have been expecting this for years and this nerf is an indirect buff to ganking
The reason for this is that no one actually took them serious at all. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21819
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:39:00 -
[229] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:4% is "gone up" for you? It's not GÇ£gone downGÇ¥ and it's not GÇ£stayed the sameGÇ¥. So what else is there?
Scarlet Thellere wrote:-yes you can improve your cargo but you will loose on tank -get little more money(cos rigging for cargo will not yield much higher cargo-space compared to pre-patch with much more risk
-yes you improve your tank and you move much less stuff with a little more safetly compared to pre-patch, so again you earn less. (whole lot less). Yup. Such is the nature of the kind of choice people have been asking for. Some even suggested that this kind of trade-off would be an improvement over what we have right now. We had the best of all worlds, and now you have to pick one area and sacrifice all others GÇö player choice, as the proponents called it.
Allison A'vani wrote:The reason for this is that no one actually took them serious at all. That was their mistake, and it was hardly the first one. Sooner or later, you'd think they'd learn. 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. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
37
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:40:00 -
[230] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:Dave Stark wrote:this was a change demanded by the playerbase, don't blame ccp for giving the people what they wanted. I am pretty certain this is exactly not what the player base wanted. No, it pretty much is. They were just too blinded by ~~moar m-¦~~ to listen to pick up on what their dream GÇ£improvementGÇ¥ would cost them. It's kind of like how can flipping and ninja looting and similar annoyances were born.
Funny thing is, when the rig change was announced I never really considered cargo being necessary. Tank more likely. Rarely do I find capacity the issue relative to the value of what I am carrying and where I am carrying it. However now, it almost seems as though the only choice will be to cargo rig it. The only question is whether to use T1 or what are some of the most expensive rigs in the game for just a little bit more space. |
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1503
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:40:00 -
[231] - Quote
Scarlet Thellere wrote: -yes you can improve your cargo but you will loose on tank -get little more money(cos rigging for cargo will not yield much higher cargo-space compared to pre-patch with much more risk
this is what people asked for. more space but at the price of tank.
Scarlet Thellere wrote: -yes you improve your tank and you move much less stuff with a little more safetly compared to pre-patch, so again you earn less. (whole lot less).
yep, it was what ppl were asking for.
are a lot of ppl also forgetting that u can half the penalty of rigs with skills? 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" |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1503
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:42:00 -
[232] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote: 4% is "gone up" for you? No wonder that the current state of the societies is so rotten if we are pleased with and praise such awesome improvements.
1.04>1.00
gg 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" |
Axe Coldon
Coldon Enterprises Axion Bionics
28
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:42:00 -
[233] - Quote
Paranoid Loyd wrote:The people have got what they asked for, let the bloodbath begin
The PVPers got what they wanted maybe..not the industrialists. Cost will go up for everyone. |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
105
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:43:00 -
[234] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:Tippia wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:Dave Stark wrote:this was a change demanded by the playerbase, don't blame ccp for giving the people what they wanted. I am pretty certain this is exactly not what the player base wanted. No, it pretty much is. They were just too blinded by ~~moar m-¦~~ to listen to pick up on what their dream GÇ£improvementGÇ¥ would cost them. It's kind of like how can flipping and ninja looting and similar annoyances were born. Funny thing is, when the rig change was announced I never really considered cargo being necessary. Tank more likely. Rarely do I find capacity the issue relative to the value of what I am carrying and where I am carrying it. However now, it almost seems as though the only choice will be to cargo rig it. The only question is whether to use T1 or what are some of the most expensive rigs in the game for just a little bit more space.
If you have ever moved fuel blocks for your alliance in a JF, then you will realize that t2 cargo rigs will be required if this change goes into effect. |
Dave Stark
5675
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:43:00 -
[235] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Charlemeign wrote:Nice to see another utterly ******** update by ccp. this was a change demanded by the playerbase, don't blame ccp for giving the people what they wanted. I am pretty certain this is exactly not what the player base wanted.
the many, many threads asking for it, and the large cheer at fanfest make me certain it is what they wanted. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
37
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:44:00 -
[236] - Quote
Calling now for Burn Jita 3.5 in September. Let's make it semiannual now that freighters will probably die much easier now with higher ship values for extra goodness. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11545
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:45:00 -
[237] - Quote
Allison A'vani wrote:
The reason for this is that no one actually took them serious at all.
That's why our policy is to challenge everything stupid that is said that would harm gameplay and/or balance, no matter how daft it looks. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
503
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:46:00 -
[238] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Charlemeign wrote:Nice to see another utterly ******** update by ccp. this was a change demanded by the playerbase, don't blame ccp for giving the people what they wanted. I am pretty certain this is exactly not what the player base wanted. No this is exactly what they asked for. What they didn't think about is the nerfs that would have to accompany the rigs. Now, if all of these people against this change had spoken up every time a thread popped up demanding rigs and not kept quite while a handfull of us tried to tell people getting rigs would result in nerfs we might not be in this situation. But we are and so we have to get on with it. Fortunately I have been expecting this for years and this nerf is an indirect buff to ganking
This is not an indirect buff, this is a very open and outright buff to ganking. As if this was the most pressing problem to solve.
And yeah, many people have probably left the drawbacks of rigs out of sight. However, is it really too much to ask for improvements on ships that could need some improvements to make them actually a little bit more gank-proof for a price? Now they are even less gank-proof and require a higher price. I don't see where Risk vs. Reward is balanced in the slightest here. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11548
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:47:00 -
[239] - Quote
Axe Coldon wrote:Paranoid Loyd wrote:The people have got what they asked for, let the bloodbath begin The PVPers got what they wanted maybe..not the industrialists. Cost will go up for everyone.
We didn't want this. Hence why we fought this every time the idea for rigs on freighters was posted.
Industrialist carebears just managed to nerf themselves Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21820
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:47:00 -
[240] - Quote
Axe Coldon wrote:Paranoid Loyd wrote:The people have got what they asked for, let the bloodbath begin The PVPers got what they wanted maybe..not the industrialists. I suppose it's a matter of semantic precisionGǪ
The industrialists got what they asked for; the gankers got what they wanted. The former just chose to turn a blind eye to how what they were asking for was not going to bring what they wanted, and the latter (mostly) stayed quiet because they knew that the best way to get what you want is to have your opposition promote it.
Sure, some nasty evil gankers like baltec broke rank and warned the industrialists, but that was just interpreted as gankers trying to keep the industrialists away from what they wantedGǪ
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. |
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates RAZOR Alliance
405
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:48:00 -
[241] - Quote
If the intent is truly to make null sec less of a big blob and give smaller entities a chance to set up their own independent empires, then you need to redistribute the resources across space better. Give me the option to get more than one kind of ice in a region. Give me the ability to get a good distribution of salvage and moon minerals without having to import everything. Then make it really hard to import, export, and project power. That will make it more viable to divide null sec up into a bunch of independent city states vice the two huge power blocs we currently have.
Nerfing all the transportation systems before making these changes is putting the cart before the horse. This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11548
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:48:00 -
[242] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:This is not an indirect buff, this is a very open and outright buff to ganking. As if this was the most pressing problem to solve. And yeah, many people have probably left the drawbacks of rigs out of sight. However, is it really too much to ask for improvements on ships that could need some improvements to make them actually a little bit better usablef for a price? Now they are even less usable, less gank-proof and require a higher price. I don't see where Risk vs. Reward is balanced in the slightest here.
Oh you can get a great deal more tank now, you just have to sacrifice that cargo bay. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
nahjustwarpin
SUPER DUPER SPACE TRUCKS
135
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:49:00 -
[243] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:Calling now for Burn Jita 3.5 in September. Let's make it semiannual now that freighters will probably die much easier now with higher ship values for extra goodness.
It think they should do something quite the opposite. Instead of making more publicity to the game, let it stagnate. Less new players, less income for ccp. |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
106
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:50:00 -
[244] - Quote
I don't know why it isn't absolutely blatant now to CCP that anyone who actually knows anything about or takes place in alliance logistics (aka is not just a high sec pubbie) DOES NOT WANT THIS CHANGE. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11548
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:51:00 -
[245] - Quote
nahjustwarpin wrote:Dirk MacGirk wrote:Calling now for Burn Jita 3.5 in September. Let's make it semiannual now that freighters will probably die much easier now with higher ship values for extra goodness. It think they should do something quite the opposite. Instead of making more publicity to the game, let it stagnate.
Nah, we will just torch more overstuffed freighters. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
beerthief
Templar Construction Battalion Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:52:00 -
[246] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: T1 rigs are easily enough to bring normal freighters above their current cargo values.
CCP Fozzie wrote: and with T1 cargo rigs their cargo holds will be between 4 and 7% smaller than current.
one of these is not like the other |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1503
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:53:00 -
[247] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote: However, is it really too much to ask for improvements on ships that could need some improvements to make them actually a little bit better usablef for a price?
except i would say freighters didnt need improvements. Nor does ganking need a nerf. Things were/are in good shape. 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" |
Khanh'rhh
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3135
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:54:00 -
[248] - Quote
Batolemaeus wrote:Khanh'rhh wrote: All add up to weaning 0.0 off the teat of all imports, all the time. No, the announced changes on the table don't do this in one fell swoop, because that would be really silly.
I would agree with you if this was actually what CCP was doing. But the order of changes is backwards. First, the components for 0.0 industry need to be available. That is, resources for rigs and t2 production and fuel. All of those are heavily regional, as you might be aware. If it was possible to produce effectively in 0.0 I'd be doing it already. Spending 120M per jf roundtrip plus two accounts worth of cynoalts is kind of expensive. Imports won't cease or reduce by raising costs for importing when it is literally impossible to replace importing with production.
Regional you say? Something you might want to fight over?
Yeah, that's not something CCP have directly done in the past
I mean, you are right, but you're right because CCP are taking baby-steps rather than laying out every change at once. On a longer timeline, nothing you are mentioning is a problem that can't be addressed, and some are ultimately good things if you see them another way.
Kat Ayclism wrote:You know who cares about my eve-o likes the least? Me. It's not ad-hominem when you explain why someone is wrong, friend, so toss out your Fallacy of the Day calendar because it clearly didn't explain that one well enough for you.
They eliminated the need for compression-importing via modules and shifted it to compression importing via raw materials. Still importing.
The industry changes provide benefits to production within null, that does nothing to the importing aspect. It is a driver to get people into null. This driver is then effectively neutered by the other two changes you listed. They're big sticks smacking the ever-living **** out of those same people they are trying to draw to null. They add needless expense and difficulty to producing in null, which is going to make it a very hard sell to drag anyone that might shift to null.
You see what I did there? I didn't just make blind assertions, I explained out the hows and whys of what I'm saying- unlike you, who chose to stop simply at "this change totally means this, you're stupid," while also ignoring the content of the post you were responding to, specifically: "And they've stated that there will be little or no need for importing where? And that lines up with having certain resources necessary for production only available in certain space how?"
You know... the entire meat of the post.
I also didn't have to attack your affiliations to make my point- I addressed your argument, rather than attacking you. If only there was some fallacy I could point to...
Say, you didn't throw that Fallacy of the Day calendar out yet, did you?
You're seriously trying to run to the moral high-ground after:
Quote:Kat Ayclism wrote:These changes are ******* stupid. Can you stop just changing things to change things? It does not validate your work to be screwing up the things that are right when there's other ships that actually need the rebalancing efforts.
Also, again these changes are at cross odds with the supposed intent to make localized production more possible in null- YOU STILL WILL ALWAYS HAVE TO IMPORT/EXPORT.
So your solution? LOL EVERYTHING USES MORE FUEL AND ALL THE JFS CAN HOLD LESS AND ARE LESS AGILE
Stop swinging around like a 5yo in the dark with a baseball bat. This isn't quality balancing, it's dogshit [...] we'll wait while you catch up with the rest of the class [...] While I appreciate that you are talking from the standpoint of an illiterate [...] your point here is still dipshitted and wrong [...] your dulled mental facilities
Top lel. That's some pretty revisionist thinking there.
The problem is, when you repeatedly say such openly naive things as "needless expense" without conflating that to being the same thing as a conflict driver, I know the problem is you don't want to change, yet see the need to do so. Compression-importing doesn't replace compression-importing via 425mm railguns and you know it.
When we accept that yes, CCP are using a stick, we can also see that CCP are using a carrot. Here, you said it yourself: "The industry changes provide benefits to production within null".
Soooooooooo....
We have added costs and effort of importing, as well as benefits to doing it in nullsec. What does that give us?
Your argument is nonsensical not because you are stupid, but because you are knowingly arguing a position out of self interest, rather than what is actually happening. "Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual, issued in the 1930 |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
503
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:54:00 -
[249] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:This is not an indirect buff, this is a very open and outright buff to ganking. As if this was the most pressing problem to solve. And yeah, many people have probably left the drawbacks of rigs out of sight. However, is it really too much to ask for improvements on ships that could need some improvements to make them actually a little bit better usablef for a price? Now they are even less usable, less gank-proof and require a higher price. I don't see where Risk vs. Reward is balanced in the slightest here. Oh you can get a great deal more tank now, you just have to sacrifice that cargo bay.
Which doesn't make the ship any better at all. |
Dave Stark
5675
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:56:00 -
[250] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:baltec1 wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:This is not an indirect buff, this is a very open and outright buff to ganking. As if this was the most pressing problem to solve. And yeah, many people have probably left the drawbacks of rigs out of sight. However, is it really too much to ask for improvements on ships that could need some improvements to make them actually a little bit better usablef for a price? Now they are even less usable, less gank-proof and require a higher price. I don't see where Risk vs. Reward is balanced in the slightest here. Oh you can get a great deal more tank now, you just have to sacrifice that cargo bay. Which doesn't make the ship any better at all.
I find that functioning ships are infinitely better than wrecks. can't board a wreck. |
|
Axe Coldon
Coldon Enterprises Axion Bionics
28
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:56:00 -
[251] - Quote
Batolemaeus wrote:Khanh'rhh wrote: All add up to weaning 0.0 off the teat of all imports, all the time. No, the announced changes on the table don't do this in one fell swoop, because that would be really silly.
I would agree with you if this was actually what CCP was doing. But the order of changes is backwards. First, the components for 0.0 industry need to be available. That is, resources for rigs and t2 production and fuel. All of those are heavily regional, as you might be aware. If it was possible to produce effectively in 0.0 I'd be doing it already. Spending 120M per jf roundtrip plus two accounts worth of cynoalts is kind of expensive. Imports won't cease or reduce by raising costs for importing when it is literally impossible to replace importing with production.
Not only is the materials for industry region based (somewhat) , in null you can't always get to the other regions. You can't dock and you sure as hell can't slow boat a freighter through gates. Null will never have the production of high sec. It can't. Logistics won't allow it.
I have talked to tons of 'old timers" with 10's of billions (likely hundreds) stuck in stations they can't dock in anymore. You can't always get all your stuff out when your station goes into reinforce, especially not if you have a large industry operation.
Eve is a sand box but we are constrained by the game rules CCP gives us. We choose to build in high sec. This does nothing to convince major industrialist to move 100 bil in bpo's and material to null and start building. Instead we will just eat higher overhead and goods in null will goods will be even higher still.
Pvpers are always whining about the markup in null..well congrats..you got your wish..it will go higher.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11551
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:59:00 -
[252] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Which doesn't make the ship any better at all, but I guess that is the point behind the changes.
Welcome to what we have been telling people wanting rigs for years.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Sipphakta en Gravonere
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
602
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:59:00 -
[253] - Quote
beerthief wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: T1 rigs are easily enough to bring normal freighters above their current cargo values.
CCP Fozzie wrote: and with T1 cargo rigs their cargo holds will be between 4 and 7% smaller than current.
one of these is not like the other
The latter quote is about jump freighters, the first quote about normal freighters. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5063
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:59:00 -
[254] - Quote
Allison A'vani wrote:I don't know why it isn't absolutely blatant now to CCP that anyone who actually knows anything about or takes place in alliance logistics (aka is not just a high sec pubbie) DOES NOT WANT THIS CHANGE.
You can thank all of the clueless highsec people who have been screaming for a lowslot or rigs on freighters for 2 years now. We warned them that freighters would end up being worse but they refused to listen. This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal & proud member of the popular gay hookup site, somethingawful.com |
Batolemaeus
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
72
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:59:00 -
[255] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote: I mean, you are right, but you're right because CCP are taking baby-steps rather than laying out every change at once. On a longer timeline, nothing you are mentioning is a problem that can't be addressed, and some are ultimately good things if you see them another way.
I'd be on board with the changes to the JF if the order of changes was different.
Also, you're putting way too much trust in CCP's ability to iterate. They have an absolutely dreadful track record. *cough*Dominion*cough* |
beerthief
Templar Construction Battalion Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:01:00 -
[256] - Quote
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:beerthief wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: T1 rigs are easily enough to bring normal freighters above their current cargo values.
CCP Fozzie wrote: and with T1 cargo rigs their cargo holds will be between 4 and 7% smaller than current.
one of these is not like the other The latter quote is about jump freighters, the first quote about normal freighters.
you are correct, i apologise for my error. |
Zakarumit CZ
Zakarum Industries Exiliar Syndicate
182
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:01:00 -
[257] - Quote
Althought its nice to see freighters to use rigs and I think the increase size of caps and containers is an OK adjustment as well as lowering cargo, I am not really satisfied with the lowered HPs for freighters. They are already easy pickings and mostly sitting ducks with almost no chance for defence against bumping and ganging. Those changes mean that HP or resist rigs are almost a must, which doesnt give people the choice they wanted with the rigs addition CCP should keep freigher HPs as they are. |
Joshua Trader
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:01:00 -
[258] - Quote
As someone who worked his ass off for months to buy and fly an ARK I for one am happy with the changes. At least now that they are making the game literally ****, I wont have to swap between star citizen and eve once it comes out.
There is no way any freighter needs a nerf. They all need their HP buffed 200%. I should be able to carry at least 2b isk through high sec without worry of gank. You know how easy it is to put 1b isk in a freighter with the prices these days?
GJ CCP STAR CITIZEN IS LOOKING BETTER EVERYDAY!
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates RAZOR Alliance
407
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:01:00 -
[259] - Quote
beerthief wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: T1 rigs are easily enough to bring normal freighters above their current cargo values.
CCP Fozzie wrote: and with T1 cargo rigs their cargo holds will be between 4 and 7% smaller than current.
one of these is not like the other
The first quote is about Freighters. The second quote is about Jump Freighters. This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6295
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:03:00 -
[260] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Allison A'vani wrote:I don't know why it isn't absolutely blatant now to CCP that anyone who actually knows anything about or takes place in alliance logistics (aka is not just a high sec pubbie) DOES NOT WANT THIS CHANGE. You can thank all of the clueless highsec people who have been screaming for a lowslot or rigs on freighters for 2 years now. We warned them that freighters would end up being worse but they refused to listen.
Instead, all of them kept telling me I was just trying to keep them from getting what they deserved.
Well, in a manner of speaking, I guess that's true. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
|
Khanh'rhh
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3135
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:04:00 -
[261] - Quote
Batolemaeus wrote:Khanh'rhh wrote: I mean, you are right, but you're right because CCP are taking baby-steps rather than laying out every change at once. On a longer timeline, nothing you are mentioning is a problem that can't be addressed, and some are ultimately good things if you see them another way.
I'd be on board with the changes to the JF if the order of changes was different. Also, you're putting way too much trust in CCP's ability to iterate. They have an absolutely dreadful track record. *cough*Dominion*cough* This is certainly valid criticism of what it seems CCP are trying to do, but I'm not prepared to be a raving opponent to all change because I can't guarantee it will always work out best for me. If anything, in this case I am rather hopeful of good systemic changes, as CCP are definitely slow-cooking these changes.
I'd rather support the changes than adopt a very defeatist "CCP won't get it right, so why change anything" style position. "Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual, issued in the 1930 |
Money Makin Mitch
Paid in Full
346
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:04:00 -
[262] - Quote
Fozzie strikes again
keep ******* ships up bro. never stop. never change. |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5063
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:05:00 -
[263] - Quote
Joshua Trader wrote:As someone who worked his ass off for months to buy and fly an ARK I for one am happy with the changes. At least now that they are making the game literally ****, I wont have to swap between star citizen and eve once it comes out.
There is no way any freighter needs a nerf. They all need their HP buffed 200%. I should be able to carry at least 2b isk through high sec without worry of gank. You know how easy it is to put 1b isk in a freighter with the prices these days?
GJ CCP STAR CITIZEN IS LOOKING BETTER EVERYDAY!
Have fun with the vaporware that stole your money. This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal & proud member of the popular gay hookup site, somethingawful.com |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6295
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:05:00 -
[264] - Quote
Oh my God... I just realized.
They released these changes to distract from the UI thread. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Buzz Dura
Epsilon Lyr Mordus Angels
4
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:07:00 -
[265] - Quote
http://i.imgur.com/b4obsew.png
technically,all freighters are now pretty much the same in capacity. You can have better cargo or same cargo with very little improvement of hull HP with 1 hull rig...
JF are .... well ... plug the cargo rig because you d'ont have really the choice... As you don't change rig often !!! |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21825
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:07:00 -
[266] - Quote
Zakarumit CZ wrote:Those changes mean that HP or resist rigs are almost a must, which doesnt give people the choice they wanted with the rigs addition They're a must if you want a stronger ship. Choosing one comes at the cost of a slower ship that carries less. You can also choose one that carries more GÇö preferably low-value goods GÇö but at the cost of being weaker and slower. You can also choose to be faster, but at the cost ofGǪ actually, it doesn't cost that much. You'll have so-so capacity and HP, though so I suppose you can consider that a GÇ£costGÇ¥ of sort when compared to the other options.
So sure you can choose. Your choice just needs to align with what it is you intend to carry and how you intend to fly the ship. If anything, the complaint is that you have to choose, or you'll end up with a ship that is strictly worse in every way than the current setups.
It's kind of funny, reallyGǪ normally, people are futzing over the balanced between the jack-of-all-trades is and the master-of-one. Here, people chose to champion a jack-of-one-trade over a master-of-all.
Joshua Trader wrote:There is no way any freighter needs a nerf. Agreed, but the only way to avoid one is to not give them any fitting capabilities. They don't really need a buff either since it's fairly easy to remain a worthless target. 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. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1505
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:10:00 -
[267] - Quote
Joshua Trader wrote:As someone who worked his ass off for months to buy and fly an ARK I for one am happy with the changes. At least now that they are making the game literally ****, I wont have to swap between star citizen and eve once it comes out.
There is no way any freighter needs a nerf. They all need their HP buffed 200%. I should be able to carry at least 2b isk through high sec without worry of gank. You know how easy it is to put 1b isk in a freighter with the prices these days?
GJ CCP STAR CITIZEN IS LOOKING BETTER EVERYDAY!
its exactly that 'cake and eat it too' thinking that got u here. well done. 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" |
xXchochiXx
Oberon Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
23
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:11:00 -
[268] - Quote
So this put me off buying a jf :( a lowslot for dcu would be nice maybe a hi slot for cloak but this radical ideas but more practical |
Buzz Dura
Epsilon Lyr Mordus Angels
4
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:12:00 -
[269] - Quote
CCP if youwant to choose between several setup to carry more load, more tank or more speed etc why don't you forget about rigs and add low slots instead. Rigs are expensive refit ! |
Dagonett
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:13:00 -
[270] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Jump Freighters currently are over powered and you guys know it. This change is a slight nerf and still leaves the ship incredibly useful.
HOW ARE THEY OP? |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11553
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:14:00 -
[271] - Quote
Buzz Dura wrote:CCP if youwant to choose between several setup to carry more load, more tank or more speed etc why don't you forget about rigs and add low slots instead. Rigs are expensive refit !
That would still mean you get these nerfs. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
108
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:14:00 -
[272] - Quote
xXchochiXx wrote:So this put me off buying a jf :( a lowslot for dcu would be nice mate hi for cloak but this radical ideas but more practical
Neither of those thing are remotely needed, the only time your JF should ever be at risk is in high sec when you are making your way back. A DCU is basically worthless if you are pointed, a cloak is useless as well since any ship can burn the minimal distance and easily decloak you since you are such a massive target. They can be off by 3k from the center of your ship and still decloak you. This change is just bad, end of story. Both freighters and JF were 100% perfectly fine the way they were. |
Kat Ayclism
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
249
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:16:00 -
[273] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote:You're seriously trying to run to the moral high-ground after: Quote:Kat Ayclism wrote:These changes are ******* stupid. Can you stop just changing things to change things? It does not validate your work to be screwing up the things that are right when there's other ships that actually need the rebalancing efforts.
Also, again these changes are at cross odds with the supposed intent to make localized production more possible in null- YOU STILL WILL ALWAYS HAVE TO IMPORT/EXPORT.
So your solution? LOL EVERYTHING USES MORE FUEL AND ALL THE JFS CAN HOLD LESS AND ARE LESS AGILE
Stop swinging around like a 5yo in the dark with a baseball bat. This isn't quality balancing, it's dogshit [...] we'll wait while you catch up with the rest of the class [...] While I appreciate that you are talking from the standpoint of an illiterate [...] your point here is still dipshitted and wrong [...] your dulled mental facilities Top lel. That's some pretty revisionist thinking there. The problem is, when you repeatedly say such openly naive things as "needless expense" without conflating that to being the same thing as an incentive not to, I know the problem is you don't want to change, yet see the need to do so. Compression-importing doesn't replace compression-importing via 425mm railguns and you know it. When we accept that yes, CCP are using a stick, we can also see that CCP are using a carrot. Here, you said it yourself: "The industry changes provide benefits to production within null". Soooooooooo.... We have added costs and effort of importing, as well as benefits to doing it in nullsec. What does that give us? Your argument is nonsensical not because you are stupid, but because you are knowingly arguing a position out of self interest, rather than what is actually happening.
You see ad-hominem is "that's wrong, because you're stupid,"
NOT "that's wrong, This is why. Also, you're stupid."
I'm not sure why that's difficult for you to understand. You could remove all of those things you're nitpicking about and the points would still stand, whereas if we removed the insults and attacks on person/affiliation from your argument we would be left with nothing supporting what you're saying.
I'm pretty sure that in that very post you just quoted I said that it's an incentive not to move production to null. You've selectively ignored that part where I point out that their drivers are at cross-purposes because it doesn't fit your idea that I'm blindly lashing at this rather than specifically pointing out just what the hell is wrong with these balancing efforts-
They have no idea how to align their incentives and disincentives into a uniform direction because they're so completely out of touch with how the playerbase will actually perceive a change so they keep throwing up things that actively counter the direction they're trying to go in.
Importing is still currently needed. They have incentivized null production, however they have DISINCENTIVIZED the logistics necessary to ACTUALLY DO SO. That means a low adoption rate by their users, which means having to fix the **** up later on and pushes off actually making any self-contained production in null viable.
...Not to mention, they'll never want it to be fully self-contained anyway because that negates the resource benefits of certain spaces. Kinda what I was pointing the **** out by asking you:
"And that lines up with having certain resources necessary for production only available in certain space how?"
These moronic changes actively make their goal of nullsec production HARDER to achieve. |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
3042
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:17:00 -
[274] - Quote
What a mess.
This is clearly one of the rare changes that the cartels did not dictate to CCP, based on the wild swings in opinions. Thank goodness I don't use a freighter anymore. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21827
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:19:00 -
[275] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Buzz Dura wrote:CCP if youwant to choose between several setup to carry more load, more tank or more speed etc why don't you forget about rigs and add low slots instead. Rigs are expensive refit ! That would still mean you get these nerfs. In fact, it would probably mean you get even harsher nerfs. Three rig slots let you increase your tank by ~60%, so they had to reduce the base stat by ~20% to end up with a reasonable max number. Imagine what kind of nerf they would have had to apply if you could increase your tank by 150%. 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. |
Batolemaeus
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
73
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:22:00 -
[276] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote: This is certainly valid criticism of what it seems CCP are trying to do, but I'm not prepared to be a raving opponent to all change because I can't guarantee it will always work out best for me. If anything, in this case I am rather hopeful of good systemic changes, as CCP are definitely slow-cooking these changes.
I'd rather support the changes than adopt a very defeatist "CCP won't get it right, so why change anything" style position.
Don't you think enabling 0.0 and especially deep 0.0 ability to produce locally should come before nerfing importing?
I try to have a realistic outlook on things, and with the glacial speed of CCP, I'd prefer they fix A before they nerf B which A depends on.
Change away as much as you want, but make sure players actually have a way to adapt. There's no way not to import currently, so fix that, then hurt importing if it hasn't already diminished by itself. |
Triturus Alpestris
Boot Camp. CZECH Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:25:00 -
[277] - Quote
CCP add low slot and we will forgive you. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21827
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:26:00 -
[278] - Quote
Triturus Alpestris wrote:CCP add low slot and we will forgive you. Why do you want them to nerf freighters three time as much as they already have? 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. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
607
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:26:00 -
[279] - Quote
Buzz Dura wrote:http://i.imgur.com/b4obsew.png
technically,all freighters are now pretty much the same in capacity. You can have better cargo or same cargo with very little improvement of hull HP with 1 hull rig...
JF are .... well ... plug the cargo rig because you d'ont have really the choice... As you don't change rig often !!! This is a pretty good image, but there's one problem -- a Freighter can't have three T2 cargo rigs. It can only fit two T2 and one T1.
The jump freighters are fine, though. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
37
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:26:00 -
[280] - Quote
Conceptual question: the focus has thus far been on cargo capacity. The premise that they needed to nerf base capacity because some players might up their capacity. But is top-end capacity, within reason, really the big issue? Is the ability to haul "moar" stuff from here to there really what focus was on when they considered and approved rigs?
I just don't see cargo capacity, past a certain point, that significant to force projection or hurting the game. It's a necessary evil in order to keep higher-level game functionality operating.
When I first heard the announcement for rigs, my first inclination was that this was really a response to the generic tanks on freighters. See an Obelisk and know: this much DPS needed to kill it before Concord responds. Call it an Anti-Burn Jita change. Not just BJ, but throwing a bit of a wrinkle into everyday hisec ganking. But in the end, I don't think it is going to work out like that. Yes, I know you could add some tank rigs. But with such a major hit to base capacity, that probably won't be the outcome. I just don't see capacity being the issue, no matter what level its at. Cargo value comes into play much more than top-end capacity in most circumstances. The rest, meh. I think their concern over "moar cargo" was a bit much. |
|
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
108
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:28:00 -
[281] - Quote
Triturus Alpestris wrote:CCP add low slot and we will forgive you.
Now that I think about it, if the changes are kept EXACTLY how they are and you add a low slot then this would be acceptable. A T2 Inertia stab would make up for the massive agility nurf and then the rigs would make up for the cargo nurf. Otherwise, this is still an absolutely awful change. I still think that this should not have even been considered in the first place.
EDIT: Talking about for JF, regular freighters I don't really care about either way. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
607
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:30:00 -
[282] - Quote
Allison A'vani wrote:Triturus Alpestris wrote:CCP add low slot and we will forgive you. Now that I think about it, if the changes are kept EXACTLY how they are and you add a low slot then this would be acceptable. A T2 Inertia stab would make up for the massive agility nurf and then the rigs would make up for the cargo nurf. Other wise, this is still an absolutely awful change. EDIT: Talking about for JF, regular freighters I don't really care about either way. No one would fit an istab to that low slot. They'd always fit a cargo expander, every time.
Then, they'd have to reduce the cargohold further to compensate. No thanks. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11555
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:30:00 -
[283] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:Conceptual question: the focus has thus far been on cargo capacity. The premise that they needed to nerf base capacity because some players might up their capacity. But is top-end capacity, within reason, really the big issue? Is the ability to haul "moar" stuff from here to there really what focus was on when they considered and approved rigs?
I just don't see cargo capacity, past a certain point, that significant to force projection or hurting the game. It's a necessary evil in order to keep higher-level game functionality operating.
When I first heard the announcement for rigs, my first inclination was that this was really a response to the generic tanks on freighters. See an Obelisk and know: this much DPS needed to kill it before Concord responds. Call it an Anti-Burn Jita change. Not just BJ, but throwing a bit of a wrinkle into everyday hisec ganking. But in the end, I don't think it is going to work out like that. Yes, I know you could add some tank rigs. But with such a major hit to base capacity, that probably won't be the outcome. I just don't see capacity being the issue, no matter what level its at. Cargo value comes into play much more than top-end capacity in most circumstances. The rest, meh. I think their concern over "moar cargo" was a bit much.
Its to stop us shipping capitals into jita. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1505
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:31:00 -
[284] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:Conceptual question: the focus has thus far been on cargo capacity. The premise that they needed to nerf base capacity because some players might up their capacity. But is top-end capacity, within reason, really the big issue? Is the ability to haul "moar" stuff from here to there really what focus was on when they considered and approved rigs?
I just don't see cargo capacity, past a certain point, that significant to force projection or hurting the game. It's a necessary evil in order to keep higher-level game functionality operating.
When I first heard the announcement for rigs, my first inclination was that this was really a response to the generic tanks on freighters. See an Obelisk and know: this much DPS needed to kill it before Concord responds. Call it an Anti-Burn Jita change. Not just BJ, but throwing a bit of a wrinkle into everyday hisec ganking. But in the end, I don't think it is going to work out like that. Yes, I know you could add some tank rigs. But with such a major hit to base capacity, that probably won't be the outcome. I just don't see capacity being the issue, no matter what level its at. Cargo value comes into play much more than top-end capacity in most circumstances. The rest, meh. I think their concern over "moar cargo" was a bit much.
im actually pleased i can carry more. i can now carry more than one assembled battleship in more than one type of freighter now. great for moving things before a dec. and i guess that also applies to incursion runners. 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" |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11555
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:31:00 -
[285] - Quote
Allison A'vani wrote:Triturus Alpestris wrote:CCP add low slot and we will forgive you. Now that I think about it, if the changes are kept EXACTLY how they are and you add a low slot then this would be acceptable. A T2 Inertia stab would make up for the massive agility nurf and then the rigs would make up for the cargo nurf. Otherwise, this is still an absolutely awful change. I still think that this should not have even been considered in the first place. EDIT: Talking about for JF, regular freighters I don't really care about either way.
Any extra lowslot means a 20% nerf to cargo is needed on the hull. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
108
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:31:00 -
[286] - Quote
Querns wrote:Allison A'vani wrote:Triturus Alpestris wrote:CCP add low slot and we will forgive you. Now that I think about it, if the changes are kept EXACTLY how they are and you add a low slot then this would be acceptable. A T2 Inertia stab would make up for the massive agility nurf and then the rigs would make up for the cargo nurf. Other wise, this is still an absolutely awful change. EDIT: Talking about for JF, regular freighters I don't really care about either way. No one would fit an istab to that low slot. They'd always fit a cargo expander, every time. Then, they'd have to reduce the cargohold further to compensate. No thanks.
Back to my original point that this is an awful change in the first place. No matter what CCP does, this will be a bad change. Just leave freighters and JF the way they are. |
Batolemaeus
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
74
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:32:00 -
[287] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:[
Its to stop us shipping capitals into jita.
Increasing repackaged values of capital ships and sov upgrade mods is one sql query away. |
Buzz Dura
Epsilon Lyr Mordus Angels
4
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:32:00 -
[288] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Buzz Dura wrote:CCP if youwant to choose between several setup to carry more load, more tank or more speed etc why don't you forget about rigs and add low slots instead. Rigs are expensive refit ! That would still mean you get these nerfs.
Yes but you will have a choice with refit in your cargo.. I don't bring up a collection of T2 capital rigs usely... |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11555
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:33:00 -
[289] - Quote
Batolemaeus wrote:baltec1 wrote:[
Its to stop us shipping capitals into jita. Increasing repackaged values of capital ships and sov upgrade mods is one sql query away.
And now you just broke a bunch of other things. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11555
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:34:00 -
[290] - Quote
Buzz Dura wrote:baltec1 wrote:Buzz Dura wrote:CCP if youwant to choose between several setup to carry more load, more tank or more speed etc why don't you forget about rigs and add low slots instead. Rigs are expensive refit ! That would still mean you get these nerfs. Yes but you will have a choice with refit in your cargo.. I don't bring up a collection of T2 capital rigs usely...
See this post people?
Its posts like the one above that got us this nerf. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21827
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:35:00 -
[291] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:I just don't see cargo capacity, past a certain point, that significant to force projection or hurting the game. It's a necessary evil in order to keep higher-level game functionality operating. Cargo capacity was always the limiting factor. Initially they couldn't give freighters rigs or modules because that would allow them to transport capitals into highsec. They (somewhat) mitigated here by increasing the size of repackaged caps, but that has follow-on effects for all the stuff in the game that has to deal with those capships and it is still a limiting factor that puts an upper bound on how much they can allow us to modify our freighters.
GǪand that's the easy one. Everything else is part of a complex balance structure where you don't want to make ships too strong or too capable compared to everything else flying out there, and freighters were in a very good spot already. So any net buff would have to be mirrored by a net nerf.
Allison A'vani wrote:Now that I think about it, if the changes are kept EXACTLY how they are and you add a low slot then this would be acceptable. If they added a low slot, it would be unacceptable to keep the changes the way they are GÇö they would have to reduce everything even further (and add more stuff to the nerf list) to compensate for all the additional abilities, exactly like they've already done to compensate for the rigs. 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. |
MissBehaving
Meat 2 Veg League 0f Grumpy 0ld Farts
23
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:36:00 -
[292] - Quote
This is crap and you know it. |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
108
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:36:00 -
[293] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Buzz Dura wrote:baltec1 wrote:Buzz Dura wrote:CCP if youwant to choose between several setup to carry more load, more tank or more speed etc why don't you forget about rigs and add low slots instead. Rigs are expensive refit ! That would still mean you get these nerfs. Yes but you will have a choice with refit in your cargo.. I don't bring up a collection of T2 capital rigs usely... See this post people? Its posts like the one above that got us this nerf.
Dumb pubbies being dumb pubbies, what do you expect from those who ask for changes like this... |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
108
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:37:00 -
[294] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Dirk MacGirk wrote:I just don't see cargo capacity, past a certain point, that significant to force projection or hurting the game. It's a necessary evil in order to keep higher-level game functionality operating. Cargo capacity was always the limiting factor. Initially they couldn't give freighters rigs or modules because that would allow them to transport capitals into highsec. They (somewhat) mitigated here by increasing the size of repackaged caps, but that has follow-on effects for all the stuff in the game that has to deal with those capships and it is still a limiting factor that puts an upper bound on how much they can allow us to modify our freighters. GǪand that's the easy one. Everything else is part of a complex balance structure where you don't want to make ships too strong or too capable compared to everything else flying out there, and freighters were in a very good spot already. So any net buff would have to be mirrored by a net nerf. Allison A'vani wrote:Now that I think about it, if the changes are kept EXACTLY how they are and you add a low slot then this would be acceptable. If they added a low slot, it would be unacceptable to keep the changes the way they are GÇö they would have to reduce everything even further (and add more stuff to the nerf list) to compensate for all the additional abilities, exactly like they've already done to compensate for the rigs.
This is exactly why I have been saying for the 7 posts I made before that one, that these changes are bad to begin with and CCP should leave JF and freighters the way they are. |
Khanh'rhh
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3135
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:39:00 -
[295] - Quote
Kat Ayclism wrote:I'm not sure why that's difficult for you to understand. You could remove all of those things you're nitpicking about and the points would still stand, whereas if we removed the insults and attacks on person/affiliation from your argument we would be left with nothing supporting what you're saying. No, you're just left with an answer you don't like, which has been my point since your bucket-of-tears opening post.
Quote:...Not to mention, they'll never want it to be fully self-contained anyway because that negates the resource benefits of certain spaces. Kinda what I was pointing the **** out by asking you:
"And that lines up with having certain resources necessary for production only available in certain space how?" It doesn't. I also believe that is the point; 0.0 was never meant to be homogeneous with no incentive to take and own other regions. OTEC only worked because various entities across the map worked together. If you want the ability to obtain and control certain resources without needing to blue/NIP most of the map, then it will need to be regional.
Quote:Importing is still currently needed. They have incentivized null production, however they have DISINCENTIVIZED the logistics necessary to ACTUALLY DO SO. That means a low adoption rate by their users, which means having to fix the **** up later on and pushes off actually making any self-contained production in null viable. Yup. This is a valid complaint. The difference in our opinions is that I am of the belief we are in the growing-pains stage of change (andd embracing it) and you're yelling down the attempt to affect any change at all. You can't just make importing completely non-viable overnight, you need to slowly make changes, which then make organisations do a top-down evaluation and conclude "the time has come for us to seriously look at meeting our material needs locally".
A lot more changes need to happen between here and there, but christ, don't be that guy wailing against all change, and definitely don't be that guy if you're only doing it because you don't personally think the outcome benefits you. "Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual, issued in the 1930 |
Ptrum
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Fatal Ascension
13
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:39:00 -
[296] - Quote
Why cant ccp just give freighters and JF low and mid slots and lower the cargo. It should be as if you use all cargo expenders and t1 cargo rigs you should have the cargo space as you normally do before kronos and if you do t2 rigs you should get a boost. Why do i need to spend a few billion in t2 rigs to get back to where i started? |
Kaius Fero
43
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:39:00 -
[297] - Quote
This is fukin brilliant ... it gets better and better
/facepalm |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21829
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:40:00 -
[298] - Quote
Allison A'vani wrote:This is exactly why I have been saying for the 7 posts I made before that one, that these changes are bad to begin with and CCP should leave JF and freighters the way they are. Ok. Fair enough. It's hard to keep track of who says what.
And anyway, the changes they've done would not be sufficient to make up for a lowslot since you can do a whole lot more with one than you can with three rig slots, so my main point stands: no, it would not be an acceptable trade. 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. |
Mira Dawn
Dragon Clan Nulli Secunda
4
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:40:00 -
[299] - Quote
HAHAHAHAAAAA Thank You CCP LOL
I can imagine that right how did you come up with the changes
"Ok we have no more Ideas what we can put in this ******* Addon. What can we do ? Idias, NOW!
Dev0001: Hmm, we can give more useless ships?
Masterdev: NO ! We give them ******* six Ships. We cant give them more.
Dev002: I have an Idea! I have an Idea! *jump* We give Frighter Rig Slots !
Master Dev: Hmmmm..... But then they are Better ! NO!
Dev0003: Hmm, we can nerf them so they are worse then before.
Master Dev: HHMMM ! Yes that we do!
long Story short: No one need this ****. For what we need Rigs if you nerf the Freighter atter the change?
|
Buzz Dura
Epsilon Lyr Mordus Angels
4
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:41:00 -
[300] - Quote
i see some people can't discuss without being rude...
It's just a game. Get your life back... |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21830
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:45:00 -
[301] - Quote
Ptrum wrote:Why cant ccp just give freighters and JF low and mid slots and lower the cargo. *sigh*
Look at the limited amount of things you can do with rigs, and the limited bonuses they provide. Then look back at the OP to see what they had to do to accommodate those few options and small:ish boosts and still maintain a semblance of balance.
Now look at the massive amount of things you can do with low and midslots and the size of the bonuses they provide. Then imagine what they would have to do to the hulls to accommodate what you just asked them to unlockGǪ 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. |
chef Shi
Red Frog Freight Red-Frog
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:45:00 -
[302] - Quote
First when i heard about that we where getting rigs for freigths i was so happy..
now i just wish we diden't get them this si a MAJOR nerf to freigthers over all.. giving us less tank, less agility and less cargo space..
when is there ever gonna be any love for the freigthers,?
|
Missss Deathwhisper
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:45:00 -
[303] - Quote
So CCP why would you not give Freighters and JFs a real fitting loadout. Give them low, mid, high and rig slots, so you can pick how your Freighter or JF are setup, Cargo, speed or tank setup. If you pick to go all cargo setup with expanded cargohold t2 and t1 cargo rigs, you should have the same amount of cargo as the Freighters or JFs got currently and if you pick to take t2 cargo rigs then should you get a bigger boost those 4% you are talking about. ofc if you pick to go tank or speed then should you not have the same amount of cargo as you have currently, so you either get to boost your cargo but sacrifice speed and tank or you pick tank and sacrifice cargo and speed. |
Jubei Hangoon
Kenshin. Northern Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:46:00 -
[304] - Quote
I think the point of this nerf to JF is to motivate people to manufacture more in 0.0. Yes, the fixed and variable costs are going up, yes the risk is going up. The idea seems to be to motivate EVE players to manufacture more in 0.0.
But there is a fatal flaw to this strategy! Currently one enterprising and skilled person can create logistic lines and buy/sell orders to support a large team of PvP players in 0.0, but in order to create the kind of T2 production to support even a small alliance requires several highly motivated, resourced, and skilled industrialists who can hold with some stability a set of moons, miners, and blueprints and STILL need a logistical line to empire for datacores. In my experience this is prohibitive for all but the most expansive of alliances.
If CCP wants to break the tether to Empire, break it and be done with the current invention/moon mining system. |
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
3430
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:48:00 -
[305] - Quote
Does that mean that there are now job openings for miners and industrialists in null-sec? Sovereignty and Population New Mining Mechanics |
Tappits
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
34
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:48:00 -
[306] - Quote
What is the problem with been able to move Packaged Capital ships in empire in T2 rigged Freighters? Give them a flag so you cannot unpackage them (the caps) in empire stations and bam new high value targets in empire when people are trying to move a packaged JF in a normal Freighter so it can be sold in jita or something. I see nothing wrong with this if thereGÇÖs no way to unpackage them.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21830
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:49:00 -
[307] - Quote
chef Shi wrote:when is there ever gonna be any love for the freigthers,? When there's need for it.
Right now, there really isn't any, but people kept chanting for the ability to choose even though it was blatantly obvious that fitting choice would come at a huge cost.
Missss Deathwhisper wrote:So CCP why would you not give Freighters and JFs a real fitting loadout Because it would make them awful, and look how well the very small nerf required to give them rigs is received.
Tappits wrote:What is the problem with been able to move Packaged Capital ships in empire in T2 rigged Freighters? Give them a flag GǪbecause if your solution cascades into having to solve more and more problems the more you're trying to fix, what you're doing isn't a solution but an endless source of complication. 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. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
608
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:49:00 -
[308] - Quote
Tappits wrote:What is the problem with been able to move Packaged Capital ships in empire in T2 rigged Freighters? Give them a flag so you cannot unpackage them (the caps) in empire stations and bam new high value targets in empire when people are trying to move a packaged JF in a normal Freighter so it can be sold in jita or something. I see nothing wrong with this if thereGÇÖs no way to unpackage them.
This is a terrible idea. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
108
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:51:00 -
[309] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Allison A'vani wrote:This is exactly why I have been saying for the 7 posts I made before that one, that these changes are bad to begin with and CCP should leave JF and freighters the way they are. Ok. Fair enough. It's hard to keep track of who says what. And anyway, the changes they've done would not be sufficient to make up for a lowslot since you can do a whole lot more with one than you can with three rig slots, so my main point stands: no, it would not be an acceptable trade.
BTW as a t2 ship, JF will only get 2 rigs. That is why this change is so brutal of a nurf for JF. |
Tappits
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
34
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:51:00 -
[310] - Quote
Querns wrote:Tappits wrote:What is the problem with been able to move Packaged Capital ships in empire in T2 rigged Freighters? Give them a flag so you cannot unpackage them (the caps) in empire stations and bam new high value targets in empire when people are trying to move a packaged JF in a normal Freighter so it can be sold in jita or something. I see nothing wrong with this if thereGÇÖs no way to unpackage them.
This is a terrible idea.
Were is the constructive criticism? your a terrible idea.
|
|
Aliventi
Southern Cross Empire Flying Dangerous
700
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:52:00 -
[311] - Quote
Frighters and JF were better off before these changes. Keep our rigs so we can keep our freighters and JFs. Join [FIGL] Flying Dangerous Today! |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3509
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:52:00 -
[312] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote:The whole drama is based on bad CCP communication. They should stand out and say "we don't like everything built in Sobaseki, sold in Jita and moved to everywhere else. We want you to build stuff locally. Hauling from Jita is meant to be an auxiliary source of items. Because of this, we nerf Freighters and JFs to the ground, like we did with AFK-sentry fleets and AoE Doomsdays"
Again: I like this change and I believe it will revitalize industry in nullsec, which is very much needed. As usual you're spouting nonsense. "Nerfing JFs and freighters into the ground" as you're saying would be the nerfs, without the rigs to allow the choice of what you want back. And even if they did do that, it in and of itself wouldn't revitalize nullsec industry; that's all going to be the Crius changes, with zero contribution from the stuff in this thread. You're also ignoring the fact that the Crius design assumes null industry will continue to be based on imported minerals (which is why they made the changes to compressed ore) and that regional ice and moon products are a thing that must be imported and exported as well, making some kind of heavy lift transport capacity a requirement.
May I suggest you return to your blog where you can hide behind comments approval when someone points out the holes in your reasoning? Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21830
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:54:00 -
[313] - Quote
Tappits wrote:Were is the constructive criticism? your a terrible idea. What problem are you trying to solve by creating a new problem that needs to be solved, and how is solving the first worth the headache you just created?
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. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1505
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:56:00 -
[314] - Quote
Batolemaeus wrote:baltec1 wrote:[
Its to stop us shipping capitals into jita. Increasing repackaged values of capital ships and sov upgrade mods is one sql query away.
so why not just allow freighters to carry 20mil m3 and make repackaged capitals 21mil m3?
Because theres a point where logistics becomes too easy and transforms competition from effort and risk taking to simply having a skillbook trained or not. With across the board increases to capacity with no trade offs, importing items becomes easier, safer and faster, and that means it becomes cheaper and prices level across the galaxy, and that means the rewards are less for anyone who does any work.
its a nerf to ppl who set up shop in a certain location to build and sell certain items. its a nerf to ppl who pay attention and use escorts when they haul. its a nerf to inter-regional traders.
the real beneficiaries of making all this easier to do is ppl who dnt really pay attention to where they set up shop, cant be bothered to check regional prices and afk haul.
you want things to be harder, because u want to be rewarded for ur efforts and u want ur competition to lose out for being lazy or dying in a fire because hes bad at space ships. 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" |
Kat Ayclism
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
251
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:58:00 -
[315] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote:It doesn't. I also believe that is the point; 0.0 was never meant to be homogeneous with no incentive to take and own other regions. OTEC only worked because various entities across the map worked together. If you want the ability to obtain and control certain resources without needing to blue/NIP most of the map, then it will need to be regional.
And... that means... that you will always have to import... because someone else controls the production materials... If that importing is more difficult or has a high barrier to entry (which is what the fuel and freighter changes create) then you are NOT going to be producing in null- you're going to be doing so near your source for the materials...
Quote:Yup. This is a valid complaint. The difference in our opinions is that I am of the belief we are in the growing-pains stage of change (andd embracing it) and you're yelling down the attempt to affect any change at all. You can't just make importing completely non-viable overnight, you need to slowly make changes, which then make organisations do a top-down evaluation and conclude "the time has come for us to seriously look at meeting our material needs locally".
Batolemaeus said it eloquently enough already:
Quote:Don't you think enabling 0.0 and especially deep 0.0 ability to produce locally should come before nerfing importing?
I try to have a realistic outlook on things, and with the glacial speed of CCP, I'd prefer they fix A before they nerf B which A depends on.
Change away as much as you want, but make sure players actually have a way to adapt. There's no way not to import currently, so fix that, then hurt importing if it hasn't already diminished by itself.
Quote:A lot more changes need to happen between here and there, but christ, don't be that guy wailing against all change, and definitely don't be that guy if you're only doing it because you don't personally think the outcome benefits you.
You seem to think continuing to attack me because you're butthurt about something I said on twitter is at all a good argument. I've not mentioned benefits or injuries to myself at any point, yet you've spent all but a small portion of this last post attacking me or my affiliation rather than having anything to say.
They have their incentives and approach to their goal set up backwards, which is what I've said from the very first post. That's far different from blindly hating it because it doesn't serve me. |
Buzz Dura
Epsilon Lyr Mordus Angels
5
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:59:00 -
[316] - Quote
for those who missed some figures... |
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
3430
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:59:00 -
[317] - Quote
Aliventi wrote:Frighters and JF were better off before these changes. Keep our rigs so we can keep our freighters and JFs. You don't understand. The rigs are the boost we get on top of these nerfs. Without rigs, you'd only have the nerf left. Sovereignty and Population New Mining Mechanics |
Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
342
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:59:00 -
[318] - 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.
They do, but from my understanding they're losing out in the other areas, (Speed, HP for JF & HP for freighters).
Personally this won't affect my corp much but I can see how this can be a major PITA for organized groups with specific cargo restrictions like alliance logistics, red frog etc. |
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
1811
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 21:01:00 -
[319] - Quote
mynnna wrote: also ignoring the fact that the Crius design assumes null industry will continue to be based on imported minerals (which is why they made the changes to compressed ore) and that regional ice and moon products are a thing that must be imported and exported as well, making some kind of heavy lift transport capacity a requirement. So basically they're making logistics more of a dull tedious pita of a chore for ....what exactly....good gameplay? |
Iski Zuki DaSen
Icarus Academy
8
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 21:01:00 -
[320] - Quote
HEy U CCP Devs are you ****ing Crazy?
T2 capital rigs to be able to do what i was doing earlier in 1 or 2 aspects of my JF and Freighter?
IMO t1 rigs = old performance t2 better performance
and when u are gona change that silly +5 max velosity bonus on freighters??
|
|
Labrena
Muppets Released Fedaykin.
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 21:04:00 -
[321] - Quote
I don't see the need for the nerf to cargo capacity on the ships.
You've already shown that you can restrict what goes into bays, so you simply make it so packaged capital ships and station containers cannot be put into courier contracts and into the cargo bay's of freighters.
People were not asking for rigs to be added to freighters, to get an overall nerf without spending another 1-2b on their ships.
It really seems like no thought at all was put into these changes.
You could be better served making a sub-freighter line, with the 500k cargo line, and letting the current freighters the option to ADD more cargo space or EHP or agility/speed. |
Hauling Hyena
Red Frog Freight Red-Frog
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 21:05:00 -
[322] - Quote
Niko Lorenzio wrote:Personally this won't affect my corp much but I can see how this can be a major PITA for organized groups with specific cargo restrictions like alliance logistics, red frog etc.
Thank you... this is a major ****-up for our business, so what this is saying that if we want to stick to our 860k m-¦ we need to use freighters that, instead of 1.2b cost 2b including rigs and will take even LESS (it's around 400m right now) ships to gank...
Yeah, thank you CCP... |
Jack Mancetti
Rennfeuer Curatores Veritatis Alliance
43
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 21:05:00 -
[323] - Quote
Well Mr.Fuzzie i know now what you and CCP want from us OUR ISK .
Cool , now we can fit expensive rigs on our expensiv Hauler and will lose it again and again and again against 15 destroyer. lemme see the golden donkey which ***** us the golden isk for it?
Sorry but did u realy play eve . . i dont think so
|
Caroline Grace
Grace Stellar Conveyance Inc.
523
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 21:05:00 -
[324] - Quote
I'm in the freighter business actively for over two years now and I have to say something about these changes. I don't agree with them, while I really like the idea of being able to modify my freighter by more or less tank/cargo/speed.
Freighter hauling is a very dull gameplay and I was hoping for some rebalance ideas that would actually reflect that. However, what I read from these changes, it is actually the opposite. Consider; every freighter pilot will now have to pay extra ~200m extra ISK for rigs to even activate this rebalance at the first place. This will not only annoy all freighter pilots, it will also raise the overall price of a freighter, raise the courier rewards to balance this ISK sink, annoy contract customers and shake the business all around. And angry customers - not good!
While it is true you will be able to rig your freighter to the original state (for 200m) and getting extra ~4% cargohold capacity (while losing agility by adding the hull rigs), in the freighter world, the 4% cargohold capacity bonus means nothing and agility means everything. This business is all about speed, all about collateral numbers and all about round cargo capacity numbers when comes to hauling. I know this. I do this every day. It does not justify the extra 200m cost into every of your freighters from now on.
The other possibilities how to rig your freighters are good: being able to carry more and faster, but with less tank, this is in the true spirit of EVE and I would love pay for them if I would choose I would like to use them.
However, freighter business is already an extremely expensive business and these changes forces every freighter pilot to spend extra 200m to even enjoy the Kronos release and get either the same freighter as before or modify their freighter into weak/strong hybrid they might not even want.
Please reconsider these changes. Hauling is the backbone of every profession in EVE and freighter gameplay itself is a very dull and very soul-draining profession to do. I didn't and don't expect some massive gameplay overhaul for freighters, but at least do not hurt this unique, important and somewhat soul sensitive profession by forcing players to sink hundreds of millions ISK into getting the same slighty nerfed, or modified and overall still nerfed, freighter. Thank you. |
Belinda HwaFang
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
9
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 21:06:00 -
[325] - Quote
As much as I'd like Gevlon's vision of CCP's vision for the future to be correct, I don't think it is.
I feel that this will mean a minor but significant nerf to all F and JF hauling, and that people will still (sadly) build in Sobaseki, sell in Jita, buy in Jita and Jump to null. I also feel that the CCP design team probably already suspect that this is what will happen.
It's going to mean higher prices for everyone, PLEX inflation, and most importantly, no new exciting pioneering gameplay for anyone with the exception of those that do freighter ganks.
I would have preferred to see a more radical change to the way that logistics chains could be handled.
I would love to see more people do industry outside highsec but I fear we will remain in a quiet and cold minority.
This change feels like a band aid rather than a well thought out change for the new New Eden economic landscape.
CCP, you have a new release cycle with a new Lead Games Designer with a new vision for the future. Take this opportunity to freeze these changes and consider more carefully how these changes could integrate with your vision of industry in the future. Veteran players are looking for new challenges, and new and smaller scale players just getting into these ships will feel the nerfs the hardest.
Once you have the complete picture of how to change the industrial landscape of EVE then by all means give us these nerfs.
|
Soldari Orion
Capital Industries Research And Development Fidelas Constans
2
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 21:07:00 -
[326] - Quote
Nope. Nope nope nope.
Devs, you're adding choice, where choice does not add to the gameplay of hauling. There is no need for a game mechanic for choice of ships when it comes to freighters and hauling.
These changes do not help hauling, and are not going to provide meaningful content; the only reason that I can imagine they're being done is change for the sake of change. People said they wanted rigs because they wanted a choice on top of their current use, not choice in order to get to their current use |
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
1812
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 21:12:00 -
[327] - Quote
Going back to standard freighters, has anyone ran the numbers for a comparison of an align/agility rigged freighter as compared to current freighter values? |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6301
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 21:12:00 -
[328] - Quote
Soldari Orion wrote: These changes do not help hauling, and are not going to provide meaningful content; the only reason that I can imagine they're being done is change for the sake of change. People said they wanted rigs because they wanted a choice on top of their current use, not choice in order to get to their current use
They wanted to have their cake and eat it too. They wanted to get straight buffed when the ship class was in a perfectly fine state of balance before.
But that's not how EVE works. As they were repeatedly told, and as is now demonstrated. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
504
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 21:13:00 -
[329] - Quote
Buzz Dura wrote:for those who missed some figures...
What about Fenrir and Providence?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21831
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 21:14:00 -
[330] - Quote
Labrena wrote:I don't see the need for the nerf to cargo capacity on the ships.
You've already shown that you can restrict what goes into bays, so you simply make it so packaged capital ships and station containers cannot be put into courier contracts and into the cargo bay's of freighters. That would require the construction of a completely new special hold that wouldn't be affected by the rigs anyway. So if you want to do what people wanted to do with rigs, you now have to create new rigs to alter special holds, which will alter the balance of other shipsGǪ
See how trying to solve your problem cascades into multiple new problems? Why not just make it easy and reduce cargo space to make sure that the end result doesn't get too high? What is the value of getting so much higher cargo holds and how does it outweigh the headache created by all the problems it spawns? Oh, and what makes it a good idea to have those huge cargo holds to begin with? Restrictions are valuable in the decisions they create.
Quote:People were not asking for rigs to be added to freighters, to get an overall nerf without spending another 1-2b on their ships. They rather were and were told as much on every occasion. They just chose to ignore the obvious downsides of what they were asking for.
Quote:It really seems like no thought at all was put into these changes. It looks like a lot of thought went into them. They even managed to reduce the required nerfs to more palatable levels than one would have expected. No, the problem is that little thought went into the demand that freighters be given rigs, since that's where the problem lies. We will never get back our excellent-at-everything freighters now that people have gotten their wish of being able to choose what their ship should be good at. 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. |
|
Sigras
Conglomo
766
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 21:15:00 -
[331] - Quote
Lets be honest, how many of you fully filled your freighters anyway? If you did, what did you haul in them? because its profitable to gank anything over 400,000,000
the extra hull from the hull rigs are going to make ganks a bit harder to pull off, and gank scam hauling contracts just that much easier to spot because theyre going to be bigger than a hull rigged freighter can haul. |
Kelgh
Egg Operations
2
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 21:17:00 -
[332] - Quote
what an insult this is
getting ppl all happy at fanfest with yeah freighter getting rigg
and bamm hit them with a nerf
|
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
504
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 21:17:00 -
[333] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Lets be honest, how many of you fully filled your freighters anyway? If you did, what did you haul in them? because its profitable to gank anything over 400,000,000
the extra hull from the hull rigs are going to make ganks a bit harder to pull off, and gank scam hauling contracts just that much easier to spot because theyre going to be bigger than a hull rigged freighter can haul.
I do it all the time. I need the full 918k m-¦ my Providence provides almost every day.
Besides, these changes make it immensely more complex to get a freighter for your courier contracts, because you cannot really find a sweet spot anymore. Until now it was the 860k of a Fenrir or 880k of a Providence in order to allow all freighters to move your stuff. After this patch? Have fun trying to find that sweet spot... (and no, the base cargohold is not that spot.) |
Sigras
Conglomo
767
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 21:18:00 -
[334] - Quote
Soldari Orion wrote:Nope. Nope nope nope.
Devs, you're adding choice, where choice does not add to the gameplay of hauling. There is no need for a game mechanic for choice of ships when it comes to freighters and hauling.
These changes do not help hauling, and are not going to provide meaningful content; the only reason that I can imagine they're being done is change for the sake of change. People said they wanted rigs because they wanted a choice on top of their current use, not choice in order to get to their current use The devs of a game want you to make meaningful decisions? How Dare They?!
Sid Meier wrote:A game is a series of interesting choices. |
Sigras
Conglomo
767
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 21:20:00 -
[335] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Sigras wrote:Lets be honest, how many of you fully filled your freighters anyway? If you did, what did you haul in them? because its profitable to gank anything over 400,000,000
the extra hull from the hull rigs are going to make ganks a bit harder to pull off, and gank scam hauling contracts just that much easier to spot because theyre going to be bigger than a hull rigged freighter can haul. I do it all the time. I need the full 918k m-¦ my Providence provides almost every day. what the heck do you haul? even tritanium would make you gank worthy!
On a completely unrelated note, where are you doing this? |
Anhenka
Daktaklakpak. Red Coat Conspiracy
543
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 21:20:00 -
[336] - Quote
What a disappointing set of changes.
I doubt I have anything to add that has been not said in the past pages, but I feel that reducing cargo so much that even a cargo rigged ship has less cargo and less tank and is slower and less agile than it was prepatch is a poor idea. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
504
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 21:23:00 -
[337] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:Sigras wrote:Lets be honest, how many of you fully filled your freighters anyway? If you did, what did you haul in them? because its profitable to gank anything over 400,000,000
the extra hull from the hull rigs are going to make ganks a bit harder to pull off, and gank scam hauling contracts just that much easier to spot because theyre going to be bigger than a hull rigged freighter can haul. I do it all the time. I need the full 918k m-¦ my Providence provides almost every day. what the heck do you haul? even tritanium would make you gank worthy! On a completely unrelated note, where are you doing this?
Courier contracts?
You'd like to know, right? Use your money to find me. No effort, no gains. |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
112
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 21:27:00 -
[338] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:Sigras wrote:Lets be honest, how many of you fully filled your freighters anyway? If you did, what did you haul in them? because its profitable to gank anything over 400,000,000
the extra hull from the hull rigs are going to make ganks a bit harder to pull off, and gank scam hauling contracts just that much easier to spot because theyre going to be bigger than a hull rigged freighter can haul. I do it all the time. I need the full 918k m-¦ my Providence provides almost every day. what the heck do you haul? even tritanium would make you gank worthy! On a completely unrelated note, where are you doing this?
It is EXTREMLY easy to hit the max cargo capacity on freighters if you are moving solv upgrades. It is even easier to hit the max cargo capacity on JF if you move fuel blocks.
EDIT: If you build POSes it is also really easy to hit the max cargo capacity. Capital construction components are huge. |
Chinicata Shihari
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
28
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 21:28:00 -
[339] - Quote
I like most of these changes.
However i do have one problem with them. They allow you to specialize each freighter for a new role. This means the 5 or so charons i currently have can each have a role. However this is very expensive with each charon and fit it will come to 1.3-1.4bil. that is my one and only concern |
DeDes
Oberon Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
48
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 21:31:00 -
[340] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Tippia wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:T1 rigs are easily enough to bring normal freighters above their current cargo values. Yes, but I fly a JF. I picked it because of its nippy align speed, good tank, and descent-enough cargo hold. I can restore one of those at a massive cost. Actually the tank on your JF is about the same as before, thanks to the extra resists. So you get one of the three for free! But yes, the fact that this is a small reduction in Jump Freighter power is completely intended.
The problem with both Freighters and JF's was that most of there EHP was in structure so there was nothing anyone could do to change that. just the balances to the shield/armor/hull would have been fine as at least people could bump up skills and use implants to get more out of them.
BUT tih JF's at a cost of 6.5bil isk with just 200mil payout when they die you really have to have a better plan or a better reason for why your nerfing the cargo space as well. Especially when your asking us to spend an 1.5bil isk on T2 capital rig to get a JF space to a little over what it is now.
8 Billion isk? Seriously? Meanwhile 600 mil isk worth of T1 BC's can still kill a JF. Hell 60 Mil isk worth of catalysts should.
And also your adding 50% to what it is already the most expensive ship for Jump fuel use.
You want this to make better sense then 2 T1 rigs to get to about the same cargo. T2 rigs get above. Or for those who want to sacrifice space for tank they have better options to tank it up without losses 30% of there cargo space.
Or another option add cargo space to the benefits of JF skill.
|
|
Kelgh
Egg Operations
3
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 21:32:00 -
[341] - Quote
When can we expect a devblog on these massive changes to freighters and jumpfreighters
I would like some more explanation of these changes |
Buzz Dura
Epsilon Lyr Mordus Angels
8
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 21:33:00 -
[342] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Buzz Dura wrote:for those who missed some figures... What about Fenrir and Providence?
Look at the pattern of the dev post. so you get the same diffrence of m3 as you go "down the race" xD
That mean max cargo will be 22km3 less than obe on a providence et 22km3 less again on a fenrir.
That mean all freighter can have 1+M m3.
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3272
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 21:35:00 -
[343] - Quote
It should be noted:
You can't fit 3 T2 cargo rigs on a freighter or JF.
The JF only has 2 slots.
The Freighter only has 400 calibration.
T2 cargo rigs have a calibration cost of 150. So that's 2 T2 rigs, and 1 T1 rig. Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Dave Stark
5682
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 21:37:00 -
[344] - Quote
Kelgh wrote:When can we expect a devblog on these massive changes to freighters and jumpfreighters
I would like some more explanation of these changes
there's only so many ways to say "players kept whining about not having fitting options for freighters, so we gave them to you and you all whined about it" |
Myst Valkyria
Red Frog Freight Red-Frog
2
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 21:37:00 -
[345] - Quote
This is the worst change I could have ever imagined. With these changes, the Fenrir is now the weakest, smallest cargo freighter. You've basically made it useless.
You are taking frail, sitting ducks, that cost 1.5 billion ISK without rigs, and making them even frailer sitting ducks....with less cargo capacity. This is not balance, this is insanity. Freightering goods around New Eden is a very risky job. When people asked for rigs, they didn't want to have to use rigs to get back to the place where they were, but with more ISK to shell out. They wanted the option to customize their current freighter. Nobody in all of Eve has ever said that freighters were over powered. If freighters were overpowered, then we wouldn't be ganked on a daily basis. Freighters and JFs needed a buff not a beat down with the nerf bat.
I know that ore compression is going to be big and all that, and so you are probably expecting mineral hauling to become less frequent, but hauling minerals is only one of the many items we haul on a regular basis. Reducing our base cargo hold size is going to impact our ability to serve all of our customers.
Adding shield and armor HP to a freighter does not help them in any way shape or form. The resistances are ***t. The only reason a freighter has half a chance at surviving a gank is because of the massive hull HPs...which you are taking away.
All you are doing is making it far easier for the Hi-Sec gankers to gank freighters. Instead of 15 catalysts they will need only 10, and now instead of having a ship worth 1.5 bill, it'll be easily over 2 bill with T1 rigs, and probably closer to 4b for a T1 freighter with T2 capital rigs (because those are retardedly expensive).
Eve's whole mantra is "risk versus reward." Well, freighter pilots and JF pilots have a huge amount of risk, and not that great a reward. Where as ganking catalysts/talos/brutix have almost no risk, and a huge amount of reward. This whole thing seems backwards. |
Abulurd Boniface
The Scope Gallente Federation
125
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 21:40:00 -
[346] - Quote
I like the idea of considering new fitting options for freighters, I'm not sure about the risk/reward equation at this point.
As an experienced miner I am thoroughly convinced about the volume aspect of cargo ships. Quantity is the name of the game. Every extra trip adds that much more risk to the endeavour, what is the freighter pilot getting out of that? A ship that is slower, and they are never really fast to begin with. They now have less tank, which is only adding more risk, one less volley required, that much less time to maybe get out of a tight situation.
This is all about the new way industry is intended to work, but not everybody plays that game, engages in that kind of content. Rigs are now not going to be an option, they will be a requirement, making the investment an even greater risk. T1 rigs will not be enough. T2s will be ludicrously expensive. And that's just to fly the boat halfway decent. No measure will be enough to withstand the onslaught of our pirate brothers who are exquisitely well-served with cheap and easily replaceable space frames to support their ganking efforts. Their risk/reward equation just put a really big smile on their faces.
So, I'm seriously asking: what is the freighter pilot getting out of all this for all the extra risk they are expected to assume?
|
Myst Valkyria
Red Frog Freight Red-Frog
2
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 21:40:00 -
[347] - Quote
Anhenka wrote:What a disappointing set of changes.
I doubt I have anything to add that has been not said in the past pages, but I feel that reducing cargo so much that even a cargo rigged ship has less cargo and less tank and is slower and less agile than it was prepatch is a poor idea.
Truer words were never spoken. |
Paranoid Loyd
483
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 21:41:00 -
[348] - Quote
I'm surprised to see so many from Red-Frog whining. You should be happy, these changes will discourage quite a bit of your competition.
Adapt and continue to dominate FFS. "PvE in EVE is a trap to turn you into PvP content, don't confuse it for actual gameplay." Lipbite |
Kelgh
Egg Operations
3
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 21:43:00 -
[349] - Quote
funny how so little isk is needed to kill a ship that is that expensive even without rigss |
Buzz Dura
Epsilon Lyr Mordus Angels
8
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 21:44:00 -
[350] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:It should be noted:
You can't fit 3 T2 cargo rigs on a freighter or JF.
The JF only has 2 slots.
The Freighter only has 400 calibration.
T2 cargo rigs have a calibration cost of 150. So that's 2 T2 rigs, and 1 T1 rig.
My bad.. Less cargo guys !
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1T9Cq_v0MiiqJmQp1p1eKapPdQG3i1R6U_qP44zN-zqI/edit#gid=1334759259 |
|
Dave Stark
5682
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 21:44:00 -
[351] - Quote
Abulurd Boniface wrote:So, I'm seriously asking: what is the freighter pilot getting out of all this for all the extra risk they are expected to assume?
the ability to fit rigs. |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
112
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 21:45:00 -
[352] - Quote
Paranoid Loyd wrote:I'm surprised to see so many from Red-Frog whining. You should be happy, these changes will discourage quite a bit of your competition. Adapt and continue to dominate FFS.
That is quite obviously a post from ignorance, so let me tell you how it is. Red/Black/Blue Frog do not really have any competition to begin with. Their market is those that are not part of an alliance with a large logistical backbone, Goon Logistics, N3/PL Logistics, BNI Logistics etc, are not actual competition to them as those alliances are not the consumer base.
|
Phugoid
Thee Almitee Ones The Unforgiven Alliance
160
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 21:46:00 -
[353] - Quote
I have ONE question.......
it takes my Charon an agonizing 40 secs to align now, which I have gotten used to and accepted as a fact of life, and even made billions via hauling with the 40 seconds.........but why make it 114 seconds now? Flugzeugf++hrer |
Alner Greyl
Tr0pa de elite. Pandemic Legion
155
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 21:47:00 -
[354] - Quote
Where is the choice? I thought the goal of rigs is giving a choice for pilot. I do logistic work more than 2 years. And every JF I move is full. Mostly we make 2-3 JF few times per week to deliver everything we need. Why? Because we don't have everything in one region. And that's common stuff: fuel/isotopes. Why? Because we don't have it in one region and we need to take it from another region or trade hub. This is common situation for every logist in eve. If you don't have common and required items you need to trade you need to buy it somewhere. What we have: hard work for logist. Every logist will tell you that this is terrible and boring job. But you need to do it. What we have: expensive jumps (after patch). Ok. I have enough money to do it as usual and I know how to do this job. What about newbee logists? They need to have more money for fuel and change their jump schedule if they don't have it. Yes, they will try to use local markets but for example they live in amarr space with amarr ice and they need minmatar ice. So you need hub you need more money to take it. What we have: rigs. Nice. Cool. I'll have choice. Dev blog. Oh sh*t I don't have choice. I need to install cargo rigs. Both newbee and me must find 1.5bil more to make JF cool and shiny.
What the point of rigs in this way? Giving me choice? No I don't have choice. I need to expand my cargo's volume. I'm not talking about agility because JF jumps betweem cyno not through the gate.
Goal was to give a choice. Result: expensive jumps and useless rigs for compensation of loosing volume.
Double nerf? Really? Logist job is so easy and funny that you need us to have more fun than we have now?
Give us real choice of fitting our jump freighters.
|
Kelgh
Egg Operations
3
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 21:50:00 -
[355] - Quote
Alner Greyl wrote:Where is the choice? I thought the goal of rigs is giving a choice for pilot. I do logistic work more than 2 years. And every JF I move is full. Mostly we make 2-3 JF few times per week to deliver everything we need. Why? Because we don't have everything in one region. And that's common stuff: fuel/isotopes. Why? Because we don't have it in one region and we need to take it from another region or trade hub. This is common situation for every logist in eve. If you don't have common and required items you need to trade you need to buy it somewhere. What we have: hard work for logist. Every logist will tell you that this is terrible and boring job. But you need to do it. What we have: expensive jumps (after patch). Ok. I have enough money to do it as usual and I know how to do this job. What about newbee logists? They need to have more money for fuel and change their jump schedule if they don't have it. Yes, they will try to use local markets but for example they live in amarr space with amarr ice and they need minmatar ice. So you need hub you need more money to take it. What we have: rigs. Nice. Cool. I'll have choice. Dev blog. Oh sh*t I don't have choice. I need to install cargo rigs. Both newbee and me must find 1.5bil more to make JF cool and shiny.
What the point of rigs in this way? Giving me choice? No I don't have choice. I need to expand my cargo's volume. I'm not talking about agility because JF jumps betweem cyno not through the gate.
Goal was to give a choice. Result: expensive jumps and useless rigs for compensation of loosing volume.
Double nerf? Really? Logist job is so easy and funny that you need us to have more fun than we have now?
Give us real choice of fitting our jump freighters.
that why they didn't say anything at fanfest they wanted to look good
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3272
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 21:53:00 -
[356] - Quote
One thing which should also be noted about T2 cargo rig prices.
Right now, in Jita, they're 725 million or so.
They jumped to that price some time between the 2nd and the 5th
https://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/market/marketdisplay.php?typeid=31127®ionid=10000002
The actual build cost is around 400 million with an invention cost of around 2 million.
https://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/blueprints/0/31127/-4/0/-4/1
I wouldn't expect it to stay at that 725 price particularly long, once they start getting used. Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Gekkoh
Circle of Steel Inc. Care Factor
8
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 21:57:00 -
[357] - Quote
This is terrible.
You let us boost ONE aspect of freighters for a massive ISK cost, while the all the others get nerfed.
Have you actually tried hauling a lot of stuff around the Eve universe? It's boring as hell, and takes a lot of time as is because we have to keep our ISK values low to avoid losing everything.
When you call an expansion "the industry expansion", you might want to make sure that you're not actually making the "anti-industrialist expansion".
Terrible game design here. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1508
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 21:58:00 -
[358] - Quote
Allison A'vani wrote:Paranoid Loyd wrote:I'm surprised to see so many from Red-Frog whining. You should be happy, these changes will discourage quite a bit of your competition. Adapt and continue to dominate FFS. That is quite obviously a post from ignorance, so let me tell you how it is. Red/Black/Blue Frog do not really have any competition to begin with. Their market is those that are not part of an alliance with a large logistical backbone, Goon Logistics, N3/PL Logistics, BNI Logistics etc, are not actual competition to them as those alliances are not the consumer base.
u dnt think anyone else does courier contracts but frogs? That's ignorance. They may not be as good as u, but now u can be even better than they are than u were before, depending on whoever puts the extra effort in or not.
Alner Greyl wrote:Where is the choice?
now u can choose between tank, speed and capacity. u also have the choice of rigging ur freighters for projectile damage if u want. 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" |
Deeone
Deadspace Zombie Factory
15
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 21:58:00 -
[359] - Quote
Wow so I get to pay for capitol t1 rigs just to get my cargo back to where it was......wow thanks a lot real advantage to a 900mil isk hull. And I can pay massive amount to have a 4% gain with t2 rigs? Umm you know if you were all going to do it like this why change it at all? I am not seeing the upside to any of this unless you produce capitol rigs. I am pretty sure what we wanted was a way to lose armor or hull hp for more cargo space so we had a trade off not just oh here this isn't a nerf cuz u can buy 300mil in rigs to get back to where u were.......What happened to when CCP had innovative solutions to things? And how is this adding any value to gameplay? The only thing being discussed is cargo rigs how much customization is that really? What about away to drop cargo space for more hp or speed? Make freighters special in some way currently you fly it as it is, with this addition you buy cargo rigs to regain pre nerf functionality. I'm sorry I love you guys at CCP but this just misses the mark and honestly makes very little sense. |
Abulurd Boniface
The Scope Gallente Federation
125
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 21:58:00 -
[360] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Abulurd Boniface wrote:So, I'm seriously asking: what is the freighter pilot getting out of all this for all the extra risk they are expected to assume?
the ability to fit rigs.
To me it seems like a really big burger full of fecal matter.
I was enthusiastic when CCP Fozzie announced rigs for freighters at Fanfest. The way these are going to be implemented, if that really is the final word, makes it seem like there's no real gain for the freighter pilot. I worry about that because driving a freighter is never the most enjoyable experience, this seems like feeding someone a meal with glass shards in it.
Rigs, as a reward, are totally underwhelming compared with the new risks and costs associated with flying a freighter.
In this implementation I would have to be asked -really- polite-like whether I wanted to move cargo for a third party and the collateral would be very expensive. I would be reluctant to accept these risks. |
|
Khanh'rhh
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3135
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:00:00 -
[361] - Quote
Kat Ayclism wrote:And... that means... that you will always have to import... because someone else controls the production materials... If that importing is more difficult or has a high barrier to entry (which is what the fuel and freighter changes create) then you are NOT going to be producing in null- you're going to be doing so near your source for the materials... This is entrenched logic. It means you can import, or you can go fight the person you're buying from for the resources instead. You're seeing the problem but you're trying to solve it based on current logic, rather than re-thinking and coming up with another solution, aka adapting.
Quote:You seem to think continuing to attack me because you're butthurt about something I said on twitter is at all a good argument. I've not mentioned benefits or injuries to myself at any point, yet you've spent all but a small portion of this last post attacking me or my affiliation rather than having anything to say.
They have their incentives and approach to their goal set up backwards, which is what I've said from the very first post. That's far different from blindly hating it because it doesn't serve me. I didn't start by attacking you, I started by mocking your terrible all-caps rage post which didn't do anything close to expressing a logical train of thought. You've since wound that in and are now actually making points. Will CCP ever manage to create a landscape that looks like I think it will? I don't know. But if it is going to happen then it needs constructive criticism from all points of view, not thread-shitting by people more interested in sitting back and thinking "oh wow lolz what a sick burn I just did in all caps".
The other reason I quoted your post and said "ahahahahahaah" is because it's a hilarious over-reaction to what can barely be considered a nerf; 1-4% change. "Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual, issued in the 1930 |
Maxdig
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:00:00 -
[362] - Quote
Your Old Obelisk numbers are wrong by 100k. |
Dave Stark
5684
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:00:00 -
[363] - Quote
Abulurd Boniface wrote:To me it seems like a really big burger full of fecal matter. yup, people were told it would be every time they asked for it. |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
52
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:00:00 -
[364] - Quote
They jumped to that price about 10 seconds after Fozzie announced it on the stream. I was in Jita watching them. I am a poor so I certainly didn't buy any for 240mil and relist for 750. Not did I buy out almost all the t2 materials. I swear. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
15569
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:01:00 -
[365] - Quote
Allison A'vani wrote:Paranoid Loyd wrote:I'm surprised to see so many from Red-Frog whining. You should be happy, these changes will discourage quite a bit of your competition. Adapt and continue to dominate FFS. That is quite obviously a post from ignorance, so let me tell you how it is. Red/Black/Blue Frog do not really have any competition to begin with. Their market is those that are not part of an alliance with a large logistical backbone, Goon Logistics, N3/PL Logistics, BNI Logistics etc, are not actual competition to them as those alliances are not the consumer base.
Well in that case they can just raise their prices a bit and all is good. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!" |
Khanh'rhh
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3135
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:01:00 -
[366] - Quote
Caroline Grace wrote:I'm in the freighter business actively for over two years now and I have to say something about these changes. I don't agree with them, while I really like the idea of being able to modify my freighter by more or less tank/cargo/speed.
Freighter hauling is a very dull gameplay and I was hoping for some rebalance ideas that would actually reflect that. However, what I read from these changes, it is actually the opposite. Consider; every freighter pilot will now have to pay extra ~200m extra ISK for rigs to even activate this rebalance at the first place. This will not only annoy all freighter pilots, it will also raise the overall price of a freighter, raise the courier rewards to balance this ISK sink -> annoy contract customers and shake the business all around. And angry customers - not good!
While it is true you will be able to rig your freighter to the original state (for 200m) and getting extra ~4% cargohold capacity (while losing agility by adding the hull rigs), in the freighter world, the 4% cargohold capacity bonus means nothing and agility means everything. This business is all about speed, all about collateral numbers and all about round cargo capacity numbers when comes to hauling. I know this. I do this every day. It does not justify the extra 200m cost into every of your freighters from now on.
The other possibilities how to rig your freighters are good: being able to carry more and faster, but with less tank, this is in the true spirit of EVE and I would love pay for them if I would choose I would like to use them.
However, freighter business is already an extremely expensive business and these changes forces every freighter pilot to spend extra 200m to even enjoy the Kronos release and get either the same freighter as before or modify their freighter into weak/strong hybrid they might not even want.
Please reconsider these changes. Hauling is the backbone of every profession in EVE and freighter gameplay itself is a very dull and very soul-draining profession to do. I didn't and don't expect some massive gameplay overhaul for freighters, but at least do not hurt this unique, important and somewhat soul sensitive profession by forcing players to sink hundreds of millions ISK into getting the same slighty nerfed, or modified and overall still nerfed, freighters. Thank you.
You're basically saying you're against CCP adding fitting slots to your ship, because you have to pay for the modules that go in them? I don't honestly know how you think CCP can work around that.
"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual, issued in the 1930 |
Paranoid Loyd
488
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:01:00 -
[367] - Quote
Allison A'vani wrote:Paranoid Loyd wrote:I'm surprised to see so many from Red-Frog whining. You should be happy, these changes will discourage quite a bit of your competition. Adapt and continue to dominate FFS. That is quite obviously a post from ignorance, so let me tell you how it is. Red/Black/Blue Frog do not really have any competition to begin with. Their market is those that are not part of an alliance with a large logistical backbone, Goon Logistics, N3/PL Logistics, BNI Logistics etc, are not actual competition to them as those alliances are not the consumer base.
What in my post lead you to believe I was referring to null-sec logistics?
I was referring to the competition that comes from most solo players using their own freighter as opposed to using a dedicated logistics service. Those that are discouraged from these changes will now be more likely to seek alternatives to investing in the necessary components to adapt to these changes.
"PvE in EVE is a trap to turn you into PvP content, don't confuse it for actual gameplay." Lipbite |
KBLUEJACK54
Mercurialis Inc. RAZOR Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:03:00 -
[368] - Quote
Looooool..Rigs in Jump freighters, Just accept the nerf guys, the best...or rather the worst is yet to come, just wait till they turn there attention to the Rorqual as that grinning fool announced at fanfest.
Capital Industrial ships romping around belts just because some rabid PvP Dev thinks it is a 'Good Idea', makes you wonder what these guys are smoking nights.
Thanks CCP for offering Null Sec everything and giving them nothing. |
Talcuris
Dragon Clan Nulli Secunda
8
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:07:00 -
[369] - Quote
Those JF changes ... wow that hurts like anything. I was kind of excited when the rig slots were anounced at fanfest that there would actually be a choice of rigs. Alignment speed, warp speed, tankyness, cargo hold ... With the nerf to cargo holds, it becomes just about absolutely impractical to fit anything BUT cargohold expanders.
So, in total an almost unnoticeable buff to cargoholds with T2 rigs.
That's it for the positives, on the negative side: Cost for a JF goes up by more than a billion. Cargohold rigs hurt the tankyness that was switched to armor, making them even more squishy after people have been complaining for years that they are too fragile to survive anything but the cheapest suicide gank. Align time goes way up. Fuel gets much more expensive.
All that for what, around 10k m-¦ more cargo space? We expected that there'd be something to make it impossible to hit the 500k mark for the ihub upgrades, but this? Losing 100k m-¦ is waaaaaaaaaaaaay too much to make anything except cargo rigs viable, and the really exciting thing was to have a choice. This makes the heavy nerfs even more bitter to swallow. Don't know about elsewhere, but you've managed to sink the mood on the TS here straight to rock bottom. |
Kelgh
Egg Operations
5
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:08:00 -
[370] - Quote
KBLUEJACK54 wrote:Looooool..Rigs in Jump freighters, Just accept the nerf guys, the best...or rather the worst is yet to come, just wait till they turn there attention to the Rorqual as that grinning fool announced at fanfest.
Capital Industrial ships romping around belts just because some rabid PvP Dev thinks it is a 'Good Idea', makes you wonder what these guys are smoking nights.
Thanks CCP for offering Null Sec everything and giving them nothing.
yeah like any one is going to put that ship in the belts
CCP needs to start playing the game |
|
Staaren
Egg Operations
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:12:00 -
[371] - Quote
Here is a thought:
CCP give some industrialist players in Eve jobs as Devs and put them in charge of balancing ships, especially with your intentions & focus of Kronos.
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1508
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:13:00 -
[372] - Quote
Abulurd Boniface wrote:
I was enthusiastic when CCP Fozzie announced rigs for freighters at Fanfest. The way these are going to be implemented, if that really is the final word, makes it seem like there's no real gain for the freighter pilot.
because u thought u were getting a straight buff to a ship that didnt need a buff. No real gain other than choice was due. 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" |
Caroline Grace
Grace Stellar Conveyance Inc.
523
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:14:00 -
[373] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote: You're basically saying you're against CCP adding fitting slots to your ship, because you have to pay for the modules that go in them? I don't honestly know how you think CCP can work around that.
Low slots. No rigs. |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
53
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:15:00 -
[374] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Abulurd Boniface wrote:
I was enthusiastic when CCP Fozzie announced rigs for freighters at Fanfest. The way these are going to be implemented, if that really is the final word, makes it seem like there's no real gain for the freighter pilot.
because u thought u were getting a straight buff to a ship that didnt need a buff. No real gain other than choice was due.
Not necessarily. But I didn't expect a huge overall nerf.
That being said I am overall OK with the changes as long as they either fix the Rhea cargo or normalize fuel usage. |
Talcuris
Dragon Clan Nulli Secunda
8
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:17:00 -
[375] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Abulurd Boniface wrote:
I was enthusiastic when CCP Fozzie announced rigs for freighters at Fanfest. The way these are going to be implemented, if that really is the final word, makes it seem like there's no real gain for the freighter pilot.
Talcuris wrote: I was kind of excited when the rig slots were anounced at fanfest that there would actually be a choice of rigs. Alignment speed, warp speed, tankyness, cargo hold ...
because u thought u were getting a straight buff to a ship that didnt need a buff. No real gain other than choice was due.
Yeah, but the point stands that there _is_ no choice now. I can take nerfs, but this on top of that, thanks a lot. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1508
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:20:00 -
[376] - Quote
Talcuris wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:Abulurd Boniface wrote:
I was enthusiastic when CCP Fozzie announced rigs for freighters at Fanfest. The way these are going to be implemented, if that really is the final word, makes it seem like there's no real gain for the freighter pilot.
Talcuris wrote: I was kind of excited when the rig slots were anounced at fanfest that there would actually be a choice of rigs. Alignment speed, warp speed, tankyness, cargo hold ...
because u thought u were getting a straight buff to a ship that didnt need a buff. No real gain other than choice was due. Yeah, but the point stands that there _is_ no choice now. I can take nerfs, but this on top of that, thanks a lot.
u can exceed a current freighters capacity. u can exceed a current freighters tank. u can exceed a current freighters speed.
but u cant have all three at once. u have to choose. 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" |
Paranoid Loyd
488
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:20:00 -
[377] - Quote
Caroline Grace wrote:Khanh'rhh wrote: You're basically saying you're against CCP adding fitting slots to your ship, because you have to pay for the modules that go in them? I don't honestly know how you think CCP can work around that.
Low slots. No rigs.
And we've come full circle, too bad it's too late now.
"PvE in EVE is a trap to turn you into PvP content, don't confuse it for actual gameplay." Lipbite |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6306
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:21:00 -
[378] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote: u can exceed a current freighters capacity. u can exceed a current freighters tank. u can exceed a current freighters speed.
but u cant have all three at once. u have to choose.
Which is the problem in the first place.
They wanted it all, without having to think about it. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS type X
151
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:22:00 -
[379] - Quote
Horrible. We wanted flexiblity in using freighters and you give us the one solution that costs a ton of ISK to make changes unless you want to have 5 Charons all configured differently with different rigs.
Someone please Fire CCP Fozzie and find a competent replacement. Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
609
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:22:00 -
[380] - Quote
You are also missing the three rig slots on the Charon and Obelisk.
I took the liberty of cleaning it up for you: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Cws5fKMYvZjZFCAFaNM9PZuszil-dX3Cc-dEXq0-svc/edit?usp=sharing This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
|
Ari Kes
Red Frog Freight Red-Frog
11
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:23:00 -
[381] - Quote
Lyn Fel wrote:Way to take a dump on haulers Fozzie. Less tank+less agility+less cargo space but if you spend a lot more isk on your already expensive ship you can fix one, maybe two of those nerfs. Not to mention the 50% more fuel consumption coming soon.
I assume that your goal is to spread industry out all over null so that local markets can do everything themselves. Unfortunately, I believe that the exact opposite is what's going to happen. Hauling nerfs are going to cause people to congregate even more closely together than they already do, not encourage them to spread out more. There just aren't enough people interested in doing every aspect of industry in every corner of the universe and forcing people to do things that they don't want to do doesn't generally work out well.
In such cases usually time only tells how things unfold. However in light of the proposed changes, I have to agree with the above answer. |
Dave Stark
5685
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:23:00 -
[382] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote: u can exceed a current freighters capacity. u can exceed a current freighters tank. u can exceed a current freighters speed.
but u cant have all three at once. u have to choose.
Which is the problem in the first place. They wanted it all, without having to think about it.
they had it all.
guess the grass isn't greener after all. |
Caroline Grace
Grace Stellar Conveyance Inc.
524
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:24:00 -
[383] - Quote
Paranoid Loyd wrote:And we've come full circle, too bad it's too late now. Not sure what you mean, but I was never in the hype train for freighter rigs. |
Talcuris
Dragon Clan Nulli Secunda
8
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:27:00 -
[384] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Talcuris wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:Abulurd Boniface wrote:
I was enthusiastic when CCP Fozzie announced rigs for freighters at Fanfest. The way these are going to be implemented, if that really is the final word, makes it seem like there's no real gain for the freighter pilot.
Talcuris wrote: I was kind of excited when the rig slots were anounced at fanfest that there would actually be a choice of rigs. Alignment speed, warp speed, tankyness, cargo hold ...
because u thought u were getting a straight buff to a ship that didnt need a buff. No real gain other than choice was due. Yeah, but the point stands that there _is_ no choice now. I can take nerfs, but this on top of that, thanks a lot. u can exceed a current freighters capacity. u can exceed a current freighters tank. u can exceed a current freighters speed. but u cant have all three at once. u have to choose.
I'm not talking about freighters. I haven't looked at them that hard, but at a glance they seem kind of okay'ish. A jump freighter with ~250k m-¦? With all the other nerfs and raised operational costs? Actually, now that I think about it, this makes the Rorqual stiff competition for low/null sec logistics. Well, they did promise to make the Rorqual more useful. |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
53
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:27:00 -
[385] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote: u can exceed a current freighters capacity. u can exceed a current freighters tank. u can exceed a current freighters speed.
but u cant have all three at once. u have to choose.
Which is the problem in the first place. They wanted it all, without having to think about it.
Or You can have cargo rigs nerf structure. Agi rigs nerf structure Hull rigs nerf cargo |
Batolemaeus
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
77
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:27:00 -
[386] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote: This is entrenched logic. It means you can import, or you can go fight the person you're buying from for the resources instead.
You spelt "and" wrong. Unless you have found a magical teleportation technique that can move isotopes from regions on the other side of the map to the region where they are needed. |
Paranoid Loyd
488
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:27:00 -
[387] - Quote
Caroline Grace wrote:Paranoid Loyd wrote:And we've come full circle, too bad it's too late now. Not sure what you mean, but I was never in the hype train for freighter rigs.
I wasn't singling you out, but referring to the conversation in general. Just continuing the theme of be careful what you wish for. "PvE in EVE is a trap to turn you into PvP content, don't confuse it for actual gameplay." Lipbite |
Khanh'rhh
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3137
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:29:00 -
[388] - Quote
Caroline Grace wrote:Khanh'rhh wrote: You're basically saying you're against CCP adding fitting slots to your ship, because you have to pay for the modules that go in them? I don't honestly know how you think CCP can work around that.
Low slots. No rigs. Low slots are even more problematic than rigs, and would require even larger reductions in base cargo/HP. Then you would be whining even more.
Freighter pilots were asking CCP over and over for the ability to fit rigs, and they got it. Now suddenly this is the worst change ever. "Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual, issued in the 1930 |
Dave Stark
5686
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:29:00 -
[389] - Quote
Batolemaeus wrote:Khanh'rhh wrote: This is entrenched logic. It means you can import, or you can go fight the person you're buying from for the resources instead.
You spelt "and" wrong. Unless you have found a magical teleportation technique that can move isotopes from regions on the other side of the map to the region where they are needed.
i thought JFs were the magical teleportation technique used to move things from one side of eve, to the other? |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
39
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:30:00 -
[390] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Talcuris wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:Abulurd Boniface wrote:
I was enthusiastic when CCP Fozzie announced rigs for freighters at Fanfest. The way these are going to be implemented, if that really is the final word, makes it seem like there's no real gain for the freighter pilot.
Talcuris wrote: I was kind of excited when the rig slots were anounced at fanfest that there would actually be a choice of rigs. Alignment speed, warp speed, tankyness, cargo hold ...
because u thought u were getting a straight buff to a ship that didnt need a buff. No real gain other than choice was due. Yeah, but the point stands that there _is_ no choice now. I can take nerfs, but this on top of that, thanks a lot. u can exceed a current freighters capacity. u can exceed a current freighters tank. u can exceed a current freighters speed. but u cant have all three at once. u have to choose.
Not by much for an extreme price Not by much and not enough to matter. Not by much and who gives a shite
So what was the point? |
|
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
1814
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:31:00 -
[391] - Quote
Realistically all JF pilots in eve will fork over the billion isk for cargo rigs, while paying more for fuel. Yay, whatever. If you can afford the JF, you can afford the rigs.
Freighters get to chose two of the following: --loooooonger align times. Yay. --less cargo space. Meh, I never ran fully loaded anyway. --Less tank. Easier to gank. Yay.
Regardless of what you pick, you get f***ed in the a**. But you get to choose precisely how you get f***** in the a**. So they whine and dine you first, and THEN you get your choice of ribbed, lubed, or dry. Wonderful. |
LordShazbot
Polaris Rising Gentlemen's Agreement
63
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:32:00 -
[392] - Quote
Holy **** does CCP even play this game. Must not have to fly jump freighters often cause this change is simply asinine. Sweet Nerf bros, keep up the good work. |
Angelina Duvolle
Homeworld Technologies
23
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:33:00 -
[393] - Quote
Rather disappointing as I expected.
Probably the worst thing about this, is how predictable this is getting. Fozzy seems to have adopted the, I won't improve anything, unless I make it worse in another way strategy for balance passes, and it is getting somewhat old, and to be frank it is rather an unoriginal approach.
At fan fest you were asked point blank when freighters were going to get some love, and you acted giddy that they were going to be getting RIGS zomg. It's obvious now why you didn't detail these changes.
The reason you have 20 pages of whining, is that people have been clamoring for an IMPROVEMENT, and you gave them false hope that this would occur, then spit in our collective faces with these horribly thought out changes.
You should go back to the drawing board on this. I don't think you will, as you pretty much have shown that unlike other devs, you have little interest in player feedback.
Here are some ideas since both you and our csm reps seem incapable of creative solutions.
Give them a drone bay with bonus;s to ecm drones. Make it take a focus point to point them, not an alt noob ship. Give them the ability to remove their rigs. Give them capital/freighter armor transfers that only work on other freighters (players can create convoys) Are they capital ships or not? You want us to use capital rigs so I guess so, but they are incredibly weak for a capital ship.
PLEASE do something more original then a 29% nerf and 30% buff. Someone their has GOT to have a better idea then this. |
Cyran Reinhard
hashtag WARDEC
6
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:33:00 -
[394] - Quote
Tippia wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:T1 rigs are easily enough to bring normal freighters above their current cargo values. Yes, but I fly a JF. I picked it because of its nippy align speed, good tank, and descent-enough cargo hold. I can restore one of those at a massive cost. I suppose I might as well dump it for a regular freighter with hull rigs GÇö it should end up with about the same, or slightly better, performance than what I get out of the old 7bn crate. Ah well, it's had a good life and it certainly simplifies the training for the hauling alt I was considering.
Well, Jump Freighters are meant to jump....if you aren't Jumping, why do you have a JF? |
Alner Greyl
Tr0pa de elite. Pandemic Legion
157
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:34:00 -
[395] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote:Caroline Grace wrote:Khanh'rhh wrote: You're basically saying you're against CCP adding fitting slots to your ship, because you have to pay for the modules that go in them? I don't honestly know how you think CCP can work around that.
Low slots. No rigs. Low slots are even more problematic than rigs, and would require even larger reductions in base cargo/HP. Then you would be whining even more. Freighter pilots were asking CCP over and over for the ability to fit rigs, and they got it. Now suddenly this is the worst change ever. May be because pilots waited flexibility and help with hard job that's not funny in all ways? And what we have?
p.s. i didn't ask |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
3043
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:34:00 -
[396] - Quote
Myst Valkyria wrote:This is the worst change I could have ever imagined. With these changes, the Fenrir is now the weakest, smallest cargo freighter. You've basically made it useless.
You are taking frail, sitting ducks, that cost 1.5 billion ISK without rigs, and making them even frailer sitting ducks....with less cargo capacity. This is not balance, this is insanity. Freightering goods around New Eden is a very risky job. When people asked for rigs, they didn't want to have to use rigs to get back to the place where they were, but with more ISK to shell out. They wanted the option to customize their current freighter. Nobody in all of Eve has ever said that freighters were over powered. If freighters were overpowered, then we wouldn't be ganked on a daily basis. Freighters and JFs needed a buff not a beat down with the nerf bat.
I know that ore compression is going to be big and all that, and so you are probably expecting mineral hauling to become less frequent, but hauling minerals is only one of the many items we haul on a regular basis. Reducing our base cargo hold size is going to impact our ability to serve all of our customers.
Adding shield and armor HP to a freighter does not help them in any way shape or form. The resistances are ***t. The only reason a freighter has half a chance at surviving a gank is because of the massive hull HPs...which you are taking away.
All you are doing is making it far easier for the Hi-Sec gankers to gank freighters. Instead of 15 catalysts they will need only 10, and now instead of having a ship worth 1.5 bill, it'll be easily over 2 bill with T1 rigs, and probably closer to 4b for a T1 freighter with T2 capital rigs (because those are retardedly expensive).
Eve's whole mantra is "risk versus reward." Well, freighter pilots and JF pilots have a huge amount of risk, and not that great a reward. Where as ganking catalysts/talos/brutix have almost no risk, and a huge amount of reward. This whole thing seems backwards.
Think about where the design supposedly came from. Raivi has always been about blowing up as many ships as possible, and he has demonstrated his hated of high sec time and time again, so these massive nerfs to freighter EHP are not unexpected.
As you say, this will make high sec that much more risky with griefers needing so much less critical mass of pilots to wreak havoc.
But don't worry. While the indy changes were nominally designed to increase hauling traffic in high sec, when the nerfs to high sec industry slowly settle in, there will be way less hauling business for you anyway, and you won't have to worry about being ganked. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Batolemaeus
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
77
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:34:00 -
[397] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote: i thought JFs were the magical teleportation technique used to move things from one side of eve, to the other?
Sure, if you ignore all the things that make them not a magical teleportation technique, like the fuel cost, the need for a dozen cyno alts and the soul crushing annoyances of logistics. |
Caroline Grace
Grace Stellar Conveyance Inc.
524
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:34:00 -
[398] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote: Low slots are even more problematic than rigs, and would require even larger reductions in base cargo/HP. Then you would be whining even more.
Freighter pilots were asking CCP over and over for the ability to fit rigs, and they got it. Now suddenly this is the worst change ever.
More reductions to reflect the strength of low slot modules to match the current or Kronos state. No reason to whine.
I was never in the freighter rigs hype train. |
Dave Stark
5687
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:36:00 -
[399] - Quote
actually something i'm genuinely curious about.
since we've got a substantial amount of people saying how bad these changes will be; where were you all every time some one opened up a new thread asking for the exact change you're all being so negative about? |
Klazktrknuitzksalikamono
Hedion University Amarr Empire
10
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:37:00 -
[400] - Quote
These are some really stupid changes.
Hey guys lets nerf a BORING activity with HUGE INVESTMENT and make it LESS EFFICIENT and MORE RISKY.
Capitalized the IMPORTANT stuff.
Please CCP, don't make me regret using my JF to help my corporation out. Why punish teamwork and cooperation? |
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6308
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:38:00 -
[401] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:Realistically all JF pilots in eve will fork over the billion isk for cargo rigs, while paying more for fuel. Yay, whatever. If you can afford the JF, you can afford the rigs.
Freighters get to chose two of the following: --loooooonger align times. Yay. --less cargo space. Meh, I never ran fully loaded anyway. --Less tank. Easier to gank. Yay.
Regardless of what you pick, you get f***ed in the a**. But you get to choose precisely how you get f***** in the a**. So they whine and dine you first, and THEN you get your choice of ribbed, lubed, or dry. Wonderful.
Out of... curiosity, let's call it, which one is ribbed, which is lubed, and which is dry?
[edit: Ah, great, first post on this page. Just watch this get deleted. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Klazktrknuitzksalikamono
Hedion University Amarr Empire
10
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:38:00 -
[402] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:actually something i'm genuinely curious about.
since we've got a substantial amount of people saying how bad these changes will be; where were you all every time some one opened up a new thread asking for the exact change you're all being so negative about?
There are millions of stupid changes suggested. Only when they are entertained by CCP do they show any real change of being implemented. Wasting your time shooting down stupid suggestions that have no chance of being implemented would suck. |
Alner Greyl
Tr0pa de elite. Pandemic Legion
157
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:39:00 -
[403] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:actually something i'm genuinely curious about.
since we've got a substantial amount of people saying how bad these changes will be; where were you all every time some one opened up a new thread asking for the exact change you're all being so negative about?
Nobody expected such changes |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1508
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:39:00 -
[404] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:
Or You can have cargo rigs nerf structure. Agi rigs nerf structure Hull rigs nerf cargo
The penalties of rigs are tiny, and aren't really a meaningful tradeoff.. You could fit one of each and the penalties are so low with rigging V u now straight buffed ur freighter when it was in no need of a buff.
Dirk MacGirk wrote:
Not by much for an extreme price Not by much and not enough to matter. Not by much and who gives a shite
So what was the point?
capacity is powerful for a freighter. u want a straight 70% buff to capacity? hell no. with hull rigs adding around 70% hp, yeah it is. speed is useful for freighters, and if u dnt think ppl give a ****, read the hull rig thread.
the point is players wanted choice. they got it. dnt cry at me boy, i was one of the ones saying that this would happen if freighters got rigs and/or slots. 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" |
Buzz Dura
Epsilon Lyr Mordus Angels
8
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:39:00 -
[405] - Quote
and what about a little buff to the range ?
Max Jump Range:5 > 6.5 lightyears ? |
Dave Stark
5687
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:41:00 -
[406] - Quote
Alner Greyl wrote:Dave Stark wrote:actually something i'm genuinely curious about.
since we've got a substantial amount of people saying how bad these changes will be; where were you all every time some one opened up a new thread asking for the exact change you're all being so negative about? Nobody expected such changes
yes they did. that's why half the posts in this thread are people like me, tippia, and half of goons being rather smug. |
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
1815
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:41:00 -
[407] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:Realistically all JF pilots in eve will fork over the billion isk for cargo rigs, while paying more for fuel. Yay, whatever. If you can afford the JF, you can afford the rigs.
Freighters get to chose two of the following: --loooooonger align times. Yay. --less cargo space. Meh, I never ran fully loaded anyway. --Less tank. Easier to gank. Yay.
Regardless of what you pick, you get f***ed in the a**. But you get to choose precisely how you get f***** in the a**. So they whine and dine you first, and THEN you get your choice of ribbed, lubed, or dry. Wonderful. Out of... curiosity, let's call it, which one is ribbed, which is lubed, and which is dry? [edit: Ah, great, first post on this page. Just watch this get deleted. Longer align is ribbed. Less cargo is lubed. Less tank is dry. |
Batolemaeus
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
80
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:41:00 -
[408] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:actually something i'm genuinely curious about.
since we've got a substantial amount of people saying how bad these changes will be; where were you all every time some one opened up a new thread asking for the exact change you're all being so negative about?
If I spent my time shouting down all the stupid "ideas" being posted all the time I would've probably killed someone and gotten locked away in an asylum for the criminally insane by now. |
Talcuris
Dragon Clan Nulli Secunda
9
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:44:00 -
[409] - Quote
Batolemaeus wrote:Dave Stark wrote: i thought JFs were the magical teleportation technique used to move things from one side of eve, to the other?
Sure, if you ignore all the things that make them not a magical teleportation technique, like the fuel cost, the need for a dozen cyno alts and the soul crushing annoyances of logistics.
And let's not forget the travel back through high sec where anyone can suicide you and get a sweet 8+b killmail for very little cost and effort. |
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS type X
151
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:45:00 -
[410] - Quote
Ive noticed something in this discussion, that those that didnt want freighters are now coming here in droves claiming all we wanted on freighters were rigs, I was heavily involved in those discussions and I; as well as you, know that that was not the limit of what we were suggesting.
We wanted flexiblity, just like the ORCA, rigs, highs, mids, lows, the whole deal, to now claim all we wanted is rigs is just cheap ass bullshit.
The costs for that change could have been mitigated by just reclassifying freighters as 'large' instead of capital since they walk like a large, talk like a large and act like a large (in that they can go into highsec) anyways.
But this takes creativity something that seems sorely lacking in this sadly comical 'solution'. Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really. |
|
Anthar Thebess
414
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:45:00 -
[411] - Quote
Good idea at first , massive nerf after all items where disclosed.
Especially in case of JF. You have to remember that hauling will be more expensive after fuel requirement changes. Why not increase fuel requirements for super capitals and at the same time increase bonus on fuel consumption for jump freighters from 10% to 20%?
So : 1. Increase fuel requirements for massive super capital ships by 3-4 times. 2. Increase fuel reduction bonus on all Jump Freighters from 10 to 20% per level
THEN think about reducing cargoholds of those ships.
Reducing swarms of super capitals will be good for eve, but reducing ability to haul subcapital supplies for smaller groups will eventually reduce the amount of fun people can have in this game.
Less fun > less players > less fun > Less players ....
|
Paranoid Loyd
488
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:46:00 -
[412] - Quote
So lets talk about the HPs of a max cargo rigged freighter, has anyone done the math on how many, catalysts / talos are required after the changes? "PvE in EVE is a trap to turn you into PvP content, don't confuse it for actual gameplay." Lipbite |
Dave Stark
5687
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:47:00 -
[413] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:The costs for that change could have been mitigated by just reclassifying freighters as 'large' instead of capital since they walk like a large, talk like a large and act like a large (in that they can go into highsec) anyways. gotta admit, i too was expecting large rigs like the orca rather than capital rigs. |
Alner Greyl
Tr0pa de elite. Pandemic Legion
157
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:49:00 -
[414] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Alner Greyl wrote:Dave Stark wrote:actually something i'm genuinely curious about.
since we've got a substantial amount of people saying how bad these changes will be; where were you all every time some one opened up a new thread asking for the exact change you're all being so negative about? Nobody expected such changes yes they did. that's why half the posts in this thread are people like me, tippia, and half of goons being rather smug.
I expected nerf. I didn't expect such nerf. agility+tank+fuel cost+cargo don't you think that's too much for JF?
|
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
39
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:50:00 -
[415] - Quote
Paranoid Loyd wrote:So lets talk about the HPs of a max cargo rigged freighter, has anyone done the math on how many, catalysts / talos are required after the changes?
Yes. Miniluv has and Burn Jita 4 will be both easier and with higher killmail values. |
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective
1167
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:51:00 -
[416] - Quote
Ew... Not good changes imo.
Yes they are getting rigs but all of them are nerfed to hell. I can't believe JFs are loosing that many cubic meters while still having the 50% increase in fuel costs......
I don't know what JFs did to you but again, holy sh... Signature Tanking - Best Tanking. Beware the french guy!
|
Dave Stark
5687
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:51:00 -
[417] - Quote
Alner Greyl wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Alner Greyl wrote:Dave Stark wrote:actually something i'm genuinely curious about.
since we've got a substantial amount of people saying how bad these changes will be; where were you all every time some one opened up a new thread asking for the exact change you're all being so negative about? Nobody expected such changes yes they did. that's why half the posts in this thread are people like me, tippia, and half of goons being rather smug. I expected nerf. I didn't expect such nerf. agility+tank+fuel cost+cargo don't you think that's too much for JF?
fuel cost doesn't really have anything to do with this. that's happening regardless. |
Alner Greyl
Tr0pa de elite. Pandemic Legion
157
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:52:00 -
[418] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Alner Greyl wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Alner Greyl wrote:Dave Stark wrote:actually something i'm genuinely curious about.
since we've got a substantial amount of people saying how bad these changes will be; where were you all every time some one opened up a new thread asking for the exact change you're all being so negative about? Nobody expected such changes yes they did. that's why half the posts in this thread are people like me, tippia, and half of goons being rather smug. I expected nerf. I didn't expect such nerf. agility+tank+fuel cost+cargo don't you think that's too much for JF? fuel cost doesn't really have anything to do with this. that's happening regardless. Agree about fuel. But in summary we have what we have
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1508
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:52:00 -
[419] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:Ive noticed something in this discussion, that those that didnt want freighters changes are now coming here in droves claiming all we wanted on freighters were rigs, I was heavily involved in those discussions and I; as well as you, know that that was not the limit of what we were suggesting.
We wanted flexiblity, just like the ORCA, rigs, highs, mids, lows, the whole deal, to now claim all we wanted is rigs is just cheap ass bullshit.
The costs for that change could have been mitigated by just reclassifying freighters as 'large' instead of capital since they walk like a large, talk like a large and act like a large (in that they can go into highsec) anyways.
But this takes creativity something that seems sorely lacking in this sadly comical 'solution'.
even if those highs mids and lows would come with even more nerfs?
making the rigs may be one way to go. but most complaints at the prices seem to be because they want to fit T2 rigs. T1's are less than 100mil a piece in Hek. 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" |
Angelina Duvolle
Homeworld Technologies
25
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:53:00 -
[420] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:actually something i'm genuinely curious about.
since we've got a substantial amount of people saying how bad these changes will be; where were you all every time some one opened up a new thread asking for the exact change you're all being so negative about?
Dude can u please post one more time saying "but you asked for this" We haven't gotten the "told you so" message the first 16 times you have posted it.
BTW to answer your silliness, when people asked for rigs or modules, they didn't think ccp would play their 29% nerf/30% buff game. Why? I don't know, can't tell you. Maybe they haven't been around that long? Maybe they believe in unicorns? I pretty much expected we'd get screwed. |
|
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
39
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:55:00 -
[421] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Alner Greyl wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Alner Greyl wrote:Dave Stark wrote:actually something i'm genuinely curious about.
since we've got a substantial amount of people saying how bad these changes will be; where were you all every time some one opened up a new thread asking for the exact change you're all being so negative about? Nobody expected such changes yes they did. that's why half the posts in this thread are people like me, tippia, and half of goons being rather smug. I expected nerf. I didn't expect such nerf. agility+tank+fuel cost+cargo don't you think that's too much for JF? fuel cost doesn't really have anything to do with this. that's happening regardless. it's also not happening until crius either.
Well, it does. One change can have interaction with other changes. Both intended and unintended. In this case it could be higher operational costs plus reduced cargo capacity resulting even more operational costs to move the same amount of cargo from point A to point F. |
Dave Stark
5690
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:58:00 -
[422] - Quote
Angelina Duvolle wrote:Dude can u please post one more time saying "but you asked for this" well, you did ask for this...
[don't say i never deliver] |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6314
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:58:00 -
[423] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote: Well, it does. One change can have interaction with other changes. Both intended and unintended. In this case it could be higher operational costs plus reduced cargo capacity resulting even more operational costs to move the same amount of cargo from point A to point F.
One presumes that is intended to stimulate more local markets, rather than Jita > all. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Paranoid Loyd
490
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:59:00 -
[424] - Quote
Angelina Duvolle wrote:Dave Stark wrote:actually something i'm genuinely curious about.
since we've got a substantial amount of people saying how bad these changes will be; where were you all every time some one opened up a new thread asking for the exact change you're all being so negative about? Dude can u please post one more time saying "but you asked for this" We haven't gotten the "told you so" message the first 16 times you have posted it. BTW to answer your silliness, when people asked for rigs or modules, they didn't think ccp would play their 29% nerf/30% buff game. Why? I don't know, can't tell you. Maybe they haven't been around that long? Maybe they believe in unicorns? I pretty much expected we'd get screwed.
ToldyousoBotGäó 1.01
There can not be enough "told you so" for such an epic failure on the community's part. Listen to the "trolls" you may think they are trolling you but there not necessarily trolling you just because you don't agree with them. "PvE in EVE is a trap to turn you into PvP content, don't confuse it for actual gameplay." Lipbite |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
39
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 23:00:00 -
[425] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Dirk MacGirk wrote: Well, it does. One change can have interaction with other changes. Both intended and unintended. In this case it could be higher operational costs plus reduced cargo capacity resulting even more operational costs to move the same amount of cargo from point A to point F.
One presumes that is intended to stimulate more local markets, rather than Jita > all.
What is intended to stimulate more local markets? An increase in jump fuel consumption? Don't be silly. It's welfare for ice miners |
Reppyk
The Black Shell Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
572
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 23:01:00 -
[426] - Quote
I, for one, like the OP idea.
Now, should I put some agility rigs or warp speed rigs on my fenrir ? Hmm...
I would even say that JFs need another nerf. They had it coming. I AM SPACE CAPTAIN REPPYK. -áI AM A LOWSEC GANKER, HIGHSEC SCUM, NULLSEC BASTARD, WORMHOLE INVADER. Welcome to, welcome to, welcome to my scramble. GÖÑ |
Dave Stark
5690
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 23:02:00 -
[427] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:It's welfare for ice miners heaven forbid mining actually generates a decent isk/hour. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3274
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 23:04:00 -
[428] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:Paranoid Loyd wrote:So lets talk about the HPs of a max cargo rigged freighter, has anyone done the math on how many, catalysts / talos are required after the changes? Yes. Miniluv has and Burn Jita 4 will be both easier and with higher killmail values.
Assuming full cargo rig on a Fenrir:
You're losing 17500 * 1.25 = 21875 hp (multiplier from the engineering bonus) from the hull.
You're gaining 4375 * 1.25 = 5469 raw hp from shields. Resists effect this, so the damage type is important. Call the resist around 30% for hybrids. so 7110 hp gained from shields.
you're gaining 6750 * 1.25 (hull upgrades) hp, but losing some due to the rigs. So:
Total of: 28000 *1.25 * 0.95 *0.95 = 31588 hp total. The old hp worked out at 26,563 hp. So you're gaining 5025.5 hp from armour, affected by resists. again, call it 30% resists from hybrid damage, so a gain of 6533hp.
so, that's a total drop of around 8200 ehp.
Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
342
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 23:09:00 -
[429] - Quote
Hauling Hyena wrote:Niko Lorenzio wrote:Personally this won't affect my corp much but I can see how this can be a major PITA for organized groups with specific cargo restrictions like alliance logistics, red frog etc. Thank you... this is a major ****-up for our business, so what this is saying that if we want to stick to our 860k m-¦ we need to use freighters that, instead of 1.2b cost 2b including rigs and will take even LESS (it's around 400m right now) ships to gank... Yeah, thank you CCP...
Also, I just remembered about the penalties on rigs most likely to be used on freighters:
"This ship modification is designed to increase a ship's cargo capacity at the expense of armor amount." - same for the rest of Astro rigs (Agility, speed). except for Warp Speed rigs which receive a CPU penalty.
"This ship modification is designed to increase a ship's total armor hit points at the expense of max velocity."
"This ship modification is designed to increase shield capacity at the expense of increased signature radius."
CCP Fozzie wrote: We're planning on adding a series of Hull HP rigs, known as Transverse Bulkheads. These rigs will use the Armor Rigging skill, with a penalty to cargo capacity.
So.... if we want to hull tank, we'll be nerfing our cargo capacity even further. If we want to have either speed, agility or large cargo bay, we'll be forced to use Shield tank freighters due to nerf to Armor. What role does this leave for Armor Freighters? Super tanks with tiny bays?
Anyway you spin it, fact is the trade off with these rigs will be even greater than I previous realized. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6316
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 23:09:00 -
[430] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Dirk MacGirk wrote: Well, it does. One change can have interaction with other changes. Both intended and unintended. In this case it could be higher operational costs plus reduced cargo capacity resulting even more operational costs to move the same amount of cargo from point A to point F.
One presumes that is intended to stimulate more local markets, rather than Jita > all. What is intended to stimulate more local markets? An increase in jump fuel consumption? Don't be silly. It's welfare for ice miners
Making operational costs higher. And I don't just mean for jump freighters, either. T1s take a hit, as if you fit for cargo the longer the journey the more risky.
The whole thing nicely incentivizes "closer to home" industrial movement. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
|
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
39
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 23:09:00 -
[431] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Dirk MacGirk wrote:It's welfare for ice miners heaven forbid mining actually generates a decent isk/hour.
Minimum wage work? |
Angelina Duvolle
Homeworld Technologies
25
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 23:17:00 -
[432] - Quote
BTW, the theory that sticking it to freighter pilots is going to help decentralize the jita market is not even worthy of being called dumb. People will just do more afk hauling, that's all. This won't affect it in any way shape or form.
I am doubtful they even WANT to decentralize Jita. If they did, it would be childishly simple to do so with a sales/tax /credits system. |
Nex Killer
Drunk3n Industry
61
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 23:18:00 -
[433] - Quote
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. |
Digger Pollard
Why So Platypus
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 23:20:00 -
[434] - Quote
Steijn wrote:sorry, but that is nothing more than a massive nerf. +1 massively nerfed. My freighter alt is going for unsub. Probably the same for my friend's acc who were training for JF.
"Fozzie happens" (c). |
Dannar Hetoshi
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 23:21:00 -
[435] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Abrazzar wrote:Everybody! Speculate now in capital rigs! Anyone want to buy a Nomad?
Buying all Jump freighters for 4B isk each. |
Paranoid Loyd
491
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 23:22:00 -
[436] - Quote
Digger Pollard wrote:Steijn wrote:sorry, but that is nothing more than a massive nerf. +1 massively nerfed. My freighter alt is going for unsub. Probably the same for my friend's acc who were training for JF. "Player Ignorance Happens" (c).
FTFY
"PvE in EVE is a trap to turn you into PvP content, don't confuse it for actual gameplay." Lipbite |
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
3433
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 23:26:00 -
[437] - Quote
I am now officially opening a freighter shelter for all orphaned freighters. If you unsub, contract the freighters to me and I will give them a nice cozy home in Tash-Murkon Prime. Sovereignty and Population New Mining Mechanics |
Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
342
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 23:29:00 -
[438] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:actually something i'm genuinely curious about.
since we've got a substantial amount of people saying how bad these changes will be; where were you all every time some one opened up a new thread asking for the exact change you're all being so negative about?
Variations and choices are fine. Most of them are already included in the rigs. More cargo = less tank, more speed = less tank, more tank = less cargo etc.
Slight overall nerf would be fine if one T1 speed, cargo and tank rig reverted these changes to pre-patch. This however is a major nerf where if you want to get close to pre-patch #s you'll need to make even greater sacrifices in other areas including your wallet. |
Xavier Thorm
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
139
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 23:29:00 -
[439] - Quote
Couldn't be happier.
Also I'm still training for a JF on one account and a Freighter on another. |
Galphii
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
229
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 23:36:00 -
[440] - Quote
The nerfs to freighters is a clever, subtle incentive to boost nullsec production along with the improvements to industry. Devious . I do recall the devs discussing how logistics is a little too easy a while back (csm notes I think), so that explains these changes. It's also a good way to make the universe just a little bit bigger. It's been far too easy to traverse the entire frickin' galaxy in a short span of time and if people start thinking and working locally, so much the better.
A good time to be a nullsec industrialist! X |
|
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS type X
151
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 23:52:00 -
[441] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Maldiro Selkurk wrote:Ive noticed something in this discussion, that those that didnt want freighters changes are now coming here in droves claiming all we wanted on freighters were rigs, I was heavily involved in those discussions and I; as well as you, know that that was not the limit of what we were suggesting.
We wanted flexiblity, just like the ORCA, rigs, highs, mids, lows, the whole deal, to now claim all we wanted is rigs is just cheap ass bullshit.
The costs for that change could have been mitigated by just reclassifying freighters as 'large' instead of capital since they walk like a large, talk like a large and act like a large (in that they can go into highsec) anyways.
But this takes creativity something that seems sorely lacking in this sadly comical 'solution'. even if those highs mids and lows would come with even more nerfs? making the rigs large may be one way to go. but most complaints at the prices seem to be because they want to fit T2 rigs. T1's are less than 100mil a piece in Hek.
Exactly, you nerf the ship down then let people rig / mod them as they seem fit......strangely like 99.9% of the rest of the ships are in this game. Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really. |
Delhaven
Vicis Inter Astrum I'd Rather Be Roaming
44
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 23:54:00 -
[442] - Quote
CCP Seagull wrote:There are some people who make things work - they pre-fit ships for a fleet op, they run mega-spreadsheets for the industry production lines needed to equip the war effort, build tools to manage a corporation or command large fleets. Their activities enable others to have fun in EVE. So... these changes help these folks how?
To me, at least making them take large rigs would be a big help. What's the point of adding flexibility to ships, if the cost makes it too expensive to change them? Capital-sized rigs mean people will rig once, and never change them again. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21853
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 23:58:00 -
[443] - Quote
Cyran Reinhard wrote:Well, Jump Freighters are meant to jump....if you aren't Jumping, why do you have a JF? Because they have more EHP and travel faster than a normal freighter, both of which improve survival chances by a fair amount. They also don't sucker you into filling up on too much valuables, which is a bonus since it lets those main traits work their magic.
Actually, when I run the numbers (from the OP, which curiously enough don't always agree with EFT or Pyfa), it's not quite as bad as feared. 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. |
Kaahles
Jion Keanturi
27
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 00:03:00 -
[444] - Quote
Let's break it down shall we?
Now You can either go for Hull/Armor Whatever rigs that give you more EHP, thus better survivability in a gank. At the cost of decrased cargo capacity.
Or you can increase your cargo capacity but compared to before you lose survivability. If it works out however you can get stuff hauled faster and as we all know time is money. While you now can make more money / run and/or have an easier life it is more likely to lose stuff due to the EHP thingy.
I don't see a single frickn' probleme here. Risk vs Reward, working as intended.
And for JF's? TBH those nerfs don't go far enough as far as I am concerned because if you have half a functioning brain and know how the game works the likelyhood of losing your JF is pretty damn slim to almost nonexistent. Breaks the whole risk vs reward thing. |
Rittel
Band of Valence
5
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 00:08:00 -
[445] - Quote
Can you not just give freighters a sub-system slot with the option between 3 systems based around Cargo, Agility and Tank?
That way we can have the choice to fit how we see fit without having to rip out 2 T2 rigs or buy a whole new freighter!
|
Khanh'rhh
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3144
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 00:14:00 -
[446] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:Ive noticed something in this discussion, that those that didnt want freighters changes are now coming here in droves claiming all we wanted on freighters were rigs, I was heavily involved in those discussions and I; as well as you, know that that was not the limit of what we were suggesting.
We wanted flexiblity, just like the ORCA, rigs, highs, mids, lows, the whole deal, to now claim all we wanted is rigs is just cheap ass bullshit.
The costs for that change could have been mitigated by just reclassifying freighters as 'large' instead of capital since they walk like a large, talk like a large and act like a large (in that they can go into highsec) anyways.
But this takes creativity something that seems sorely lacking in this sadly comical 'solution'.
Sigh.
I was in most of those discussions. Every time I said "if you want customization, base stats will have to fall" I got responses like:
- GOON TEARS - U JUST DONT WANT IT TO BE HARDER TO GANK - WELL YOU WOULD BE AGAINST THIS YOU WANT EASY MODE GANKS - etc
No logic, no reason could make people asking for rigs/modules in those threads from seeing anything else than a future where they got to have their cake and eat it too. Now it's here, and exactly what was very very painfully obvious would happen, has happened.
You're a special case in that you're asking for more modules. Great! I'm not going to try to argue you out of it anymore; ask CCP for, say, 2 low slots. They will probably give you two low slots, and a 40% nerf to cargo, and hull HP, and some off the armour too. Then you can whine "but to get back to old cargo values I need to fit modules ... and they have drawbacks!"
And then we can do "told you so" all over again.
I couldn't be happier, we get to gank your freighters loaded with T2 rigs, and it's all your fault for asking for fitting.
As for my use of freighters? For what I use them for this is a very significant buff. "Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual, issued in the 1930 |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1511
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 00:20:00 -
[447] - Quote
Rittel wrote:Can you not just give freighters a sub-system slot with the option between 3 systems based around Cargo, Agility and Tank?
That way we can have the choice to fit how we see fit without having to rip out 2 T2 rigs or buy a whole new freighter!
fit t1 rigs then. 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" |
Jack Earthfire
Everse Defense Initiative
14
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 00:24:00 -
[448] - Quote
Kaahles wrote:Let's break it down shall we?
Now You can either go for Hull/Armor Whatever rigs that give you more EHP, thus better survivability in a gank. At the cost of decrased cargo capacity.
Or you can increase your cargo capacity but compared to before you lose survivability. If it works out however you can get stuff hauled faster and as we all know time is money. While you now can make more money / run and/or have an easier life it is more likely to lose stuff due to the EHP thingy.
I don't see a single frickn' probleme here. Risk vs Reward, working as intended.
And for JF's? TBH those nerfs don't go far enough as far as I am concerned because if you have half a functioning brain and know how the game works the likelyhood of losing your JF is pretty damn slim to almost nonexistent. Breaks the whole risk vs reward thing.
Let's Break this down again: Internet Spaceships is serious Business and no Happy Happy Fluffy Fluffy La-La Land at all.
Me like it much. |
Rittel
Band of Valence
6
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 00:25:00 -
[449] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Rittel wrote:Can you not just give freighters a sub-system slot with the option between 3 systems based around Cargo, Agility and Tank?
That way we can have the choice to fit how we see fit without having to rip out 2 T2 rigs or buy a whole new freighter!
fit t1 rigs then.
I would still rather not have to waste hundreds of millions on rigs every time I need to refit for a slightly different role. You don't rip out the rigs on your dreadnoughts every time you have to increase range, damage or tank so why should freighter pilots have to? |
Axe Coldon
Coldon Enterprises Axion Bionics
30
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 00:31:00 -
[450] - Quote
What I don't get is why is a cargo nerf necessary to this change.
As of this moment, (May 18 00:24 eve time) a T2 Capital cargo rig in Jita is 724 mil. So 2 of them would be 1.448 bil. Why not leave the cargo capacity as it is for the JF, add the rig slots. If a person is willing to add 1.4 bil to a ship that already cost him 6 bil how does it hurt the game for him to have more cargo capacity.
A RHEA with 2 t2 rigs and no nerf would have been over 500k. So for those willing to spend the bucks they could move sov upgrades and even packaged orca's.
I don't see how that hurts the game. I don't see the logic of nerfing an already overpriced totally defenseless ship.
Plus if you dont nerf the cargo then more would be willing to forgo the 1.4 billion to add some tank..making a JF more fun instead of an overpriced Null Necessity . |
|
Abla Tive
Serpent.Sisters.of.Eve
58
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 00:36:00 -
[451] - Quote
The EvE economy just got a lot less efficient.
This may be a good thing.
Freighter pilots just got an enormous buff.
Slower aligns and smaller holds will require more money per jump and more trips to move the same amount of stuff.
Jita got double nerfed. (first with the scrap metal nerf/ compressed ore buff and now with the freighter nerf.)
Moving stuff around is therefore more expense and that makes the economy less efficient.
I wonder if this is a stealth attempt to break up the single central hub on the Chinese server.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21859
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 00:37:00 -
[452] - Quote
Axe Coldon wrote:What I don't get is why is a cargo nerf necessary to this change. Because you'd be able to get too much cargo space otherwise. 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. |
Kaahles
Jion Keanturi
29
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 00:39:00 -
[453] - Quote
Axe Coldon wrote: A RHEA with 2 t2 rigs and no nerf would have been over 500k. So for those willing to spend the bucks they could move sov upgrades
Ever thought about the fact that the sov upgrades might be designed to not fit into a JF? |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1511
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 00:39:00 -
[454] - Quote
Axe Coldon wrote:What I don't get is why is a cargo nerf necessary to this change.
Daichi Yamato wrote:Batolemaeus wrote:baltec1 wrote:[
Its to stop us shipping capitals into jita. Increasing repackaged values of capital ships and sov upgrade mods is one sql query away. so why not just allow freighters to carry 20mil m3 and make repackaged capitals 21mil m3? Because theres a point where logistics becomes too easy and transforms competition from effort and risk taking to simply having a skillbook trained or not. With across the board increases to capacity with no trade offs, importing items becomes easier, safer and faster, and that means it becomes cheaper. Prices level across the galaxy which means the rewards are less for anyone who does any work. its a nerf to ppl who set up shop in a certain location to build and sell certain items. its a nerf to ppl who pay attention and use escorts when they haul. its a nerf to inter-regional traders. the real beneficiaries of making all this easier to do is ppl who dnt really pay attention to where they set up shop, cant be bothered to check regional prices and afk haul. you want things to be harder, because u want to be rewarded for ur efforts and u want ur competition to lose out for being lazy or dying in a fire because hes bad at space ships.
that and the fact u could carry capitals into hi-sec. And t1 rigs also exist for ur freighters btw. 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" |
Spectre Wraith
Darwin Inc.
142
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 00:39:00 -
[455] - Quote
I'm going to side on the "what the ****" side of this argument. You could have just made packaged capitals unhaulable rather then nerfing freighters/JF down to where the whole rig announcement is almost useless. Yes, overall they got a 'bonus', but a few % AFTER they apply the new rigs isn't a bonus, it's a slap in the face to those who pilot these ships.
Disapprove =/ Dear lord, please help me deal with the insufferable.... |
Kristalll
Valkyrie Professional Resources
273
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 00:46:00 -
[456] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Cyran Reinhard wrote:Well, Jump Freighters are meant to jump....if you aren't Jumping, why do you have a JF? Because they have more EHP and travel faster than a normal freighter, both of which improve survival chances by a fair amount. They also don't sucker you into filling up on too much valuables, which is a bonus since it lets those main traits work their magic. Actually, when I run the numbers (from the OP, which curiously enough don't always agree with EFT or Pyfa), it's not quite as bad as feared.
They also cost 6x as much, GREATLY increasing your chances of gank.
The EHP difference doesn't mean anything to the people that can do freighter ganking, and your speed won't save you from the bumping Mach.
GÇ£Die tryingGÇ¥ is the proudest human thing. |
Kristalll
Valkyrie Professional Resources
273
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 00:47:00 -
[457] - Quote
Spectre Wraith wrote:I'm going to side on the "what the ****" side of this argument. You could have just made packaged capitals unhaulable rather then nerfing freighters/JF down to where the whole rig announcement is almost useless. Yes, overall they got a 'bonus', but a few % AFTER they apply the new rigs isn't a bonus, it's a slap in the face to those who pilot these ships.
Disapprove =/
Well **** balancing I guess.
Reducing the cargo capacity had nothing to do with hauling capitals, it had everything to do with balance.
Now instead of getting cargo capacity and tank, you get to choose which one you want more at a sacrifice to the other. Y'know...like fit a ship for a purpose. GÇ£Die tryingGÇ¥ is the proudest human thing. |
TehCloud
Mastercard. Swipe Here
231
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 00:49:00 -
[458] - Quote
Steijn wrote:sorry, but that is nothing more than a massive nerf.
This is exactly what freighter pilots asking for rigs wanted. Well then again, they of course wanted rigs and no drawbacks. But people told them what would happen if they kept asking for it :D Now here we have it. I like the changes. Can't wait for the tiers of people fitting 3 Cargorigs and getting suicided then complaining, that freighters need more tank. My Condor costs less than that module! |
Digger Pollard
Why So Platypus
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 00:50:00 -
[459] - Quote
Paranoid Loyd wrote:Digger Pollard wrote:Steijn wrote:sorry, but that is nothing more than a massive nerf. +1 massively nerfed. My freighter alt is going for unsub. Probably the same for my friend's acc who were training for JF. "Player Ignorance Happens" (c). FTFY, Fozzie just gave most risk-averse gankers what they asked for.
FTFY.
Freighter was already too vulnerable, now it's even more vulnerable, hauls less, and costs another freighter to make it just a bit less terrible and still a lot worse than it were. Every time Fozzie touches industry, this happens. I've been unsubbed for months after he went bull-in-the-china-shop over mining, now that I subbed back to look at Kronos, it turns out I stepped into some big pile of Fozzie again.
No wonder those changes announcement was withheld till two weeks before release, because that is seriously atrocious. At least rebalance of deep space transport ships were useless - in a sense that those ships weren't cost-efficient anyway, so nobody cared about them, but freighters are different story, they have no alternatives, and now we don't have freighters either, because hair-thin line of imaginary risk which prevented people from ganking freighters by crimeflag cooldown just went razorblade-thin. If somebody pulls down his pants and drops another Fozzie on it, in form of tiniest gankship buff, and poof, you lose $60 and you have absolutely nothing you could've done about it,except maybe making 10 runs in a tanked orca with even worse agility than current freighters (and by freighters I mean freighter, because pretty much everything but Obelisk is a gank-on-sight), which would've taken about 2 forevers and 1 ever of your time, depriving you from any chance to finish hauling before seeing your grandchildren.
I'd say it's another milking scheme to trick people into making orca alts, as after this change orca will remain the only hauler not covered in Fozzie, but since orca rebalance is on the table, and it's probably lets-hit-the-dead-dog-called-mining-again-by-nerfing-retriever-and-mack-to-useless Fozzie is doing it, I'd say the orca will be hit so hard that we'll be left with no haulers - hisec nerf will be completed, and the only trade routes left will be those of sov null, where everyone is blue to each other and no unreported gankers within 15 systems are present.
Well, Fozzie happens. |
Kristalll
Valkyrie Professional Resources
273
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 00:54:00 -
[460] - Quote
Rittel wrote:Can you not just give freighters a sub-system slot with the option between 3 systems based around Cargo, Agility and Tank?
That way we can have the choice to fit how we see fit without having to rip out 2 T2 rigs or buy a whole new freighter!
Yes, lets jsut make all rigs removable while we're at it. GÇ£Die tryingGÇ¥ is the proudest human thing. |
|
Maxdig
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 00:58:00 -
[461] - Quote
Just because I was told nobody has said it; I don't believe it but more crying wont help so:
"gee this is awesome!" |
Hauling Hyena
Red Frog Freight Red-Frog
3
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 00:59:00 -
[462] - Quote
Attention, please welcome sarcasm on the stage!
Maxdig wrote:"gee this is awesome!" |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21859
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 01:12:00 -
[463] - Quote
Kristalll wrote:They also cost 6x as much, GREATLY increasing your chances of gank. Not particularly greatly unless someone is specifically out to hurt your wallet rather than pad their own.
I mean, sure, I hear the argument a lot and it makes sense, but it requires a very different and much rarer intention on the gankers' part, so it's not nearly as bad as it's often made out to be.
Digger Pollard wrote:Freighter was already too vulnerable, now it's even more vulnerable, hauls less, and costs another freighter to make it just a bit less terrible and still a lot worse than it were. Nah. They weren't particularly vulnerable to begin with and now they can be made very sturdy indeed. The entire point with this change, as the proponents so often pointed out, is that now you get to choose what it will be good at. Making them less vulnerable is one of those options. 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. |
Khanh'rhh
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3145
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 01:13:00 -
[464] - Quote
Kristalll wrote:Rittel wrote:Can you not just give freighters a sub-system slot with the option between 3 systems based around Cargo, Agility and Tank?
That way we can have the choice to fit how we see fit without having to rip out 2 T2 rigs or buy a whole new freighter!
Yes, lets jsut make all rigs removable while we're at it.
This would have far-reaching implications that would need them all to be balanced downwards. Rigs are meant to be permanent design choices of the ship you are flying.
I would agree that wanting the best of both worlds, and the drawbacks of neither, does seem to be a common theme in this thread though. "Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual, issued in the 1930 |
Rockstara
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
35
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 01:13:00 -
[465] - Quote
wow.
This is a terrible balance. I expect better from fozzie. |
El Space Mariachi
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
92
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 01:21:00 -
[466] - Quote
yessss go- i mean CCP Fozzie, nerf the freighter EHP! We here at Finkelberg, Weinstein and Associates' Freighter Asset Repossession Team thank you for your good work. You're a true edel mensch. Hope you got the kickback slider we sent as thanks!
Heh heh heh.... all according to keikaku . |
Ersahi Kir
Fault Line Industries
390
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 01:27:00 -
[467] - Quote
Without a low slot this update is nothing but herp a derp.
I am actually embarrassed for the balance team. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21859
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 01:33:00 -
[468] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote:Without a low slot this update is nothing but herp a derp.
I am actually embarrassed for the balance team. Why would you want to see them even more nerfed than this? 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. |
Aram Kachaturian
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
58
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 01:37:00 -
[469] - Quote
Solid balance, thanks CCP.
This fanfest was one of the best and the company seems stronger than ever.
Cant wait the new skins for freighters ;-) !
Official Poster:-áhttp://i.imgur.com/oTdKSTi.jpg (Limited stock, contact me to order) |
It Maybeatrap
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 01:38:00 -
[470] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Ersahi Kir wrote:Without a low slot this update is nothing but herp a derp.
I am actually embarrassed for the balance team. Why would you want to see them even more nerfed than this? Next change: Freighters get +1 low slot and lose 80% hull hp. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21859
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 01:42:00 -
[471] - Quote
It Maybeatrap wrote:Next change: Freighters get +1 low slot and lose 80% hull hp.
80% would probably be overkill, but since even a T1 suitcase doubles your hull EHP, a reduction in the 50% region wouldn't be at all surprising. 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. |
Ironathel
Lost Society Get Off My Lawn
3
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 01:42:00 -
[472] - Quote
I'm going to preface this by saing that I generally don't complain about all the rebalancing and tweaks that cpp make, at least they are trying to make the game more interesting.
But I'm afraid I can't say I share the same view with these changes. Lets just take a reality check here - these are ships used to haul crap from A to B they are not some OP combat machine. It is probably the most boring and pointless part of the game - I'd challenge ccp to demonstrate how any of this actually adds value to a players experience more than any other activity they could be doing with their time. The reality is you either have a bunch of people wasting their time manually flying or an army of afk autopiloting toons slowly migrating between trade hubs in hisec. At the end of the day what does any of this activity achieve for the game - not much as far as I'm concerned.
So basically all I see from these changes is I get to spend more isk using more jump fuel, moving smaller amounts of m3, in an even more expensive ship and taking longer to do it.... there are some stats Fozzie seems to have forgotten in the equation ... boredom +10%, time wasting +5%, fun -5% ...
Why would I continue to pay for my sub when I'm getting to spend less time actually doing something fun? At this rate I might as well go buy train simulator or something and be done with it.
Just my 2 cents.
|
Derath Ellecon
Washburne Holdings Situation: Normal
2240
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 01:44:00 -
[473] - Quote
Kaahles wrote:And for JF's? TBH those nerfs don't go far enough as far as I am concerned because if you have half a functioning brain and know how the game works the likelyhood of losing your JF is pretty damn slim to almost nonexistent. Breaks the whole risk vs reward thing.
Everyone loves to throw around Risk vs reward like they know wtf they are talking about.
There is more to risk than just how easy or hard it is to die.
Everytime I undock a JF I am putting a 6.2 bil hull at risk. That alone is a pretty big risk.
When I run a 0.0 jump freighter contract I could easily have upwards of 5bil of cargo in the hold. Thats 11.5 Billion isk I'm putting at risk jumping into hostile 0.0 space.
And for what? Maybe a 150-200mil reward? I'd be hard pressed to believe that anyone actually doing this is sitting there thinking "oh yea this is totally OP, I should be easier to kill"
Yes if I do everything right my overall risk of death is fairly low. Yet there are still thousands that get killed. |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1074
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 01:52:00 -
[474] - Quote
Tippia wrote:It Maybeatrap wrote:Next change: Freighters get +1 low slot and lose 80% hull hp. 80% would probably be overkill, but since even a T1 suitcase doubles your hull EHP, a reduction in the 50% region wouldn't be at all surprising.
Buying and fitting a DCU would not be as hard of a cost hit as fitting 2 capital rig...
|
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1074
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 02:00:00 -
[475] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote:Kristalll wrote:Rittel wrote:Can you not just give freighters a sub-system slot with the option between 3 systems based around Cargo, Agility and Tank?
That way we can have the choice to fit how we see fit without having to rip out 2 T2 rigs or buy a whole new freighter!
Yes, lets jsut make all rigs removable while we're at it. This would have far-reaching implications that would need them all to be balanced downwards. Rigs are meant to be permanent design choices of the ship you are flying. I would agree that wanting the best of both worlds, and the drawbacks of neither, does seem to be a common theme in this thread though.
The issue I personally see with the change is to integrate some options, they pretty much jacked the price of freighter/JF up a lot. If they had went with 2 low slots limited to only bulkhead, inertia stab and cargo expander, they would introduce pretty much the same choice (tank/agility/cargo) without needed to slap hundred of millions worth of rigs on them. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1511
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 02:01:00 -
[476] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Tippia wrote:It Maybeatrap wrote:Next change: Freighters get +1 low slot and lose 80% hull hp. 80% would probably be overkill, but since even a T1 suitcase doubles your hull EHP, a reduction in the 50% region wouldn't be at all surprising. Buying and fitting a DCU would not be as hard of a cost hit as fitting 2 capital rig...
no, where in lies the opposite problem. doubling ur tank for next to nothing.
it would take a much greater shift of HP's from structure into shield and armour to stop the DC from being stupidly powerful. 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" |
Ben Hatton
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 02:06:00 -
[477] - Quote
Cool so, um, can you forget we ever asked for rigs or to be able to modify our freighters and lets just keep what we have? Please?
Cool thanks |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1074
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 02:14:00 -
[478] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Tippia wrote:It Maybeatrap wrote:Next change: Freighters get +1 low slot and lose 80% hull hp. 80% would probably be overkill, but since even a T1 suitcase doubles your hull EHP, a reduction in the 50% region wouldn't be at all surprising. Buying and fitting a DCU would not be as hard of a cost hit as fitting 2 capital rig... no, where in lies the opposite problem. doubling ur tank for next to nothing. it would take a much greater shift of HP's from structure into shield and armour to stop the DC from being stupidly powerful.
If your hull HP take a 50% hit with the addition of low slot, a DCU barely give you anymore HP in the form of resist to armor and shield. I definitely don't think it should get a low slot at no cost. |
Spectre Wraith
Darwin Inc.
142
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 02:20:00 -
[479] - Quote
Kristalll wrote:Spectre Wraith wrote:I'm going to side on the "what the ****" side of this argument. You could have just made packaged capitals unhaulable rather then nerfing freighters/JF down to where the whole rig announcement is almost useless. Yes, overall they got a 'bonus', but a few % AFTER they apply the new rigs isn't a bonus, it's a slap in the face to those who pilot these ships.
Disapprove =/ Well **** balancing I guess. Reducing the cargo capacity had nothing to do with hauling capitals, it had everything to do with balance. Now instead of getting cargo capacity and tank, you get to choose which one you want more at a sacrifice to the other. Y'know...like fit a ship for a purpose.
You say that, yet in the same post they list the cargo reduction, they make note of increasing packaged capitals. Hauling capitals was infact a consideration to this cargo reduction. Dear lord, please help me deal with the insufferable.... |
Emizeko Chai
Freight Club The Marmite Collective
34
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 02:23:00 -
[480] - Quote
beerthief wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: T1 rigs are easily enough to bring normal freighters above their current cargo values.
CCP Fozzie wrote: and with T1 cargo rigs their cargo holds will be between 4 and 7% smaller than current.
one of these is not like the other
Your first quote is referring to T1 freighters. Your second quote is referring to T2 jump freighters. |
|
Kelsi Monroe
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 02:24:00 -
[481] - Quote
I knew this was happening as I started this character today to use her as a freighter alt.
Jesus this is dumb and anyone thinking this was going to be well received by players should be ashamed. like if spending 1.4b in the most boring ship in game wasn-¦t enough now I have to pay 1b more to make it usefull.
Thanks CCP, good job.
You still rememer that this is a game and all the aspects of it should be fun, or at least not boring as hell, don-¦t you? |
Simulacrum Clone
Imperial Task Force
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 02:26:00 -
[482] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone, here's the skinny on the rebalance to Freighters and Jump Freighters. As we announced at the Fanfest keynote, a big part of this rebalance is the ability to use rigs.
To compensate for the ability to use rigs, the base capacity of all Freighters and Jump Freighters is going down, by between 27 and 30%.
[...]
Base HP is dropping on all of these ships, but by a much smaller percentage than cargo. They are gaining armor and shield, and losing some hull. This is especially noticeable on the JFs, which are now getting racial T2 resists to armor and shield at the same level as Marauders. The extra resists mean that Jump Freighters end up with about the same EHP as before.
[...]
Let us know what you think! I think you are either morons or just hate certain playstyles in EVE; maybe both. It will now cost more for freighter pilots to have what they had before (same freighter cost + rigs) but gankers will be happier, because killing freighter pilots won't cost any extra and might cost less.
If you had any sincere compassion for freighter pilots, and a higher intelligence for customer satisfaction, you would have left the stats alone, but included 3 rigs for standard freighters, two for jump freighters and included one high, medium and low slot.
Every aspect of this game I've once enjoyed, you've managed to nerf. For quite some time you've made this game not worth paying real money for. I've been hanging on with PLEX. This imbecile nerf was unnecessary. You have lost me as a customer. The last subscription on my three accounts ends on May 30.
If your goal is simply to lose subscribers who don't PvP and enjoy large NullSec alliances, then congratulations; that is what you're accomplishing. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21863
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 02:33:00 -
[483] - Quote
Simulacrum Clone wrote:If you had any sincere compassion for freighter pilots, and a higher intelligence for customer satisfaction, you would have left the stats alone, but included 3 rigs for standard freighters, two for jump freighters and included one high, medium and low slot. So now GǣcompassionGǣ and GǣintelligenceGǥ has been synonymous with Gǣthrowing balance out the windowGǥ and Gǣmaking changes without any concern for the repercussionsGǥ. InterestingGǪ
Wilfully breaking the game doesn't seem particularly compassionate or intelligent. 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. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates RAZOR Alliance
416
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 02:39:00 -
[484] - Quote
Normally I am all about how Eve is a harsh, dark universe where death and mayhem lurk around every corner, but some things in life just suck. Logistics is one of those things. If I had a forty right now, I'd pour some out for all the freighter and jump freighter pilots who got kicked in the crotch today.
This whole thing reminds me of the poor crippled kid joke. He's walking along with one arm all crippled and crooked and the other nice and strong and straight. He sees a church, goes inside and prays devoutly, "Dear Lord, please make both my arms the same." Our omniscient Creator hears his plea and promptly grants his wish. The kid now has two crippled and crooked arms. This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |
Emizeko Chai
Freight Club The Marmite Collective
34
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 02:40:00 -
[485] - Quote
Buzz Dura wrote:for those who missed some figures...
This chart lists the Charon and Obelisk twice, and doesn't list the Fenrir or the Providence at all. |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
3622
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 02:46:00 -
[486] - Quote
I was looking forward to the ADDED CHOICE these changes would bring, but instead they REMOVE CHOICE
Pre-Kronos Charon: 785,000 Post-Kronos Charon: 550,000
Post-Kronos Rigs: Rig 1: No choice - Capital Cargohold Optimization II (20% for 660,000), -150 Calibration Rig 2: No choice - Capital Cargohold Optimization II (20% for 792,000), -150 Calibration Rig 3: Capital Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer I, -50 Calibration Cost: 1.45 billion ISK at current market prices [likely higher post-Kronos]
Can't fit a structure rig as it will reduce cargohold /facepalm |
Sturmwolke
568
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 02:49:00 -
[487] - Quote
About 37.5% extra mass on the Obelisk? Not enough. Double or triple it please
|
Neoxan
WALLTREIPERS The Initiative.
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 02:51:00 -
[488] - Quote
You Fozzie clearly have no clue about rebalancing freighters, In any case they need to stay as they are now and give them the rigs, you can perfectly gank them with 15-20 catalyst, they are killing freighters with 300m in the cargo nowadays, because the useless soundwave make the security status useless with the tags, you can gank everythin so easily, cause ive been in both sides, ganking and moving freighters and i can tell you that if freighters needed something is a low slot, not useless rigs who make your ship role static and if you want to achieve something, cargo, tank or speed, at best you can get what you had before, you fozzie are bad, really bad please stick to pvp ships and let the people who knows industry as ytterbium do it. |
Marcus Gord
Stormcrows
52630
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 03:01:00 -
[489] - Quote
so the post Kronos Charon will have less cargo at freighter 5 than the Fenrir gets right now, with freighter 0.
this smells rotten.
You can't take the sky from me
".....Storm'd at with shot and shell, Boldly they rode and well....." |
Demonica Mortis
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 03:08:00 -
[490] - Quote
Gamberone wrote:This change is stupid. You don't need to change anything on the JF to allow cargo rigs. Increasing the size of capitals and station freight containers makes sense.
CCP Fozzie are you saying here that JF's were OP? Why do they need this Nerf, please explain.
I agree; they shouldn't nerf the cargo capacity of the JF.
It's almost disingenuous; the very hull and structure of the ship itself IS the cargo bay.
I hope between now and the Summer that they re-allocate the characteristics of the JF to allow for player to up-armor the thing with low slots, or mid-slots for shields. Anything, but don't nerf the sine qua non of the class of ship, which is the ability to HAUL things. Please. |
|
Demonica Mortis
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 03:09:00 -
[491] - Quote
Demonica Mortis wrote:Gamberone wrote:This change is stupid. You don't need to change anything on the JF to allow cargo rigs. Increasing the size of capitals and station freight containers makes sense.
CCP Fozzie are you saying here that JF's were OP? Why do they need this Nerf, please explain. I agree; they shouldn't nerf the cargo capacity of the JF. It's almost disingenuous; the very hull and structure of the ship itself IS the cargo bay. I hope between now and the Summer that they re-allocate the characteristics of the JF to allow for player to up-armor the thing with low slots, or mid-slots for shields. Anything, but don't nerf the sine qua non of the class of ship, which is the ability to HAUL things. Please.
It's almost as if they're using this as an opportunity to "give back" what you've already had in your ship, but now you have to PAY to gain that old ability.
Is it intended to be an ISK sink?! |
Demonica Mortis
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 03:13:00 -
[492] - Quote
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 - Capital Cargohold Optimization II (20% for 660,000), -150 Calibration Rig 2: No choice - Capital Cargohold Optimization II (20% for 792,000), -150 Calibration Rig 3: Limited Choice, 100 Calibration Cost: 1.45 billion ISK at current market prices [likely higher post-Kronos]Can't fit a structure rig in the optional slot, as it will reduce cargohold /facepalm The only logical possibility is a Capital Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer I or II.
WHY should ships that large...be limited to only three (3) rig slots? Seriously. Why not allow ships of that size class five (5) rig slots?
Let us outfit and customize our beloved freighters. Let us at least make an attempt to outfit them versus ganking. Give us some REAL options, please. Pretty please. |
Axe Coldon
Coldon Enterprises Axion Bionics
30
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 03:17:00 -
[493] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Axe Coldon wrote:What I don't get is why is a cargo nerf necessary to this change. Because you'd be able to get too much cargo space otherwise.
That is absurd. Nerf the normal freighters cargo I don't care. but getting 500k in a jf is not too much.
Its like CCP is trying to force us into building in null. Its a sandbox. Where we build should be up to us. Not make draconian changes so we have to follow their idea of where and how industry should be conducted.
|
Demonica Mortis
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 03:18:00 -
[494] - Quote
Marcus Gord wrote:so the post Kronos Charon will have less cargo at freighter 5 than the Fenrir gets right now, with freighter 0.
this smells rotten.
What we need is a consortium of players who can put forward proposals advocating changes (buffs/nerfs) to freighters. Buffs. In other words, the experts in the field--those who live and breath these classes of ships.
Also, anyone on CCP who, in their heart, can be an ADVOCATE of haulers. And the players who represent what is best of the haulers should be in contact with his counterpart (the "Hauler Ombudsman," let's say) who can together propose changes to that class of ships. Right now, it feels that nobody is defending our interests.
What say ye?
Let's recommend an Ombudsman. |
Barton Breau
University of Caille Gallente Federation
34
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 03:19:00 -
[495] - Quote
I dont get why everyone is so upset, this is EXACTLY what you argue for, when arguing for streamlining and balance.
A dull game where you have none of those. |
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
3435
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 03:19:00 -
[496] - Quote
I am quite sure they were not nerfed to make room for the rigs. Those were just an afterthought to sell the straight up nerf of the freighters that were considered too good at what they were doing. Sovereignty and Population New Mining Mechanics |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
53
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 03:20:00 -
[497] - Quote
OK, I am trying to be nice, thoughtful and concise
I even made a spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TYU__8DwIT0Qa7NphPZnDCOhGpzIKJ2aEd-k3EOUHu0/edit?usp=sharing
The biggest qualm I have with all of this is the efficiency of a JF
If you look at the isotope per M3 for each JF, they all got a boost, except the Rhea, it numbers are almost stagnant. Personally, I would like to see fuel burn normalized, but not nerfing the cargo nearly as much would also be an outcome I would scream about.
I also added in the additional fuel burn and it get even more skewed
I'm not saying not to do the change, just wondering why the Rhea took such a large (87,000m3) hit when the rest took a much smaller (75,000 - 78,000m3) hit |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
1368
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 03:21:00 -
[498] - Quote
The tears in this thread are almost as delicious as being able to make a freighter have a better tank. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) And bring back the missile Inquisitor!! |
Justin Cody
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
216
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 03:24:00 -
[499] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Normally I am all about how Eve is a harsh, dark universe where death and mayhem lurk around every corner, but some things in life just suck. Logistics is one of those things. If I had a forty right now, I'd pour some out for all the freighter and jump freighter pilots who got kicked in the crotch today.
This whole thing reminds me of the poor crippled kid joke. He's walking along with one arm all crippled and crooked and the other nice and strong and straight. He sees a church, goes inside and prays devoutly, "Dear Lord, please make both my arms the same." Our omniscient Creator hears his plea and promptly grants his wish. The kid now has two crippled and crooked arms.
^^THIS^^ A Thousand times this! |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
117
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 03:26:00 -
[500] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Simulacrum Clone wrote:If you had any sincere compassion for freighter pilots, and a higher intelligence for customer satisfaction, you would have left the stats alone, but included 3 rigs for standard freighters, two for jump freighters and included one high, medium and low slot. So now GǣcompassionGǣ and GǣintelligenceGǥ has been synonymous with Gǣthrowing balance out the windowGǥ and Gǣmaking changes without any concern for the repercussionsGǥ. InterestingGǪ Wilfully breaking the game doesn't seem particularly compassionate or intelligent. Of course, the real problem here is that the intelligent thing to do would have been to ignore all the requests for fitting options on freighters, but unfortunately the devs are if anything too compassionate and just wanted to give these players what they had been begging for for so long.
Pretty much. Everyone who wanted rigs or fittings for Freighter / JF are dumb imo. They are perfectly balanced the way they are now. |
|
Saint Hecate
Big Diggers Get Off My Lawn
9
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 03:44:00 -
[501] - Quote
I personally feel like these changes are a bit heavy handed. The jump freighters especially bother me. As with those changes, almost every aspect of the freighter is reduced. Having the option to rig the ships allows for some customization but at the end of the day, all the rigs do is Maybe bring ONE of the freighter back to its previous stats with little to no net positive :/. So i could restore part of my Cargo capacity at the cost of losing a large chunk of my EHP AND still having the nerf to align time.
I think its good if the freighters are toned back a bit but not to such a heavy degree. For example instead of reducing the Ark's cargo bay by 76000. Reduce it by 40000. That way if you rig for cargo you will have a reasonable net positive which may out way the negative of losing so much EHP. I think the biggest problem I have with the changes is that it feel like you lose out pretty heavily no matter what rigs you use. Seems almost more worthwhile to leave it unrigged and hemorrhage your losses.
I think it would be cool if you could introduce freighter specific rigs that do interesting things that may alter decision making/gameplay. I always liked the idea of a JF rig that would increase Jump range by 15% but if you are utilizing that range it would also have a 25% increased fuel cost for the extra distance traveled. So if say I jump to a beacon that is 10 LYs away im still within the standard range of the freighter so i dont receive the fuel penalty but say I jump to a beacon 13 LY away, because im utilizing the extra range I eat the 25% fuel penalty for the extra 3 LY used.
I also feel like this change is aimed pretty heavily towards incentivizing nullsec industry over importing which I suppose is a healthy thing for the game considering that by importing everything it leaves a lot of players in nullsec without anything to build.
Id say tweak the numbers some more so that the player doesnt feel like they are losing out on all sides regardless of what rig you pick. Im completely okay with the ships power being reduced I just dont want to feel like im losing out so much.
I am no expert on balance nor am I very good at trying to come up with solutions to EVE many many complex systems, I usually leave that to other people that are far smarter than I haha but I feel very strongly about this subject and I want to try and offer some constructive criticism.
Thanks for your time Saint
|
Axe Coldon
Coldon Enterprises Axion Bionics
30
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 03:45:00 -
[502] - Quote
Derath Ellecon wrote:Kaahles wrote:And for JF's? TBH those nerfs don't go far enough as far as I am concerned because if you have half a functioning brain and know how the game works the likelyhood of losing your JF is pretty damn slim to almost nonexistent. Breaks the whole risk vs reward thing. Everyone loves to throw around Risk vs reward like they know wtf they are talking about. There is more to risk than just how easy or hard it is to die. Everytime I undock a JF I am putting a 6.2 bil hull at risk. That alone is a pretty big risk. When I run a 0.0 jump freighter contract I could easily have upwards of 5bil of cargo in the hold. Thats 11.5 Billion isk I'm putting at risk jumping into hostile 0.0 space. And for what? Maybe a 150-200mil reward? I'd be hard pressed to believe that anyone actually doing this is sitting there thinking "oh yea this is totally OP, I should be easier to kill" Yes if I do everything right my overall risk of death is fairly low. Yet there are still thousands that get killed.
I agree. I think most that think this is great is because they are planning to kill jf's not fly them. If you make 100mil fee per trip its 60 trips to break even if you die..it will be 75 after if yoiu have t2 rigs.
Its a big oh well. If ccp sticks to their guns we live with it and life goes on. but they ask for feedback.so hope they rethink part of this. |
Draconus Lofwyr
UK Corp RAZOR Alliance
102
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 03:49:00 -
[503] - Quote
Allison A'vani wrote:Tippia wrote:Simulacrum Clone wrote:If you had any sincere compassion for freighter pilots, and a higher intelligence for customer satisfaction, you would have left the stats alone, but included 3 rigs for standard freighters, two for jump freighters and included one high, medium and low slot. So now GǣcompassionGǣ and GǣintelligenceGǥ has been synonymous with Gǣthrowing balance out the windowGǥ and Gǣmaking changes without any concern for the repercussionsGǥ. InterestingGǪ Wilfully breaking the game doesn't seem particularly compassionate or intelligent. Of course, the real problem here is that the intelligent thing to do would have been to ignore all the requests for fitting options on freighters, but unfortunately the devs are if anything too compassionate and just wanted to give these players what they had been begging for for so long. Pretty much. Everyone who wanted rigs or fittings for Freighter / JF are dumb imo. They are perfectly balanced the way they are now. This feels incarna level stupid. Might be time to purge Fozzie from the dev team and get someone new.
I am really thinking that CCP Fozzie is the most appropriate named Dev on the team, as in Fozzie bear, known for the bad jokes and dumb ideas. can someone please tell us he has been an elaborate joke on the EvE player base for the last few years?
this reminds me a LOT of the first mothership "buff" that had to be totally scrapped and rethought due to the overwhelming player outcry. |
Isky von Purps
Caldari Solutions
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 03:50:00 -
[504] - 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.
Oh that's nice. Do they also simultaneously bring it back to the same EHP, align time and speed too? Then will the materials needed to make a JF / F be adjusted down to cover the cost of rigs?
If the answer to either of these is No, then this is an outright nerf. At least give it the ability to run a DCU II and Bulkheads. |
Derath Ellecon
Washburne Holdings Situation: Normal
2241
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 03:53:00 -
[505] - Quote
Saint Hecate wrote:Stuff about Jump freighters
I think you missed this key quote from #14
CCP Fozzie wrote:But yes, the fact that this is a small reduction in Jump Freighter power is completely intended. |
stoicfaux
4829
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 04:04:00 -
[506] - Quote
So. We're doing this to ensure that miners deliver their ore directly from the mining ship to a PoS ore compression array, because 25 pre-nerf freighter trips to transfer enough ore bought on the market in a station to a PoS for compression to fill a JF with compressed ore wasn't enough disincentive?
I too, am underwhelmed by needing to buy capital rigs to get my Providence back where it was.
How about introducing the Providence Mk II, which can be rigged, while leaving the original Providence as is? Let new customers buy the Mk II version of the various freighters for when a "customized" freighter is needed.
WASABI: Warp Acceleration System Ancillary Boost Injected(Gäó)
|
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
3624
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 04:07:00 -
[507] - Quote
As an industrialist, I find it really telling that all the proposed industry changes make me want to stop doing industry.
CCP Seagull wrote:There are some people who make things work - they pre-fit ships for a fleet op, they run mega-spreadsheets for the industry production lines needed to equip the war effort, build tools to manage a corporation or command large fleets. Their activities enable others to have fun in EVE. What we have here is a failure to communicate. |
Cloora
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
130
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 04:10:00 -
[508] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Told you so. e: Dammit!! Missed by one post again.
Why the hell are you telling me this? I didn't ask for any freaking changes to my Rhea I liked it the way it was. http://www.altaholics.blogspot.com
|
Andrea Keuvo
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
260
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 04:10:00 -
[509] - Quote
Odds that Fozzie posts in or even reads this thread again after today? Near zero I would bet. |
Axe Coldon
Coldon Enterprises Axion Bionics
31
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 04:13:00 -
[510] - Quote
Abrazzar wrote:I am quite sure they were not nerfed to make room for the rigs. Those were just an afterthought to sell the straight up nerf of the freighters that were considered too good at what they were doing.
Too good? you must not play the same eve as i do. Freighters are super easy to gank as it is. Now they will be worth more..and be even more of a gank target.
When pilots wanted rigs (and slots) was to get their freighter beefed up. Not to make it more expensive to fly the same thing.
|
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11574
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 04:13:00 -
[511] - Quote
Abrazzar wrote:I am quite sure they were not nerfed to make room for the rigs. Those were just an afterthought to sell the straight up nerf of the freighters that were considered too good at what they were doing.
This is exactly what we said would happen if freighters got rigs. The nerfs are all needed because of the rigs (aside from the agility nerf) Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11574
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 04:15:00 -
[512] - Quote
Axe Coldon wrote:Abrazzar wrote:I am quite sure they were not nerfed to make room for the rigs. Those were just an afterthought to sell the straight up nerf of the freighters that were considered too good at what they were doing. Too good? you must not play the same eve as i do. Freighters are super easy to gank as it is. Now they will be worth more..and be even more of a gank target. When pilots wanted rigs (and slots) was to get their freighter beefed up. Not to make it more expensive to fly the same thing.
We told you they would be nerfed to compensate for the rigs. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Mostlyharmlesss
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
119
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 04:20:00 -
[513] - Quote
This is completely in line with what CCP intends for all ships. They're forcing you to make a choice which will require you to think for yourself. More choices are almost always a good addition to the game. Follow me on Twitter for the latest regarding GoonSwarm Federation and our recruitment drives!https://twitter.com/EVE_MHarmlesss-á |
Angelina Duvolle
Homeworld Technologies
27
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 04:22:00 -
[514] - Quote
Andrea Keuvo wrote:Odds that Fozzie posts in or even reads this thread again after today? Near zero I would bet.
Yeah, at lease greyscale and some of the others will adjust things. Fozzy just flips us the bird and says, I think freighters are wayyyyy too overpowered and fun to play. He took near 0 feedback when they slowed them down and told us collectively to **** up a rope despite all the crying. Now he has the audacity to sell this as a buff when it is basically a slap in the face.
"Freighters are really fun and compelling, and we like flying them a lot!" - Said no one ever.....
How bout you address that problem instead of your typical 30% nerf - 29% buff garbage.
|
Derath Ellecon
Washburne Holdings Situation: Normal
2241
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 04:23:00 -
[515] - Quote
Andrea Keuvo wrote:Odds that Fozzie posts in or even reads this thread again after today? Near zero I would bet.
You really don't know Fozzie then do you?
Given his history so far I'd bet a plex he keeps up on each and every one of the threads he has posted. |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
3624
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 04:24:00 -
[516] - Quote
Mostlyharmlesss wrote:This is completely in line with what CCP intends for all ships. They're forcing you to make a choice which will require you to think for yourself. More choices are almost always a good addition to the game. No, they are removing choice.
I'd be all for adding choice. |
Angelina Duvolle
Homeworld Technologies
27
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 04:26:00 -
[517] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:[quote=Axe Coldon]
We told you they would be nerfed to compensate for the rigs.
I didn't ask for rigs. I asked for them to be re balanced thoughtfully, given interesting roles or bonuses, or adding in mechanics, means, roles etc, that make flying them more fun, less boring.
You guys are nearly as unoriginal and lacking in creativity as fozzy. |
Andrea Keuvo
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
260
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 04:30:00 -
[518] - Quote
Derath Ellecon wrote:Andrea Keuvo wrote:Odds that Fozzie posts in or even reads this thread again after today? Near zero I would bet. You really don't know Fozzie then do you? Given his history so far I'd bet a plex he keeps up on each and every one of the threads he has posted.
No, I'm going off his history of rarely posting beyond page 1 and even more rarely adjusting anything based on player feedback. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11576
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 04:32:00 -
[519] - Quote
Angelina Duvolle wrote:baltec1 wrote:[quote=Axe Coldon]
We told you they would be nerfed to compensate for the rigs. I didn't ask for rigs. I asked for them to be re balanced thoughtfully, given interesting roles or bonuses, or adding in mechanics, means, roles etc, that make flying them more fun, less boring. You guys are nearly as unoriginal and lacking in creativity as fozzy.
I spent the last two years telling people adding rigs would result in these nerfs and got nothing but abuse. You will forgive me if I take this time to smug it out while these same people rage about what they have brought upon themselves. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Isky von Purps
Caldari Solutions
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 04:32:00 -
[520] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote: u can exceed a current freighters capacity. u can exceed a current freighters tank. u can exceed a current freighters speed.
but u cant have all three at once. u have to choose.
Which is the problem in the first place. They wanted it all, without having to think about it.
no this is not true.
It's perfectly fine for a change to be negative on multiple aspects and offsetting positive on another. This change is negative on multiple attributes and neutral to negligible positive on one. So these changes work, provided there is an offsetting buff in Concord reaction rates. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11576
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 04:39:00 -
[521] - Quote
Isky von Purps wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote: u can exceed a current freighters capacity. u can exceed a current freighters tank. u can exceed a current freighters speed.
but u cant have all three at once. u have to choose.
Which is the problem in the first place. They wanted it all, without having to think about it. no this is not true. It's perfectly fine for a change to be negative on multiple aspects and offsetting positive on another. This change is negative on multiple attributes and neutral to negligible positive on one. So these changes work, provided there is an offsetting buff in Concord reaction rates.
This is what people asked for. You can now make the new freighter better in one area over the old one but you will have to make sacrifices in the other areas. Concord will not be getting altered. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
3624
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 04:43:00 -
[522] - Quote
More useful would have been: 1 rig slot and 15% reduction to cargo, NO OTHER CHANGES. At least this gives choice. * Same cargo as before with T1. * More cargo than before at huge expense of T2. * Less cargo with benefit of non-cargo rig. |
Ghazbaran
Hyper Compu-Global MegaCorp
7
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 04:48:00 -
[523] - Quote
So basically a Freighter and JUMP FREIGHTER nerf... Who wants to buy a Nomad? |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11576
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 04:51:00 -
[524] - Quote
Ghazbaran wrote:So basically a Freighter and JUMP FREIGHTER nerf... Who wants to buy a Nomad?
I'll give you an isk. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
The Icefox
Origin. Black Legion.
2
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 04:51:00 -
[525] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Because Jump Freighters only have two rig slots their maximum cargo is only going to be about 4% higher than current (with T2 rigs) and with T1 cargo rigs their cargo holds will be between 4 and 7% smaller than current.
Let us know what you think!
The idea of spending any amount of isk on capital rigs for only 4% bonus is ridiculous. Add a third rig slot and more calibration for the jump freighters and this would become passable.
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
690
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 04:56:00 -
[526] - Quote
I can't help but notice that this change to jump freighters isn't any kind of jump drive nerf or removal.
when are jump drives and bridges being nerfed? they're probably the most overpowered thing in game currently, so I'm guessing it's a fairly high priority and will be happening soon. (j/k the council of nullsec wouldn't allow it) |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
3624
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 05:00:00 -
[527] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:I can't help but notice that this change to jump freighters isn't any kind of jump drive nerf or removal.
when are jump drives and bridges being nerfed? they're probably the most overpowered thing in game currently, so I'm guessing it's a fairly high priority and will be happening soon. (j/k the council of nullsec wouldn't allow it) Nerfing jump drives wouldn't change anything. It would only make things more un-fun, and increase the number of cyno alts. |
Ghazbaran
Hyper Compu-Global MegaCorp
7
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 05:05:00 -
[528] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Ghazbaran wrote:So basically a Freighter and JUMP FREIGHTER nerf... Who wants to buy a Nomad? I'll give you an isk.
Sold
On other news:
Maxed out My JF skill for more survivability... wasted it skill time
Maxed out my JF skill for better fuel economy.. Fuel expenditure nerfed by 50% on all jump capable ships... Wasted Skill Time
Training Into a Nomad for Better warp time... Wasted completely by the agility nerf
Having to spend an extra 1.4 billion isk on rigs just to make it slightly better in any field it was already good at; priceless wait what?
|
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
430
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 05:07:00 -
[529] - Quote
Well, I think it is a bad sign when the gankers are the ones most in favor of and excited by these changes... lol. |
Ghazbaran
Hyper Compu-Global MegaCorp
7
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 05:08:00 -
[530] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:I can't help but notice that this change to jump freighters isn't any kind of jump drive nerf or removal.
when are jump drives and bridges being nerfed? they're probably the most overpowered thing in game currently, so I'm guessing it's a fairly high priority and will be happening soon. (j/k the council of nullsec wouldn't allow it)
jump fuel consumption will increase by 50%... More power to the power BLOCK in the game IMHO they can afford that. While now, the goal of a jump freighter for a small corp of starter players just got a whole less viable by all these nerfs and the incremented cost of usage.
BREATHES DEAP
After reading I would honestly prefer not having rigs at all... It's not like JF where overpowered. Yes they can move things but that about it.
6 billion isk investment, turning into a 7.5+ billion isk investment to get something that is a former shadow of onself... Now if you gave us turret slots I would understand. Who doesnt want a battle Jumpfreighter running around but there is absolutely no damage in leaving the current stats for JF or at least don't give them a concussion. |
|
BlitZ Kotare
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
122
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 05:10:00 -
[531] - Quote
I haven't bothered to read this entire thread besides the OP. But I have to say, wow. It's great to know that my JF is going to require a few billion isk work of rigs and specialized implants to be almost as good as it was before. Bravo.
Like many of the balance changes lately, where's the carrot Fozzie? You're slapping me upside the head with the nerf bat again and adding nothing to /my/ game while doing it. Stuff I've enjoyed (well, tolerated. Logistics is painful at best) doing is going to cost me more time and effort than before for the same result and add nothing to the gameplay. |
Ghazbaran
Hyper Compu-Global MegaCorp
7
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 05:13:00 -
[532] - Quote
BlitZ Kotare wrote:I haven't bothered to read this entire thread besides the OP. But I have to say, wow. It's great to know that my JF is going to require a few billion isk work of rigs and specialized implants to be almost as good as it was before. Bravo.
Like many of the balance changes lately, where's the carrot Fozzie? You're slapping me upside the head with the nerf bat again and adding nothing to /my/ game while doing it. Stuff I've enjoyed (well, tolerated. Logistics is painful at best) doing is going to cost me more time and effort than before for the same result and add nothing to the gameplay.
Sorry but it wont get the same result... it's going to cost more 50% more to move your stuff around |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11576
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 05:14:00 -
[533] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:Well, I think it is a bad sign when the gankers are the ones most in favor of and excited by these changes... lol.
Ironicly its been gankers who have fought against these changes for the last few years. Highsec bears have just scored a huge own goal. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
46
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 05:14:00 -
[534] - Quote
Coupled with the indy changes, many of which are just layers of variables added for the sake of some perceived complexity death wish, I'm really starting to wonder about the development goals here. Is it to make the boring and tedious parts of EVE even more boring and tedious in some effort to make the other parts of the game seem relatively more enjoyable?
Maybe sometimes no change is the better option. |
Ghazbaran
Hyper Compu-Global MegaCorp
7
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 05:20:00 -
[535] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: But yes, the fact that this is a small reduction in Jump Freighter power is completely intended.
But I can't kill anything with it... How is that powerfull... I am a glorified delivery boy... Please reconsider |
Dealin'lak
Hooded Underworld Industrials
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 05:21:00 -
[536] - Quote
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 :( |
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
1823
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 05:23:00 -
[537] - Quote
You know, I can live with having to T2 cargo rig my Anshar. I can live with my freighters having lower tank. But why'd you have to nerf their agility?
Did someone at CCP seriously say something along the lines of "Oh this freighter aligns in less than five minutes, we can't have that!" It just doesn't make any sense IMO. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11576
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 05:25:00 -
[538] - Quote
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. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Xequecal
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
216
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 05:29:00 -
[539] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:I can't help but notice that this change to jump freighters isn't any kind of jump drive nerf or removal.
when are jump drives and bridges being nerfed? they're probably the most overpowered thing in game currently, so I'm guessing it's a fairly high priority and will be happening soon. (j/k the council of nullsec wouldn't allow it)
Did people actually like doing freighter ops before we had JFs? I sure remember they were pretty much the worst thing in the game. |
Ghazbaran
Hyper Compu-Global MegaCorp
7
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 05:34:00 -
[540] - Quote
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.
I Understand the Freighters since they would get a lot of benefit out of this.... I would just preffer to not have rigs on my JF... There is really no balance there... 1.4 billion isk increase for a 4% bonus on an already 6bn isk ship????? That's crazy. And the price for shipping things is going to go up by 50% on june 22nd....
Freighters are getting about a 20% buff to cargohold with 1 t2 rig and 2 T1 rigs but with 2 T2 rigs JF get a 4% increase and a 50% price hike in carrying said material.... I just don't see that balance to that, heck even a 10% totall increase before current would be good, That's an extra Battlship I can cram in there... But 4% is just too little.
We are also getting an agility nef :S... The whole point to me having a nomad was for better fuel economy and better agility.
WAHHHH!!!!!
|
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
690
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 05:34:00 -
[541] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:I can't help but notice that this change to jump freighters isn't any kind of jump drive nerf or removal.
when are jump drives and bridges being nerfed? they're probably the most overpowered thing in game currently, so I'm guessing it's a fairly high priority and will be happening soon. (j/k the council of nullsec wouldn't allow it) Nerfing jump drives wouldn't change anything. It would only make things more un-fun, and increase the number of cyno alts.
actually it wouldn't. logistics is currently immune to pvp, even though this is a pvp game. currently you can't even prevent a JF or capital from travelling if you're in empire space. you certainly can't kill it one at all. by removing the tackle immunity from siege/triage, needing a cyno to be up for a time before it can be jumped to, and making jumping be a proess which takes time and can be cancelled by tackling, removing 100mn prop exploits from caps and web instawarping, probably adding minimum jump range constraints (like on pos) to stations and yeah I guess a nice jump range nerf (did I forget anything), jump drives would be less silly. oh, and bridging and pos titans would need to be horribly ruined in some way as well, but I've not thought about that. I'd also like to see jump freighters lose their jump drives and turn into tanky stabbed freighters or something, and see massively reduced hauling abilities on caps. basically I think forcing people to do freighter runs would be really neat, and add to the game. |
SiKong Ma
House of Nim-Lhach Fraternity.
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 05:39:00 -
[542] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:You know, I can live with having to T2 cargo rig my Anshar. I can live with my freighters having lower tank. But why'd you have to nerf their agility?
Did someone at CCP seriously say something along the lines of "Oh this freighter aligns in less than five minutes, we can't have that!" It just doesn't make any sense IMO.
I fully agree with this. Why nerf align time? It is already too boring flying a freighter and now we have a choice of choosing our hell:
1) Rig for max cargohold but die being ganked. 2) Rig for fastest align time/warp speed but face twice the risk running the freighter from A-B then back to A and A-B all over again to haul the same amount (risking gankers 2 times). 3) Rig for max EHP and face hauling LESS and running the freighter from A-B then back to A and repeat TWICE more (that means risking gankers 3 times) as well as additional risk of dying of old age waiting for align times.
Note: I didn't bother to do the exact maths but that's the gist of it. |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
3624
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 05:40:00 -
[543] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:actually it wouldn't. logistics is currently immune to pvp, even though this is a pvp game. currently you can't even prevent a JF or capital from travelling if you're in empire space. you certainly can't kill it one at all. Huh?
TrouserDeagle wrote:by removing the tackle immunity from siege/triage, needing a cyno to be up for a time before it can be jumped to, and making jumping be a proess which takes time and can be cancelled by tackling, removing 100mn prop exploits from caps and web instawarping, probably adding minimum jump range constraints (like on pos) to stations and yeah I guess a nice jump range nerf (did I forget anything), jump drives would be less silly. oh, and bridging and pos titans would need to be horribly ruined in some way as well, but I've not thought about that. I'd also like to see jump freighters lose their jump drives and turn into tanky stabbed freighters or something, and see massively reduced hauling abilities on caps. basically I think forcing people to do freighter runs would be really neat, and add to the game. None of that would change anything. If an alliance needs to move from X to Y, they will. It will just require more alts, and be a bigger PITA. |
Esur A'saw Ti
Wont To Buy
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 05:42:00 -
[544] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Angelina Duvolle wrote:baltec1 wrote:[quote=Axe Coldon]
We told you they would be nerfed to compensate for the rigs. I didn't ask for rigs. I asked for them to be re balanced thoughtfully, given interesting roles or bonuses, or adding in mechanics, means, roles etc, that make flying them more fun, less boring. You guys are nearly as unoriginal and lacking in creativity as fozzy. I spent the last two years telling people adding rigs would result in these nerfs and got nothing but abuse. You will forgive me if I take this time to smug it out while these same people rage about what they have brought upon themselves. Not their fault, there is really a problem with hs freighters ganks, it's absolutely stupid that you can kill one with what 10 cata? It should be at least 50+ and give a tanking malus to autopilot ships that's how I would balance the game. |
Goat Cannon
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 05:43:00 -
[545] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Tippia wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:T1 rigs are easily enough to bring normal freighters above their current cargo values. Yes, but I fly a JF. I picked it because of its nippy align speed, good tank, and descent-enough cargo hold. I can restore one of those at a massive cost. Actually the tank on your JF is about the same as before, thanks to the extra resists. So you get one of the three for free! But yes, the fact that this is a small reduction in Jump Freighter power is completely intended.
Wait...what? So a 6.5b jf, wich will be slower, shittier, and consume more fuel after this 'fix', wich will then also need another ~1billion in t2 rigs to make the hold on par with what it now is, and this is called a SMALL reduction? I really really hope you are kidding. If anything, these stupidly expensive haulers need a boost, not a stupid nerf.
Welcome back shotgunning freighters, i guess. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
46
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 05:44:00 -
[546] - Quote
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.
Now that you were right and the mongs who thought they could get something for nothing were proved wrong, the rest of us now need to deal with the fallout. This change shouldn't happen on either side of the equation as proposed. Too big of a hit for the "flexibility" of rigs, which are inherently inflexible at the capital ship level. Mods would probably result in an even worse hit, but at least then we could claim some level of real flexibility. I don't propose those either. I propose the status quo. Freighters were fine. |
Sierra Mackenzie
Black Widow Logistics
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 05:47:00 -
[547] - Quote
Why? This is supposed to be an industry expansion?
Suicide ganking is already making freighter usage pretty much impossible between the major hubs. Why make things worse? The isotope consumption thing is already going to cripple small alliance logistics and nothing else, and this just make things worse. Requiring expensive rigs to hit the old values does nothing but inflate killmail values for the no brain, no skill required suicide ganks that are ruining the ability for freighters to serve their purpose within the game. If anything, freighters should be getting an overall EHP buff to counter the fact that they're hilariously easy to kill, and this will make it even worse.
Disclaimer: I suicide gank freighters with CODE on a consistent basis. You dock up, you get a free Talos, you go blob a freighter, wait 15 minutes, and repeat. There is absolutely no skill or risk involved whatsoever. Part of what we do is to show the devs how stupidly obsolete freighters have become, and this just puts the nail in the coffin. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11576
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 05:48:00 -
[548] - Quote
Esur A'saw Ti wrote:baltec1 wrote:Angelina Duvolle wrote:baltec1 wrote:[quote=Axe Coldon]
We told you they would be nerfed to compensate for the rigs. I didn't ask for rigs. I asked for them to be re balanced thoughtfully, given interesting roles or bonuses, or adding in mechanics, means, roles etc, that make flying them more fun, less boring. You guys are nearly as unoriginal and lacking in creativity as fozzy. I spent the last two years telling people adding rigs would result in these nerfs and got nothing but abuse. You will forgive me if I take this time to smug it out while these same people rage about what they have brought upon themselves. Not their fault, there is really a problem with hs freighters ganks, it's absolutely stupid that you can kill one with what 10 cata? It should be at least 50+ and give a tanking malus to autopilot ships that's how I would balance the game.
Whats daft is people think 30 freighters getting ganked a month constitutes "out of control ganking".
This is entirely the fault of highsec bears, you nerfed yourselves. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11576
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 05:52:00 -
[549] - 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. Now that you were right and the mongs who thought they could get something for nothing were proved wrong, the rest of us now need to deal with the fallout. This change shouldn't happen on either side of the equation as proposed. Too big of a hit for the "flexibility" of rigs, which are inherently inflexible at the capital ship level. Mods would probably result in an even worse hit, but at least then we could claim some level of real flexibility. I don't propose those either. I propose the status quo. Freighters were fine.
I agree entirely.
Alas, I would plan for this going through, I will be fitting warp speed rigs to mine and just lumping the hit to my cargo. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Brutherlegs
Mercurialis Inc. RAZOR Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 05:54:00 -
[550] - Quote
This better be one big late 1 april joke. |
|
Xequecal
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
216
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 05:56:00 -
[551] - Quote
Sierra Mackenzie wrote:Why? This is supposed to be an industry expansion?
Suicide ganking is already making freighter usage pretty much impossible between the major hubs. Why make things worse? The isotope consumption thing is already going to cripple small alliance logistics and nothing else, and this just make things worse. Requiring expensive rigs to hit the old values does nothing but inflate killmail values for the no brain, no skill required suicide ganks that are ruining the ability for freighters to serve their purpose within the game. If anything, freighters should be getting an overall EHP buff to counter the fact that they're hilariously easy to kill, and this will make it even worse.
Disclaimer: I suicide gank freighters with CODE on a consistent basis. You dock up, you get a free Talos, you go blob a freighter, wait 15 minutes, and repeat. There is absolutely no skill or risk involved whatsoever. Part of what we do is to show the devs how stupidly obsolete freighters have become, and this just puts the nail in the coffin.
Honestly, they should just remove the attack battlecruisers from the game entirely. It solves this problem (it'll now cost you 3x as much to suicide gank a freighter) alongside a host of other ones. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
46
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 05:59:00 -
[552] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: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. Now that you were right and the mongs who thought they could get something for nothing were proved wrong, the rest of us now need to deal with the fallout. This change shouldn't happen on either side of the equation as proposed. Too big of a hit for the "flexibility" of rigs, which are inherently inflexible at the capital ship level. Mods would probably result in an even worse hit, but at least then we could claim some level of real flexibility. I don't propose those either. I propose the status quo. Freighters were fine. I agree entirely. Alas, I would plan for this going through, I will be fitting warp speed rigs to mine and just lumping the hit to my cargo.
I would expect it too. Mainly because once they propose something, the likelihood of a complete reversal to the status quo goes right out the window.
|
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS type X
156
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 06:03:00 -
[553] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote:
You're a special case in that you're asking for more modules. Great! I'm not going to try to argue you out of it anymore; ask CCP for, say, 2 low slots. They will probably give you two low slots, and a 40% nerf to cargo, and hull HP, and some off the armour too. Then you can whine "but to get back to old cargo values I need to fit modules ... and they have drawbacks!"
And then we can do "told you so" all over again.
I know speaking for both sides of an argument makes winning said argument pretty easy. But how about we do this you state your side of the argument and you let me handle my side (so stop putting words into my mouth I never said).
I knew that and spoke of the need to nerf freighters in order to be able to fit them with rigs and mods. My arguments always centered around nerfing freighters in such a way that when all was said and done you would be able to rig/mod your ship to have exactly the same stats as it has now. I even went so far as to suggest that freighter exclusive rigs and mods be added to the game to make balancing easy.
My argument is simple. When 99.9% of all ships in a game are balanced around rigs and mods the same shouldn't be such an elusive concept that CCP devs couldn't accomplish it ( except perhaps for Fozzie who apparently completely missed the point of our request for change since what we sought was flexibility and what he plans on giving us is the very antithesis of flexibility, namely a rig only solution. Rigs are a ships backbone not something you swap out to head to jita. Mods are where flexibility comes in and we are apparently getting none of that.
The Orca can have many adjustments made using mods. I want freighters to be able to change between tank and carrying capacity, simple.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really. |
Nex Killer
Drunk3n Industry
63
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 06:08:00 -
[554] - Quote
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. |
Alexander McKeon
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
59
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 06:11:00 -
[555] - Quote
Fozzie, for the love of Bob, please undo those mass increases! Keep them under 1M mass so that they can still fit through an M555 or D792 wormhole between high class w-space and hisec. You have not presented ANY compelling balance reason whatsoever for preventing wormhole residents from using freighters. Mass is not just a component in the align time calculation, it is of vital concern for it's ability to access certain regions of space.
If this change goes through as proposed we're going to see a lot of freighters stuck in wormholes until they get a lowsec connection adjacent to high, making wormhole logistics even more painful than it already is, which is not needed at all. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
46
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 06:12:00 -
[556] - Quote
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 |
Brutherlegs
Mercurialis Inc. RAZOR Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 06:13:00 -
[557] - Quote
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.
hes probably too busy coming up with some damagecontrol over these **** poor changes
|
Sato Page
BLOORDOGY Dead Space Syndicate
112
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 06:22:00 -
[558] - Quote
YES! A logistic nerf is just what we need right now! Tears of joy! :') |
Cardano Firesnake
Les chevaliers de l'ordre Goonswarm Federation
155
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 06:26:00 -
[559] - Quote
Freighters are really too slow. Why? Is there a reason for that? If they were two times faster that will not change the capacity to gank them, that would not change the need of transport. Why should we spend 3hours to move something. As if 1h30 was not ebough boring. |
Ben Hatton
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 06:26:00 -
[560] - Quote
Too bad freighters don't have a high slot so we can bash the Jita monument in our freighters over this
Please, please reconsider this change guys, or just leave things as they are now.
That said, I think I can see the direction over all CCP are going with all their changes recently and coming up over the next 2 years. They want player empires that are entirely self sufficient. This in theory sounds like a good idea, rather than be the PVP focused, indy and logistics when they need to be alliances we will start to see many more different play styles being involved out in the wild wild west (east north and south) that is Null out of necessity. A much more diverse environment is probably a good thing.
And who knows, with the NPC empires loosing their strength in the lore side of things, not only the pirate factions are stepping up to fill the gap but perhaps the player empires over time too. With Hilmar chanting destruction, we may see a reduction in the amount of HS space as player empires move in to conquer it.
Still, personally, I don't have the RL time nor bother to be involved in that stuff, so for me, Id not be a fan of this as mentioned earlier. |
|
Dave Stark
5706
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 06:30:00 -
[561] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:Freighters were fine.
yes they were.
i'm personally hoping for a CCP 180 and say "yeah we'll leave freighters alone, but this is what balance looks like... be careful what you wish for". i doubt it will happen, though. so on a more realistic level; i think they should at least knock it down to large rigs (justification: orca) if they're not going to scrap these changes. |
Jarnis McPieksu
492
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 06:34:00 -
[562] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:basically I think forcing people to do freighter runs would be really neat, and add to the game.
Having played in 2005 when these were a thing, I will respectfully disagree with you.
Turning null logistics into escorted freighter runs would immediately kill what little 0.0 industrial activity there is. Such escort fleets would be hotdropped to bits and the losses would make any 0.0 logistics uneconomical. You underestimate how much goods have to move between 0.0 and Jita so the current gameplay works.
Removing JF jump drives would just make everyone turn into Titan-bridged freighters, upping the barrier of entry for nullsec to "got some titans, yo?". Removing Titan-bridged freighters would cause people to switch to anything that can be Titan-bridged - T2 haulers etc - in large quantities. Only by outright removing Titan bridges you could potentially see actual freight escort ops. Which would then die in a fire and there would be no 0.0 logistics. Everyone would live off a High sec/Low sec border and null would be much less populated in a hurry.
The whole issue boils down to this: Operating margins in EVE are small. They currently cannot price in any kind of losses due to unintended rapid disassembly of cargo ships. Changing this will have far-reaching unintended consequences.
And no, current changes will not change anything substantial. JFs will fit capital T2 cargo rigs (cheap!) and there will be a few more JF ganks due to slower align times and everyone carries on with some extra cargo capacity per run to offset the fuel consumption increases. In high sec freighters will choose between several rig types depending on their needs. Autopiloters will rig for more EHP to try stave off ganks, manual piloters will rig either align or cargo rigs, depending on the type of cargo - many will end up having two freighters in the hangar, one for pricy cargo, one for bulk cargo. Freighter manufacturers everyone will rejoice. Capital rig manufacturers everywhere will rejoice. Life goes on.
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
690
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 06:35:00 -
[563] - Quote
I, too, can kill idiots. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
690
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 06:38:00 -
[564] - Quote
Jarnis McPieksu wrote:stuff
I did include nerfs to hotdropping and bridging. the consequences would be huge but good and intentional. |
M'uva Wa'eva
Black Frog Logistics Red-Frog
26
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 06:48:00 -
[565] - Quote
Co-founder of Black Frog checking in. I probably fly jump freighters as much as nearly anyone in Eve, and I'm not quite sure how I feel yet, despite the pages of comments that have gone before me!
It's possible there will be some self interest in my assesment of the proposed changes but I cetainly don't feel that there will be particularly, as ultimately Frog clients will bear the costs of the changes (either through reduced carrying capacity for the same reward, or an increased reward for the same carrying capacity). That affects our clients more than it affects us.
I'm not particularly upset by the cargo nerf, as a full set of t1 capital rigs brings that back to close to where it was before. T1 capital rigs cost only a fraction of the cost of a jump freighter, so that doesn't bother me particularly.
The agility nerf came out of the blue. Given how boring it is waiting for freighters of all descriptions to align before entering warp, I can't see it adding to game enjoyment, but you could always bring a webber along with you to speed things along. Personally, I spend as little time as possible in hisec these days - jump freighters primary drive is their jump drive, not their warp drive.
The biggest issue with rigging is the permanence of the decision, when freighters and jump freighters are used for multiple and different purposes at different times. Nobody is going to buy a set of personalised freighters or jump freighters for these different purposes.
I do heartily approve of the concept of tradeoffs between cargo/agility/EHP. That's smart game design. No issues there.
What would make the choices more meaningful, rather than set and forget choices like rigging, would be if they could be achieved via regular slots and modules like almost every other ship in Eve. Then I could choose to fly through hisec with increased cargo (but at the risk of reduced EHP), or choose to reduce my cargo (but increase my tank), or buff my agility when I plan to do lots of inter-station hauling (at the cost of reduced cargo and EHP). That would lead to a variety of choices I'd have to make every time I undock my freighter, which would, to be honest, make one of the boringest professions in eve slightly more interesting and thoughtful than the brain numbering state of logistics today for many people. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
46
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 06:50:00 -
[566] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Dirk MacGirk wrote:Freighters were fine. yes they were. i'm personally hoping for a CCP 180 and say "yeah we'll leave freighters alone, but this is what balance looks like... be careful what you wish for". i doubt it will happen, though. so on a more realistic level; i think they should at least knock it down to large rigs (justification: orca) if they're not going to scrap these changes.
Large rigs would be logical. Would probably make it all a bit more palatable.
I think the biggest thing CCP should be asking themselves is: what is it we want from freighters, why are we making this change at all and then lay out the case. Maybe they can make the case. Could be as simple as: these ships have been different (no risg and mods) for so long that you've all just gotten used to them being different from every other ship. We have to bite the bullet and bring them onto the same field as all other ships. As with any other change in the game, how they sell it goes a long way to player understanding and acceptance. Nobody likes nerfs, but they do happen and we adapt. But changes really should happen because of a vision, not just because a few people want something for nothing.
|
Hunt Smacker
TunDraGon Drunk 'n' Disorderly
6
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 06:50:00 -
[567] - Quote
EVE is supposed to be a game, not a job Fozzie. It's already tedious enough flying around in these freighters, a small buff would have hardly caused the game to break. Now your just requiring more time and money to get SOME of the same results back - And in turn making EVE (especially hauling) more of a second job than a bloody game. And as an avid wormhole fan, I think this is just yet another low blow to wormhole residents. |
Dave Stark
5715
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 07:00:00 -
[568] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:Nobody likes nerfs, but they do happen and we adapt. But changes really should happen because of a vision, not just because a few people want something for nothing.
you're right, nobody likes nerfs. however this isn't just "we're nerfing freighters". you can get more cargo, or ehp, or speed out of your freighter with rigs. except people seem to dislike the "or" part.
the vision is for people to pick 1 thing they want their freighter to excel at, and then rig it to do so.
people also remember these nerfs could have been harsher; fozzie didn't have to up the packaged capital m3 to 1.3m, he could have just taken more cargo from freighters and said "**** you all" hence a few people saying they "expected worse".
I'm just glad i outsource the vast majority of my hauling, and that which i don't outsource is done in my trusty orca. |
Mag's
the united
17252
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 07:05:00 -
[569] - Quote
Ahh so I was also correct and did in fact say this would happen. I shall now join the 'Told you so' group.
Always, always be careful what you wish for.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Barton Breau
University of Caille Gallente Federation
34
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 07:05:00 -
[570] - Quote
Jarnis McPieksu wrote: ... with some extra cargo capacity per run to offset the fuel consumption increases.
Im not particularly good at math, but a 4% increase in cargo capacity to offset more risk due to align and 50% more jump fuel cost does not seem to add up. |
|
Dave Stark
5715
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 07:05:00 -
[571] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Ahh so I was also correct and did in fact say this would happen. I shall now join the 'Told you so' group.
Always, always be careful what you wish for. i think we're getting some t-shirts made up. |
Gumpy Bitterhawk
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 07:09:00 -
[572] - Quote
Give me 1 good reason why a 6.5 billion isk ship (7.5 soon), wich needs a second account to be able to work (cynos) is in need of nerfing? Literally, 1 good reason? It costs half a ******* super as it is already.
You know, im not sure what i like more, the old ccp that didnt lissen to their members and changed stuff around slowly but fairly, or the new ccp that wants constant input from their members and then drasticly changes **** without there being any need for it... |
Abulurd Boniface
The Scope Gallente Federation
127
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 07:10:00 -
[573] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Abulurd Boniface wrote:
I was enthusiastic when CCP Fozzie announced rigs for freighters at Fanfest. The way these are going to be implemented, if that really is the final word, makes it seem like there's no real gain for the freighter pilot.
because u thought u were getting a straight buff to a ship that didnt need a buff. No real gain other than choice was due.
No. I was excited for the freighter pilots, hoping it would give them better options. Over the course of my now many years of being an EVE pilot this was the first time I saw something announced for freighter pilots. I have not followed threads here where people, very astutely it turns out, warned about 'getting what you wish for'.
It's no skin off my nose though. I can fly a freighter but I don't have one. My Orcas have proven to be adequate for my purpose. A freighter has never seemed like a worthwhile investment. Now even less so.
I joined this conversation because I was surprised about these changes. I appreciate, wholeheartedly agree with and welcome the risk/reward equation in EVE. In my previous posts I have asked what the reward here is for the freighter pilot because I have a hard time seeing one. |
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
292
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 07:12:00 -
[574] - Quote
Yup. HP drop, check. Cargo capacity drop, check. Capital rigs so they won't be cheap to fit, check. All for the sake of all the "I want it" threads. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1340
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 07:12:00 -
[575] - Quote
This is about the worst possible implementation of giving freighters 'customisation' and simply serves to perpetuate the idea that industry characters are second class citizens there to be used as punching bags by people that like to shoot things. And has significant follow on effects to POS's with regards to changing capital sizes also.
The much better solution would have been to chop the cargo hold into several smaller holds and get rid of the worry about limiting carrying capitals once & for all. Several special holds that increase by level, say 300k m^3 each. And a similar sized Cargo hold that you can choose to affect with Cargo rigs. Then give them a real amount of fittings and slots, let them fit at least BS sized active tanks tanks, along side current passive EHP, 100MN MWD's, MJD's, the works. If not actual Capital size tanks. At least 10 slots.
Now you have actual choice involved in how you fit them rather than crazy gimped fitting options that will always be an obvious nerf |
Gumpy Bitterhawk
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 07:12:00 -
[576] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Mag's wrote:Ahh so I was also correct and did in fact say this would happen. I shall now join the 'Told you so' group.
Always, always be careful what you wish for. i think we're getting some t-shirts made up.
I think the 'I told you so' guys should start a new thread and start backpadding around in there, because its getting pretty annoying in this one. |
Vigilanta
S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS.
34
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 07:13:00 -
[577] - Quote
Bad changes, leave them as is, screw the rigs and some EHP or agility one of the 2. Frieghtor work is annoying enough as is no need to make it more painful. Suicide ganking freighters is stupid easy, this just makes it easier, or makes logistics take even more god aweful long.
Logistics work is the worst aspect of the game at current, why do a few seem to think its OP/to easy idk. NEWS FLASH, unless dramatic changes are made there will be little to no incentive to mine to the extent needed in null to move industry there and even then it will have to be exported to sell off the excess in order to make money in HS. Half of nulls logistics wizards are about to be on even more extreme suicide watch, there is a reason it exists. If anything proposed changes are creating an atmoshpere to make null less dynamic because of logistics becoming more a PITA. This is not what we want, we want changes that fan the flames of war and encourage the break down of the mega coalitions.
Increased fuel consumption/prices, decreased hauling capacity if you actually want to live are raising the barrier to entry to null and low not lowering ti and lowering it is what we want. The big empires will shoulder these costs bitching and moaning the whole time, but they wont change how they operate just put there massive incomes to work and say "meh"
|
Dave Stark
5727
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 07:13:00 -
[578] - Quote
Gumpy Bitterhawk wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Mag's wrote:Ahh so I was also correct and did in fact say this would happen. I shall now join the 'Told you so' group.
Always, always be careful what you wish for. i think we're getting some t-shirts made up. I think the 'I told you so' guys should start a new thread and start backpadding around in there, because its getting pretty annoying in this one.
duplicate threads get locked, we've got to be smug here i'm afraid. |
Steijn
Quay Industries
496
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 07:15:00 -
[579] - Quote
any chance that you could follow some of the others and leave for Riot? its obvious that you are completely out of touch and out of your depth with this game. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
46
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 07:16:00 -
[580] - Quote
I apologize to those who have probably fought this battle in previous threads related to "fixing freighters". However, now that changes to freighters are being proposed, I need to ask the question:
If the goal is flexibility for a ship, and the result is a major overhaul to base stats, why stop at rigs? Rigs are traditionally a secondary form of augmentation. Mods are where the real flexibility comes in.
I recognize that could mean CCP does even more to the base stats and the end result might be a much bigger change than we are destined to get now. But why not just get it all out of the way now? Absorb a full freighter revamp that puts freighters on the same field as every other ship in the game. That way, we adapt to the big change (tears and all), but future rebalancing efforts would be at the margin and akin to the rebalancing associated with other ship classes.
Again, apologies to those that may have logically answered why this was a bad in the past. I know it's frustrating to have the same argument over and over. But that was when changes to freighters were just pipe dreams from people who wanted something for nothing. We're obviously past that point now and dealing with the reality that some change is probably imminent. The question is: do we want a half measure or should we just progress to putting freighters on the same level as all other ships in the game? |
|
Esur A'saw Ti
Wont To Buy
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 07:17:00 -
[581] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
Whats daft is people think 30 freighters getting ganked a month constitutes "out of control ganking".
This is entirely the fault of highsec bears, you nerfed yourselves.
Are you trolling or just terrible reading comprehsion? Being able to kill a freighter with 10 cata in highsec is stupid, I couldn't care less if you could do it against autopilot freighters tho. It doesn't matter if it's only 30/month, imagine if you could easily kill jfs with 10 inty just camping gates with a "mobile jf interceptor 3000", people would complain because it's a bad design, same here. Risk vs reward, having options that doesn't require alts or corpmates (since moving a freighter is tedious and unfun) all that. |
Barton Breau
University of Caille Gallente Federation
34
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 07:17:00 -
[582] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: This means that Freighters can get significantly higher maximum capacity than before using rigs
Either someone correct my finger math or write up a paper what causes beancounting trump reason, trying to sell a 20% increase as "significantly higher". |
Abulurd Boniface
The Scope Gallente Federation
127
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 07:18:00 -
[583] - Quote
M'uva Wa'eva wrote: What would make the choices more meaningful, rather than set and forget choices like rigging, would be if they could be achieved via regular slots and modules like almost every other ship in Eve. Then I could choose to fly through hisec with increased cargo (but at the risk of reduced EHP), or choose to reduce my cargo (but increase my tank), or buff my agility when I plan to do lots of inter-station hauling (at the cost of reduced cargo and EHP). That would lead to a variety of choices I'd have to make every time I undock my freighter, which would, to be honest, make one of the boringest professions in eve slightly more interesting and thoughtful than the brain numbering state of logistics today for many people.
This is a very sensible trade off that would give true flexibility. If it was done like this I think all objections in this thread would simply evaporate.
|
Kosher Jew
5
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 07:20:00 -
[584] - Quote
o rly stop... after great f... idea with RML.. now this |
Akrasjel Lanate
Naquatech Conglomerate Naquatech Syndicate
1525
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 07:21:00 -
[585] - Quote
My Obelisk
You are nerfing JF, yet there is no nerf in there jump range why is that ? |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
690
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 07:21:00 -
[586] - Quote
Gumpy Bitterhawk wrote:Give me 1 good reason why a 6.5 billion isk ship (7.5 soon), wich needs a second account to be able to work (cynos) is in need of nerfing? Literally, 1 good reason? It costs half a ******* super as it is already.
You know, im not sure what i like more, the old ccp that didnt lissen to their members and changed stuff around slowly but fairly, or the new ccp that wants constant input from their members and then drasticly changes **** without there being any need for it...
I found this post pretty funny |
Mag's
the united
17253
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 07:23:00 -
[587] - Quote
Gumpy Bitterhawk wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Mag's wrote:Ahh so I was also correct and did in fact say this would happen. I shall now join the 'Told you so' group.
Always, always be careful what you wish for. i think we're getting some t-shirts made up. I think the 'I told you so' guys should start a new thread and start backpadding around in there, because its getting pretty annoying in this one. 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.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Mag's
the united
17253
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 07:24:00 -
[588] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Mag's wrote:Ahh so I was also correct and did in fact say this would happen. I shall now join the 'Told you so' group.
Always, always be careful what you wish for. i think we're getting some t-shirts made up. Put me down for one.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
corbexx
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
380
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 07:29:00 -
[589] - Quote
Alexander McKeon wrote:Fozzie, for the love of Bob, please undo those mass increases! Keep them under 1M mass so that they can still fit through an M555 or D792 wormhole between high class w-space and hisec. You have not presented ANY compelling balance reason whatsoever for preventing wormhole residents from using freighters. Mass is not just a component in the align time calculation, it is of vital concern for it's ability to access certain regions of space.
If this change goes through as proposed we're going to see a lot of freighters stuck in wormholes until they get a lowsec connection adjacent to high, making wormhole logistics even more painful than it already is, which is not needed at all.
Edit: After a few minutes thought, these changes seem aimed at preventing Titan-bridged freighters from becoming a more economical method of transport than JFs, but that's no reason to screw over wormhole folks. Increasing max jump mass on those holes isn't possible either, or caps would enter HS through them. You can either forbid freighters from using direct C5/C6 --> HS connections, or permit titans to bridge freighters cheaply; I urge you to pick the latter.
Thanks for this, I missed it as well but have raised the issue now.
Corbexx for CSM 9 - Wormholes deserve better |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
690
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 07:30:00 -
[590] - Quote
here's a compelling balance reason: wormholes are dumb |
|
Ghazbaran
Hyper Compu-Global MegaCorp
7
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 07:33:00 -
[591] - Quote
M'uva Wa'eva wrote:Co-founder of Black Frog checking in. I probably fly jump freighters as much as nearly anyone in Eve, and I'm not quite sure how I feel yet, despite the pages of comments that have gone before me!...
...What would make the choices more meaningful, rather than set and forget choices like rigging, would be if they could be achieved via regular slots and modules like almost every other ship in Eve. Then I could choose to fly through hisec with increased cargo (but at the risk of reduced EHP), or choose to reduce my cargo (but increase my tank), or buff my agility when I plan to do lots of inter-station hauling (at the cost of reduced cargo and EHP). That would lead to a variety of choices I'd have to make every time I undock my freighter, which would, to be honest, make one of the boringest professions in eve slightly more interesting and thoughtful than the brain numbering state of logistics today for many people.
I feel comfortable with this. Rigs feel too permanent. I agree with this. The balance would not feel so bad if we could choose what we fit before we undock and refit on the go depending on daily events. |
Zloco Crendraven
BALKAN EXPRESS Triumvirate.
582
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 07:39:00 -
[592] - Quote
JF are ruinng EVE. They should be nerfed eve more by not allowing them to jump drive in or out of lowsec. Nullsec alliances should rely on gathering resources in nullsec instead import everything from jita. BALEX is recruiting -----> tinyurl.com/oscmmlv |
Sipphakta en Gravonere
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
603
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 07:41:00 -
[593] - Quote
Esur A'saw Ti wrote: Are you trolling or just terrible reading comprehsion? Being able to kill a freighter with 10 cata in highsec is stupid, I couldn't care less if you could do it against autopilot freighters tho.
It's impossible to kill any freighter in high-sec with only 10 catalysts, assuming no war-dec or suspect flagging is involved.
Quote:It doesn't matter if it's only 30/month, imagine if you could easily kill jfs with 10 inty just camping gates with a "mobile jf interceptor 3000", people would complain because it's a bad design, same here. Risk vs reward, having options that doesn't require alts or corpmates (since moving a freighter is tedious and unfun) all that.
If freighter ganking was as easy and profitable as most carebears think it is, there would be a lot more people doing it. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11599
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 07:44:00 -
[594] - Quote
Esur A'saw Ti wrote:baltec1 wrote:
Whats daft is people think 30 freighters getting ganked a month constitutes "out of control ganking".
This is entirely the fault of highsec bears, you nerfed yourselves.
Are you trolling or just terrible reading comprehsion? Being able to kill a freighter with 10 cata in highsec is stupid, I couldn't care less if you could do it against autopilot freighters tho. It doesn't matter if it's only 30/month, imagine if you could easily kill jfs with 10 inty just camping gates with a "mobile jf interceptor 3000", people would complain because it's a bad design, same here. Risk vs reward, having options that doesn't require alts or corpmates (since moving a freighter is tedious and unfun) all that.
You numbers are out on how many cats are needed to kill a freighter.
Its funny how you go on about how you shouldn't need alts or corpmates to fly a freighter yet rage about a fleet being needed to kill said freighter. You arnt getting your perfect safety and your quest to get it has just backfired in everyones face. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Kumiko Kawasumi
Helios Alliance Tactical Narcotics Team
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 07:49:00 -
[595] - Quote
Alter was ist das denn f++r ein schwules Update. Fuc king ccp noobs. 1bil. rigs for nix ..............lol. Wer sitzt da eigendlich und denkt sich sowas aus. Sind die alles bei CCP besoffen ?.
Die save and slow......................................
MFG |
Alexander McKeon
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
61
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 07:50:00 -
[596] - Quote
My suggestion would be to not put rigs on freighters, but to instead give them one or more subsystem slots. This accomplishes the goal of giving freighters limited customization while vastly simplifying the balance possibilities as compared to letting them equip traditional modules. Keep the base stats of freighters as they are, or slightly nerfed in the case of JFs if their power is being intentionally checked, then provide a series of freighter-specific subsystems each with associated trade-offs (+warp speed/ -cargo capacity or +capacity/-align time, etc) This would accomplish your goal of adding meaningful choices for freighter pilots to make, NOT require high investments in expensive capital rigs which cannot be cheaply swapped around, and avoid the requirement of an across-the-board freighter nerf so as to prevent them from excelling too much in any one area after rigs have been applied. |
Gumpy Bitterhawk
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 07:55:00 -
[597] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Gumpy Bitterhawk wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Mag's wrote:Ahh so I was also correct and did in fact say this would happen. I shall now join the 'Told you so' group.
Always, always be careful what you wish for. i think we're getting some t-shirts made up. I think the 'I told you so' guys should start a new thread and start backpadding around in there, because its getting pretty annoying in this one. 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.
|
Kumiko Kawasumi
Helios Alliance Tactical Narcotics Team
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 07:56:00 -
[598] - Quote
Nerv Fighter and JF super ccp, gz deppen.
Die save and slow..................
MFG |
Mag's
the united
17254
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 07:58:00 -
[599] - Quote
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.
But, we told you so.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Nex Killer
Drunk3n Industry
63
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 08:01:00 -
[600] - Quote
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. |
|
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......... |
|
Kaius Fero
45
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 09:39:00 -
[631] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote: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. I have to test this on SISI, but I'm pretty sure that I can bounce on 4-5 freighters at once preventing them to warp away. If more than 2-3 people do this, they could completely shut down a choke point as Uedama. It would be hilarious to do the bumping with a Prospect. |
Batolemaeus
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
103
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 09:47:00 -
[632] - Quote
Kaius Fero wrote:Dave Stark wrote: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. I have to test this on SISI, but I'm pretty sure that I can bounce on 4-5 freighters at once preventing them to warp away. If more than 2-3 people do this, they could completely shut down a choke point as Uedama. It would be hilarious to do the bumping with a Prospect.
Bannable offense mate. |
Oxide Ammar
121
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 09:48:00 -
[633] - Quote
At least if they want to to nerf cargo holds for freighters and JF they should look into material list of T2 rigs because they cost arm and leg to buy these. 2 x T2 cargo hold rigs worth 1.4 bill in Jita that means I'm buying another freighter to put it in my freighter so I get my old freighter back....Brilliant ! |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11604
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 09:51:00 -
[634] - Quote
Esur A'saw Ti wrote:baltec1 wrote:
You numbers are out on how many cats are needed to kill a freighter.
Its funny how you go on about how you shouldn't need alts or corpmates to fly a freighter yet rage about a fleet being needed to kill said freighter. You arnt getting your perfect safety and your quest to get it has just backfired in everyones face.
Are you trying to say that you can't kill a freighter in a 0.5 system with around 10 perfect cata pilots? LOL Thanks for confirming that your reading comprehension is indeed terrible, I said that SINCE flying a freighter is tedious, dull and boring (see that's a game design flaw) it's harder to rely on other people, in the same way that people use solocorps for industry because it's **** easy to steal bpos from a pos/hangar, this has nothing to do with your "moral" or what you think people should do, it's all about the inherent bad design of some part of eve. Is it too hard to understand? I wish I could explain stuff by making you press f1 And by the way, nice projecting I never lost a freighter and don't live in hs, even tho I use an alt to dodge the fw/concord mechanics (god bless metagaming, imirite guys). No need to be mad because I'm pointing out that your baby-tier risk averse "pvp" should go. tl;dr : buff freighters to make it impossible to suicide them in a small fleet that cost like 200m and is easy as **** to setup (see I'm ok with taloses), give a tanking malus to autopilot ships
I love when people with zero knolage of ganking shiptost about how how ganking is so easy and risk free. Tell us, if its so easy why are there so few kills considering the 500,000 to a million freighter trips made every month? Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Arianne Kass
Garoun Long-Term Capital Management
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 09:55:00 -
[635] - Quote
I don't think these changes will do much to nerf the big blue donut, but small PvP corps based out of NPC nullsec will be faced with higher operational costs. |
Esur A'saw Ti
Wont To Buy
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 09:59:00 -
[636] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: I love when people with zero knolage of ganking shiptost about how how ganking is so easy and risk free. Tell us, if its so easy why are there so few kills considering the 500,000 to a million freighter trips made every month?
Oh but I know about ganking, it's not rocket science you know (well maybe it is for you, you don't seems very smart, no offense) and the answer to that question is really simple : lots of people move valuable stuff in t1 haulers, making solo ganking more efficient than any fleet stuff.
Does that mean that we shouldn't change the math that allow a fleet of around 10 catalyst kill a freighter in 0.5 systems? My opinion is no, because it shouldn't happen, if you want to gank with a small fleet you have to use bigger ships.
It's called balance, I'm being objective you are not all you want is more RISK AVERSE PVP PRESS F1 ECKSDEE that's the part of eve that should go like most carebear gameplay.
Pls don't be upset because my logic and posting is superior. |
Haalabi
LOST IDEA C0VEN
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 10:00:00 -
[637] - Quote
it was good ... and now it will be tragic. GJ CCP .... easily guess that, not you fly those ships |
Sweet Times
Riptide Riot
2
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 10:02:00 -
[638] - Quote
this nerf and the fuel nerf and the reprocessing nerf all in 1 go This all makes moving anything around in game massively expensive and they want industry to spread out Maybe the pll in cpp should talk to each other to come up with a coherent plan or was it to spread out industry and make it **** expensive
|
Jitazan
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 10:03:00 -
[639] - Quote
Hi, now your changing freighters could you also look at the current situation of bumping freighters.
What i mean by this is when a 100mn stabber or mach just bumps a freighter 100k of gate the freighter pilot can not do any action against them can not log or they get pointed by a rookie ship alt with no skill points and nothing to lose, which keeps them aggressed they can keep them there all day till they either gank them or ransom them.
I feel this is completely unfair in the eve universe as there is 0 counter play there is nothing you can do in this situation other then die. What i would like to see is the the bumping char's go flashy after bumping for so long this way there is counter play the freighter pilot can get asssistance and they risk their shiny ships that just bump people. |
Steijn
Quay Industries
498
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 10:05:00 -
[640] - Quote
Batolemaeus wrote:Kaius Fero wrote:Dave Stark wrote: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. I have to test this on SISI, but I'm pretty sure that I can bounce on 4-5 freighters at once preventing them to warp away. If more than 2-3 people do this, they could completely shut down a choke point as Uedama. It would be hilarious to do the bumping with a Prospect. Bannable offense mate.
whats bannable? bumping? |
|
Steijn
Quay Industries
498
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 10:08:00 -
[641] - Quote
Kaius Fero wrote:Dave Stark wrote: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. I have to test this on SISI, but I'm pretty sure that I can bounce on 4-5 freighters at once preventing them to warp away. If more than 2-3 people do this, they could completely shut down a choke point as Uedama. It would be hilarious to do the bumping with a Prospect.
uedama/sivala/niarja, wouldnt take much. |
Ammzi
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
1762
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 10:10:00 -
[642] - Quote
Esur A'saw Ti wrote:baltec1 wrote: I love when people with zero knolage of ganking shiptost about how how ganking is so easy and risk free. Tell us, if its so easy why are there so few kills considering the 500,000 to a million freighter trips made every month?
Oh but I know about ganking, it's not rocket science you know (well maybe it is for you, you don't seems very smart, no offense) and the answer to that question is really simple : lots of people move valuable stuff in t1 haulers, making solo ganking more efficient than any fleet stuff. Does that mean that we shouldn't change the math that allow a fleet of around 10 catalyst kill a freighter in 0.5 systems? My opinion is no, because it shouldn't happen, if you want to gank with a small fleet you have to use bigger ships. It's called balance, I'm being objective you are not all you want is more RISK AVERSE PVP PRESS F1 ECKSDEE that's the part of eve that should go like most carebear gameplay. Pls don't be upset because my logic and posting is superior.
You can't kill a freighter in highsec with just 10 catalysts. Please prove me wrong. |
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
293
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 10:11:00 -
[643] - Quote
Not that I'm entertaining the whole idea as a good one, but my first question is: why rigs? If the argument to support this notion of adding fitting ability to freighters and JFs is to permit more choices in how they are used, then why use rigs which are much more costly to replace and/or refit than traditional modules? Rigs are a much more permanent choice in fitting than other modules. Using rigs in this case means the freighter pilot must throw often millions of isk each time they want to alter the fit in the future. If I had to pick between the two, low slots would offer that same "choices" feature without being nearly as costly in regards to changing and tweaking fits. |
Cyrek Ohaya
Perkone Caldari State
11
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 10:16:00 -
[644] - Quote
My experience with JFs is that they jump from HS to LS and then to Null without any risk whatsoever, they don't even need align time to do it, what's the trouble then, use an ordinary freighter for highsec. |
Steijn
Quay Industries
500
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 10:20:00 -
[645] - Quote
Cyrek Ohaya wrote:My experience with JFs is that they jump from HS to LS and then to Null without any risk whatsoever, they don't even need align time to do it, what's the trouble then, use an ordinary freighter for highsec.
then why do they die in LS and Null? |
Heather Namron
Viziam Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 10:23:00 -
[646] - Quote
With the reduction to base cargo hold size, the amount of capital cargo bays required to build a freighter should go down right? |
Aiphona
The Scope Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 10:25:00 -
[647] - Quote
This is not a rebalance!!
This is a nerf!!!
I have to buy 2 T2 Cargohold rigs for over a Billion Isk to get the same cargo space back on my JF!!! And then it aligns 16 seconds slower then before!!
Why!!!!!!
I hate these hidden nerfs that CCP only uses as an ISK sink because they need more money. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1526
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 10:26:00 -
[648] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:
If the goal is flexibility for a ship, and the result is a major overhaul to base stats, why stop at rigs? Rigs are traditionally a secondary form of augmentation. Mods are where the real flexibility comes in.
Perhaps its baby steps. Rigs are maxed at 3 (or 2) and provide inherently small benefits with penalties. it would be far easier to do rigs than mods.
nano: +10% speed +15% agility for -20% tank...ok Cargo expander: 27.5% capacity -20% tank -10% speed...ok damage control: +100% tank, no penalties...wtf?!
the damage control has tremendous power on an Orca, and it would be the same for freighters. The move of more hp% into shield or armour would make me happier to see things like slots, but it'd have to be quite a lot.
Barton Breau wrote:
Either someone correct my finger math or write up a paper what causes beancounting trump reason, trying to sell a 20% increase as "significantly higher".
so if ur energy bills went up 20% in one go u wouldnt call that a significant?
Kaius Fero wrote: I have to test this on SISI, but I'm pretty sure that I can bounce on 4-5 freighters at once preventing them to warp away. If more than 2-3 people do this, they could completely shut down a choke point as Uedama. It would be hilarious to do the bumping with a Prospect.
do it. i am a freighter pilot.
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" |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
46
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 10:26:00 -
[649] - Quote
Ammzi wrote: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~
Sorry dude, most people can't take the nonsense of these forums long enough to debate every wish list topic that comes up. When CCP actually starts talking about it, the broader playerbase takes notice. So yeah, the microcosm of standard forum warriors may have been quite active about this topic dating back to when freighters were first introduced. But the only thing that really matters is the here and now. |
Arkon Olacar
Imperial Guardians Spaceship Samurai
346
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 10:28:00 -
[650] - Quote
It's like Fozzie has never actually played Eve Warping to zero |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
15576
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 10:28:00 -
[651] - Quote
Steijn wrote:Cyrek Ohaya wrote:My experience with JFs is that they jump from HS to LS and then to Null without any risk whatsoever, they don't even need align time to do it, what's the trouble then, use an ordinary freighter for highsec. then why do they die in LS and Null?
And, indeed, in HS "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!" |
Ammzi
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
1763
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 10:34:00 -
[652] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:
Sorry dude, most people can't take the nonsense of these forums long enough to debate every wish list topic that comes up. When CCP actually starts talking about it, the broader playerbase takes notice. So yeah, the microcosm of standard forum warriors may have been quite active about this topic dating back to when freighters were first introduced. But the only thing that really matters is the here and now.
Hah, the only reason I am here is because of Dev posts. Regardless of what we may feel about this change which is a blatant nerf to freighters (not saying it's bad or good) - if CCP's goal with this it to heavily disrupt and nerf the ability to haul in order to make local-industry businesses more successful then the majority of complains in this thread are moot.
Yes, freighters are being nerfed and have to choose one of several things, which they all have now on TQ, with slight enhancements to attributes if they are willing to cope with massive penalty to the rest. However the fuel consumption nerf, heavy JF nerf and general freighter nerf across the board just seems like a targeted effort to impact mobility of goods in all of EVE negatively. W-Space, lowsec, nullsec, highsec. All of it is affected by this, but I wish they would use more carrot and less stick.
|
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
46
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 10:35:00 -
[653] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Dirk MacGirk wrote:
If the goal is flexibility for a ship, and the result is a major overhaul to base stats, why stop at rigs? Rigs are traditionally a secondary form of augmentation. Mods are where the real flexibility comes in.
Perhaps its baby steps. Rigs are maxed at 3 (or 2) and provide inherently small benefits with penalties. it would be far easier to do rigs than mods. nano: +10% speed +15% agility for -20% tank...ok Cargo expander: 27.5% capacity -20% tank -10% speed...ok damage control: +100% tank, no penalties...wtf?!the damage control has tremendous power on an Orca, and it would be the same for freighters. The move of more hp% into shield or armour would make me happier to see things like slots, but it'd have to be quite a lot.
Perhaps baby steps isn't the proper route. I'm well aware that by fully revamping freighters may induce even deeper cuts of the base stats. But why not look at it holistically, the same way they look at every other ship in the game. Otherwise each babystep is just going to be met with the same level of back and forth "OMG its a nerf" and "LOL we told you so" that this change is getting. And for what? Rigs. Then going forward it will just be more forum crap about, "well, now that we've added rigs, how about mods?" If they are going to bother making changes then follow the suit of their other rebalancing initiatives and just do it right. This stinks of half-arsed |
Adunh Slavy
1396
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 10:35:00 -
[654] - Quote
CCP, all you had to do was increase the size of packaged caps. Instead you do something silly. Congrats. Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.-á-á- William Pitt |
Loki Feiht
Feiht Family Clan
188
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 10:35:00 -
[655] - Quote
I suppose this could set the stage for a new tech 2 freighter with a similar principle in mind to the old deep space transports (ie lower capacity but very tough) More NPC - Randomly Generated Modular Content-áthread https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=220858 |
Giullare
Insurgent New Eden Tribe RAZOR Alliance
40
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 10:38:00 -
[656] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
But yes, the fact that this is a small reduction in Jump Freighter power is completely intended.
Everytime u post something on this forum you bring bad news for players and dumb changes.
With actual capital rig cargo cost a rhea will end up with approx 93% of its actual cargo with 200 mil isk for a pair of t1 rigs and approx 102% of its actual cargo with a couple of t2 rigs for a cheap price of 1,45 bil. Well next time you come up with a fresh new idea, write it on a toilet paper... someone will have a better use of it.
|
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
46
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 10:40:00 -
[657] - Quote
Ammzi wrote:Dirk MacGirk wrote:
Sorry dude, most people can't take the nonsense of these forums long enough to debate every wish list topic that comes up. When CCP actually starts talking about it, the broader playerbase takes notice. So yeah, the microcosm of standard forum warriors may have been quite active about this topic dating back to when freighters were first introduced. But the only thing that really matters is the here and now.
Hah, the only reason I am here is because of Dev posts. Regardless of what we may feel about this change which is a blatant nerf to freighters (not saying it's bad or good) - if CCP's goal with this it to heavily disrupt and nerf the ability to haul in order to make local-industry businesses more successful then the majority of complains in this thread are moot. Yes, freighters are being nerfed and have to choose one of several things, which they all have now on TQ, with slight enhancements to attributes if they are willing to cope with massive penalty to the rest. However the fuel consumption nerf, heavy JF nerf and general freighter nerf across the board just seems like a targeted effort to impact mobility of goods in all of EVE negatively. W-Space, lowsec, nullsec, highsec. All of it is affected by this, but I wish they would use more carrot and less stick.
Agreed. I suppose if they spelled out their vision, which is oftentimes difficult for them, it may make more sense. Then again it may not or they might not have a real vision so they just go with a half-baked change that they can "iterate" on later (tm)
|
Oxide Ammar
121
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 10:42:00 -
[658] - Quote
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.
Good point. |
Loki Feiht
Feiht Family Clan
188
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 10:42:00 -
[659] - Quote
Steijn wrote:Kaius Fero wrote:Dave Stark wrote: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. I have to test this on SISI, but I'm pretty sure that I can bounce on 4-5 freighters at once preventing them to warp away. If more than 2-3 people do this, they could completely shut down a choke point as Uedama. It would be hilarious to do the bumping with a Prospect. uedama/sivala/niarja, wouldnt take much.
How about starting an initiative to start suicide ganking any type of freighter that passes, especially jf's? that should mess with things quite nicely if you get enough people. More NPC - Randomly Generated Modular Content-áthread https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=220858 |
marVLs
623
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 10:46:00 -
[660] - Quote
wow or lol? just to say those changes are that bad |
|
Steijn
Quay Industries
502
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 10:47:00 -
[661] - Quote
Loki Feiht wrote:Steijn wrote:Kaius Fero wrote:Dave Stark wrote: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. I have to test this on SISI, but I'm pretty sure that I can bounce on 4-5 freighters at once preventing them to warp away. If more than 2-3 people do this, they could completely shut down a choke point as Uedama. It would be hilarious to do the bumping with a Prospect. uedama/sivala/niarja, wouldnt take much. How about starting an initiative to start suicide ganking any type of freighter that passes, especially jf's? that should mess with things quite nicely if you get enough people.
er, im not a ganker, i was just pointing out that it wouldnt take much to stop freighters going from Jita to Amarr/Dixie/Hek etc |
Sweet Times
Riptide Riot
3
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 10:51:00 -
[662] - Quote
i Now know why you didnt make this anouncement at fanfest some1 would nhave decked you at the pubcrawl
|
Dave Stark
5741
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 10:53:00 -
[663] - Quote
Sweet Times wrote:i Now know why you didnt make this anouncement at fanfest some1 would nhave decked you at the pubcrawl
no they wouldn't. |
Tenchi Sal
White Knights of Equestria
199
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 10:54:00 -
[664] - Quote
its crap like this that makes me happy that in 2015 we're going to have a real choice other then eve. ccp is going to learn the hard way that they can get away with crapping over their customers all these years since they were the only true space based mmo that wasnt crap. come 2015, when the board of the director sits down to discuss the drop in numbers, ccp is going to learn a hard reality what it means to have competition.
i've been playing this game since 2005. if ccp can even drive away a long time and loyal customer, with their ****, oh man new player retention is going to be a big pain in the ass after star citizen comes out. |
soorajgk
India Corp
2
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 10:55:00 -
[665] - Quote
Any predictions on how redfrog and pushx going to charge per jump after the rebalance |
Dave Stark
5741
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 10:56:00 -
[666] - Quote
Tenchi Sal wrote:after star citizen comes out. yeah yeah, it's going to kill eve just like every other generic MMO was going to kill WoW. |
Digger Pollard
Why So Platypus
2
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 10:56:00 -
[667] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Sweet Times wrote:i Now know why you didnt make this anouncement at fanfest some1 would nhave decked you at the pubcrawl
no they wouldn't. I dunno about decking, but I would'we yelled something really obscene and insulting in a very loud voice. |
Arec Bardwin
1379
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 11:00:00 -
[668] - Quote
The logistics guys all over EVE feels CCP Fozzie's lovin, like a kick in the balls |
Dave Stark
5742
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 11:01:00 -
[669] - Quote
Digger Pollard wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Sweet Times wrote:i Now know why you didnt make this anouncement at fanfest some1 would nhave decked you at the pubcrawl
no they wouldn't. I dunno about decking, but I would've yelled something really obscene and insulting in a very loud voice. yeah, that would probably happen. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6334
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 11:02:00 -
[670] - Quote
I see we've reached physically threatening CCP employees. This thread is coming along nicely. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
|
Dave Stark
5742
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 11:04:00 -
[671] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:I see we've reached physically threatening CCP employees. This thread is coming along nicely. between 30 pages of negative feedback, smug posting, and now the threats... i'll be slightly surprised if there isn't a revision of the changes at some point. |
Laiannah Sahireen
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
73
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 11:06:00 -
[672] - Quote
I've supported and defended the dev team in pretty much every change they've made in quite some time, even when it negatively affected me or I really didn't personally like it.
This, however? This pisses me off. I put a hell of a lot of training into my Ark, it doesn't even hold that much (2nd smallest JF) and it cost me 6 billion isk. I bought it to help out my alliance with stuff they need from trade hubs and can't get easy access to.
Now, I have to pay another 1.5 billion isk to be able to carry on transporting the same unimpressive quantity of cargo? Or pay 160 mil to get nerfed *less* hard and still lose a bunch of armour HP?
Oh and of course lose that almost respectable align time that I had before. Because JFs were clearly evading gatecamps by insta-warping.
CCP, please please please think really hard about why you're making these nerfs. If it's some weird notion that you want everybody to produce everything locally like some kind of deep space farmers' market, then it's a really misguided one, because alliance like mine that are only a couple of hundred people can't produce *all* their own stuff, especially in lowsec, and actually be able to spend time doing the PVP we love. If you really think JFs are that overpowered, how about waiting for the results of your aggressive jump fuel price hike first, rather than nerfing agility, cargo AND HP all in one go?
Seriously, these are beautiful, specialised ships - please don't ruin them. |
Lisa Sophie d'Elancourt
Empusa.
4
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 11:06:00 -
[673] - Quote
No reason, no purpose, no value for game quality - just absurd nerf for the nerf. Very disappointing. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
690
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 11:09:00 -
[674] - Quote
Laiannah Sahireen wrote:I've supported and defended the dev team in pretty much every change they've made in quite some time, even when it negatively affected me or I really didn't personally like it.
This, however? This pisses me off. I put a hell of a lot of training into my Ark, it doesn't even hold that much (2nd smallest JF) and it cost me 6 billion isk. I bought it to help out my alliance with stuff they need from trade hubs and can't get easy access to.
Now, I have to pay another 1.5 billion isk to be able to carry on transporting the same unimpressive quantity of cargo? Or pay 160 mil to get nerfed *less* hard and still lose a bunch of armour HP?
Oh and of course lose that almost respectable align time that I had before. Because JFs were clearly evading gatecamps by insta-warping.
CCP, please please please think really hard about why you're making these nerfs. If it's some weird notion that you want everybody to produce everything locally like some kind of deep space farmers' market, then it's a really misguided one, because alliances like mine that are only a couple of hundred people can't produce *all* their own stuff, especially in lowsec, and actually be able to spend time doing the PVP we love. If you really think JFs are that overpowered, how about waiting for the results of your aggressive jump fuel price hike first, rather than nerfing agility, cargo AND HP all in one go?
Seriously, these are beautiful, specialised ships - please don't ruin them.
... JFs are evading gatecamps, yes. they evade all forms of pvp. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
47
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 11:10:00 -
[675] - Quote
Laiannah Sahireen wrote:
Seriously, these are beautiful, specialised ships - please don't ruin them.
I run Anshars and they are ugly as hell, but I try not to zoom in close enough to see anyway |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6334
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 11:10:00 -
[676] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:I see we've reached physically threatening CCP employees. This thread is coming along nicely. between 30 pages of negative feedback, smug posting, and now the threats... i'll be slightly surprised if there isn't a revision of the changes at some point.
Yeah, the threats, that certainly won't make them dig their heels in.
But as for a revision, I should hope so, the mass changes royally screw over wormhole players, as has been mentioned earlier. Which is likely intended to nerf Titans bridging in T1 freighters instead of using JFs.
My suggestion instead would be to just nerf Titan bridges. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Ammzi
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
1765
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 11:10:00 -
[677] - Quote
Maybe if Fozzie would like to edit the OP with a few paragraphs of their reasoning for this?
|
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
516
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 11:12:00 -
[678] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:I see we've reached physically threatening CCP employees. This thread is coming along nicely.
Are you genuinely surprised? Or whatelse do you expect to happen after this kind of "introduction of encouragements and incentives"? Makes me genuinely wonder if Fuzzie already has started digging his bunker.
EVE is real, right. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11611
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 11:16:00 -
[679] - Quote
Ammzi wrote:Maybe if Fozzie would like to edit the OP with a few paragraphs of their reasoning for this?
The reason is easy.
People asked for the rigs. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
140
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 11:16:00 -
[680] - Quote
my words fail me....Fozzy are you so out of touch with your game? i'm sorry but this changes are ********; yea, that's the right word;
you are making freighter/jf more easy to gank in a game where you can kill a 7 bil ship just for lol with several t1 destroiers? where is the "balance" in that? where is the well known "risk vs reward" slogan you tossing around so proud? you are basically nerfing all freighter lass so baddly that they need to fit cargo rigs after this, those making them easy to gank; not only that but shifting the hull/armor/shield ratio, even if one fit for ehp the result wil be a massive ner;
i've been playing this game for some time now; 10 years; but i'm really start to feel that i don't belong here; that i don't recognize this game; well maybe it's me getting to old... but really, this should be an "industry patch" buff and you are nefing the core of the industrial ships??? let me ask again: how out of touch are you with this game? maybe you think pvp is everything for this game, but by this changer you even nerf the entire pvp for the small benefit of some of the "pvpers" aka gankers;
and let me tell you another thing: if this goes life, i'll be out there ganking every freighter/jf i can; there is no need for me to spend my time doing anything else, this will be the most profitable and fun activity in the game; |
|
Arec Bardwin
1379
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 11:17:00 -
[681] - Quote
Ammzi wrote:Maybe if Fozzie would like to edit the OP with a few paragraphs of their reasoning for this?
An updated tally of amount of tears collected so far would be nice as well. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21902
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 11:21:00 -
[682] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:I was looking forward to the ADDED CHOICE these changes would bring, but instead they REMOVE CHOICE[GǪ] 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 You have plenty of choice for all three slots. There is nothing that says you must return to the old carrying capacity, and 2+ù T1 gets you close enough without the massive cost. You choose to dictate that you must get back to the old values on two slots alone. That is your choice. You can make a different one.
Axe Coldon wrote:That is absurd. Nerf the normal freighters cargo I don't care. but getting 500k in a jf is not too much. Seeing as JFs are often presented as offering a problematic ease of use and ease of logistics even in the 300k range, 500k certainly seems like it would stray into the GÇ£too muchGÇ¥ category. I fully understand that it also makes them stray into the GÇ£very nice to have since they can now do stuff you normally need a freighter forGÇ¥ territory, but if anything, that just furthers the argument that it is too much.
Dave Stark wrote:Dirk MacGirk wrote:Freighters were fine. yes they were. i'm personally hoping for a CCP 180 and say "yeah we'll leave freighters alone, but this is what balance looks like... be careful what you wish for". i doubt it will happen, though. so on a more realistic level; i think they should at least knock it down to large rigs (justification: orca) if they're not going to scrap these changes. That would be glorious and a lesson for the ages (that will be forgotten by July).
Freighters being fine was the argument against this change all along since they were very good in every aspect they needed to be good in. But no, GÇ£player choiceGÇ¥ and GÇ£sacrificing a for bGÇ¥ (read: increasing the m-¦ and ignore what it would cost) was hammered home as much better to have than a spectacularly well-rounded 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. |
Eto Tekai
Basgerin Pirate
57
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 11:23:00 -
[683] - Quote
Bad changes CCP. Please revise this and do not remove any HP. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6334
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 11:26:00 -
[684] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:I see we've reached physically threatening CCP employees. This thread is coming along nicely. Are you genuinely surprised? Or whatelse do you expect to happen after this kind of "introduction of encouragements and incentives" and with this fine (backstabbing, murdering, smacking, stealing and Destroy-Destroy-Destroy-screaming horde of cave dwellers? Makes me genuinely wonder if Fuzzie already has started digging his bunker. EVE is real, right. We probably get what we deserve and in turn CCP gets what they deserve for it. All nicely balanced in my opinion.
So, tell me something.
Why do all of you people who advocate real life violence in response to actions in a videogame always use the "EVE is real" line?
Is that some kind of justification to you, or what? "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Laiannah Sahireen
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
75
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 11:27:00 -
[685] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Laiannah Sahireen wrote: Oh and of course lose that almost respectable align time that I had before. Because JFs were clearly evading gatecamps by insta-warping. .
... JFs are evading gatecamps, yes. they evade all forms of pvp.
Good thing you quoted my entire post to reply to that one line - editing is hard, huh?
But seriously, despite trying to be objectionable and smug, you're supporting my point. JFs either avoid PVP completely, or they're caught like a beached whale if the pilot makes a mistake. Nerfing the align time won't make any difference to this - it will just make the daily routines of a JF pilot even more tedious. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21902
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 11:36:00 -
[686] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:If the goal is flexibility for a ship, and the result is a major overhaul to base stats, why stop at rigs? Rigs are traditionally a secondary form of augmentation. Mods are where the real flexibility comes in.
I recognize that could mean CCP does even more to the base stats and the end result might be a much bigger change than we are destined to get now. But why not just get it all out of the way now? Absorb a full freighter revamp that puts freighters on the same field as every other ship in the game. That way, we adapt to the big change (tears and all), but future rebalancing efforts would be at the margin and akin to the rebalancing associated with other ship classes.
Again, apologies to those that may have logically answered why this was a bad in the past. You already hit on the reason: because it would basically mean reducing the ships to rubble and building them up from there. Their base stats would be horrible and people would ragequit over the nerfs in droves. The problem is that you have to balance for the extreme scenario, which means that the more reasonable ones always end up worse than before.
You have to adjust cargo with the guy who fills the lows and rig slots with nothing but cargo expansion in mind; you have to adjust tank with the guy who fills them with nothing but tank in mind; you have to adjust travel speed with the guy who fills them with speed mods in mind. The guy who wants a balance between cargo and agility and tank will end up with something that is mediocre in all three and which does not stack up to the old ships' capabilities because the overall baseline had to come down to compensate for those extremist fits.
I mean, yes, in a sense you're right. If they want to do it, they should just go all out, but that means freighters as we know them will be completely gone and a vastly different ship class will come in their place. Personally, I was always in the GÇ£don't nerf my freighterGÇ¥ camp so I would prefer to see them remain as they are, and with a fitted freighter class being added as a new (generally worse, but contextually better) option. 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. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
693
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 11:40:00 -
[687] - Quote
Laiannah Sahireen wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:Laiannah Sahireen wrote: Oh and of course lose that almost respectable align time that I had before. Because JFs were clearly evading gatecamps by insta-warping. .
... JFs are evading gatecamps, yes. they evade all forms of pvp. Good thing you quoted my entire post to reply to that one line - editing is hard, huh? But seriously, despite trying to be objectionable and smug, you're supporting my point. JFs either avoid PVP completely, or they're caught like a beached whale if the pilot makes a mistake. Nerfing the align time won't make any difference to this - it will just make the daily routines of a JF pilot even more tedious.
not disagreeing. I'm only objecting to these changes because they aren't a proper gigantic real nerf like I wanted. I find it amusing hearing JF owners go on about how unfair this is and how hard they have things. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
516
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 11:43:00 -
[688] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:I see we've reached physically threatening CCP employees. This thread is coming along nicely. Are you genuinely surprised? Or whatelse do you expect to happen after this kind of "introduction of encouragements and incentives" and with this fine (backstabbing, murdering, smacking, stealing and Destroy-Destroy-Destroy-screaming horde of cave dwellers? Makes me genuinely wonder if Fuzzie already has started digging his bunker. EVE is real, right. We probably get what we deserve and in turn CCP gets what they deserve for it. All nicely balanced in my opinion. So, tell me something. Why do all of you people who advocate real life violence in response to actions in a videogame always use the "EVE is real" line? Is that some kind of justification to you, or what?
I can be a very liberal person when it comes to that. "Real" includes not only fluffy-plushy Pony land, but also the rather ... unpleasant sides of humans. Do you (you and CCP) want tell me that we should live our darker sides in EVE while having Hello Kitty in RL? That's delusional.
It's not like I endorse or approve of violence, but how goes this lovely proverb again? What goes around, comes around, right? And if such violence were to happen, there are appropriate tools to deal with in RL. Nicely balanced, don't you think?
|
Lara Divinity
Seles Deep Space Industries Order of the Exalted
2
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 11:43:00 -
[689] - Quote
played this game for the past 9 months now n all i c n hear is stuff beein nerfed an tbh just leave things the way they are instead of making things worse...or actually start fixing existing problems instead of adding more. i am currently training for a freighter cos i needed the cargo space to haul stuff to base but now im even doubting to get one since it wont be much use anymore cargo goes down hp goes down everything goes down but u can add rigs worth as much as the ship itself to have the same like prepatch pffft just leave the damm freighters alone and actually fix existing problems first instead of creating new ones! the way this game is goin really dissapoints me and just will end up n me and a whole bunch of other players leaving this game bcause its gettin to a point where achieving anything or training for somthing becomes tottally pointless. hooray i can fly a freighter but if i want som decent cargo space i gotta spend another 1.5bill and then have a glass ship that a few catalysts can shoot right out of space there goes 3 billion
stop making things worse n call it improvement this nerf sux and is tottally not fair to all jumpfreighter and freigther owners they had a good ship n get somthing ****** in return but oh u can spend 1.5 bill to have one stat improved are u fkin kiddin me ccp
like somebody else said b4 all i will c happening is player base dropping n venturing to new games whit less nerfing n rebalancing
if u dont know how to make things better then just leave them as they are instead of making things worse!!! thumbs down this time...doubt if eve will survive another decade |
Laiannah Sahireen
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
75
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 11:43:00 -
[690] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote: I'm only objecting to these changes because they aren't a proper gigantic real nerf like I wanted. I find it amusing hearing JF owners go on about how unfair this is and how hard they have things.
Translation: "I want massive nerfs to things that other people fly, but not what I fly. People upset about massive investments of time and isk being nerfed are automatically wrong"
That's cool - good to make it nice and clear you're not capable of intelligent discussion early in the encounter. Won't bother replying further. |
|
The Ironfist
Nordgoetter Northern Associates.
16
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 11:46:00 -
[691] - Quote
Worst devpost since WiS... 4% more cargo on a Jumpfreighter if you use T2 rigs? But in turn you loss tons of agility tons of tank and you have to invest an extra 2 bill for these rigs... And what do you get? 4%? Really? It should be 4% more with T1 rigs and more like 15-20% with T2.. Seriously how is this balance. Jumpffreighters are going to be as easy to gank as freighters are right now. |
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Brothers of Tangra
23
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 11:47:00 -
[692] - Quote
Are you going to rebalance the Fuel usage of the jf's now that they all have very similar cargo?
the extra expense of the rhea was justified by it being able to carry an extra battle ship compared to the other races, now that's no longer the case, the extra fuel expense isn't justified, and needs rebalancing too.
Also, Why do 3 races of JF get a 4% boost to max cargo while the rhea gets a 1.2% boost? Its Racism against Caldari logistics
If the cargo is going to be reduced by 2.8% the fuel usage should be reduced by 2.8% too |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6336
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 11:49:00 -
[693] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote: I can be a very liberal person when it comes to that. "Real" includes not only fluffy-plushy Pony land, but also the rather ... unpleasant sides of humans. Do you (you and CCP) want tell me that we should live our darker sides in EVE while having Hello Kitty in RL? That's delusional.
I think that adults should leave the game, in the game.
And if they can't manage to separate pixels from real life then they should be removed from this community with extreme prejudice.
Quote: It's not like I endorse or approve of violence, but how goes this lovely proverb again? What goes around, comes around, right? And if such violence were to happen, there are appropriate tools to deal with in RL. Nicely balanced, don't you think?
I don't think that any action taken in a videogame warrants a real life response. None. No matter how far it may go in the game, taking it to real life is inexcusable. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
693
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 11:49:00 -
[694] - Quote
Laiannah Sahireen wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote: I'm only objecting to these changes because they aren't a proper gigantic real nerf like I wanted. I find it amusing hearing JF owners go on about how unfair this is and how hard they have things. Translation: "I want massive nerfs to things that other people fly, but not what I fly. People upset about massive investments of time and isk being nerfed are automatically wrong" That's cool - good to make it nice and clear you're not capable of intelligent discussion early in the encounter. Won't bother replying further.
you're pretty terrible. I benefit from JFs just like anyone else, even though I don't own one. it's called having friends. I don't know why you're going into butthurt mode. |
Ray Kyonhe
Ray's Relentless Research Special Circumstances Alliance
13
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 11:56:00 -
[695] - Quote
Querns wrote:Jump freighter usage is all about cargo, cargo, cargo. Increasing your cargo reduces the number of trips you have to make, period, which serves to both reduce the amount of fuel you consume and the amount of time you spend running cargo. You know, you can easly reduce number of jumps other way: by reducing amounts of goods you are really have to transfer. Like, by creating some industry infrastructure and fill the market right on the spot. And I think this is what devs want to tell us by this change (and I hope there will be others like that in future). |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
516
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 11:56:00 -
[696] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote: I can be a very liberal person when it comes to that. "Real" includes not only fluffy-plushy Pony land, but also the rather ... unpleasant sides of humans. Do you (you and CCP) want tell me that we should live our darker sides in EVE while having Hello Kitty in RL? That's delusional.
I think that adults should leave the game, in the game. And if they can't manage to separate pixels from real life then they should be removed from this community with extreme prejudice. Quote: It's not like I endorse or approve of violence, but how goes this lovely proverb again? What goes around, comes around, right? And if such violence were to happen, there are appropriate tools to deal with in RL. Nicely balanced, don't you think?
I don't think that any action taken in a videogame warrants a real life response. None. No matter how far it may go in the game, taking it to real life is inexcusable.
That is your opinion. However, what do you suggest how we can let CCP constantly feel the same threatening sensation they want to expose us (not PVPers, but those who make PVP happen and don't get rewarded for it)? |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
516
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 11:59:00 -
[697] - Quote
Laiannah Sahireen wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:[quote=Laiannah Sahireen] Oh and of course lose that almost respectable align time that I had before. Because JFs were clearly evading gatecamps by insta-warping. . ... JFs are evading gatecamps, yes. they evade all forms of pvp.
Uhm ... how long have you not been playing EVE? Or checked a killboard? Or flown a JF, for that matter? |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
693
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 12:01:00 -
[698] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Laiannah Sahireen wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:[quote=Laiannah Sahireen] Oh and of course lose that almost respectable align time that I had before. Because JFs were clearly evading gatecamps by insta-warping. . ... JFs are evading gatecamps, yes. they evade all forms of pvp. Uhm ... how long have you not been playing EVE? Or checked a killboard? Or flown a JF, for that matter?
people manage to mess up flying pvp-immune ships just like people mess up using the quote button |
Mag's
the united
17260
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 12:05:00 -
[699] - Quote
Let's be clear here, the changes suck and we 'told you so' crowd agree they suck. But many many asked for them, over and over. But this in no way justifies RL threats. Just as no game action does.
Shame on you, if you think otherwise.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
TheButcherPete
Incompertus INC Fatal Ascension
437
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 12:06:00 -
[700] - Quote
The 35 pages of "THIS IS A TERRIBLE IDEA" in less than 24hours should prompt you to not have this change, Fozzie.
This thread is destroying every bit of the love that the community gained has for you recently. I've never once thought of saying "Kick his ass off the devteam" but I did today. That is terrible.
Also, thanks for completely invalidating the Low-Grade Nomad set I bought. THE KING OF EVE RADIO
If EVE is real, does that mean all of us are RMTrs? |
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6339
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 12:07:00 -
[701] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:
That is your opinion. However, what do you suggest how we can let CCP constantly feel the same threatening sensation they want to expose us (not PVPers, but those who make PVP happen and don't get rewarded for it)?
Since it looks like you're trying to stand on a soapbox and start the "PvP couldn't happen without us" argument, I'll just tell you ahead of time that it's not true.
The wonderful thing about capitalism is that the market balances itself out.
But as to your question, how about, if you're tired of being a prey animal, you start flying combat ships? That's the best part about a video game compared to real life.
In real life, if you're born a deer, you're a prey animal for life. In a videogame, you can just decide one day that you aren't going to be a prey animal anymore. You can't really complain about not being able to inflict damage back if you keep on deciding to be someone else's food.
But if you're suggesting that, because what you chose to do in a videogame got nerfed that you are somehow entitled to visit real life punishment against the game developers, then you are a waste of breath. If that's what you meant, then your entitlement is sickening and you should be banned from this game. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
142
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 12:11:00 -
[702] - Quote
What's the CSM opinion?
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6339
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 12:15:00 -
[703] - Quote
gascanu wrote:What's the CSM opinion?
The one I saw that posted here said they'll have to bring up that the changes as they stand screw up wormholes a bit with the mass changes. While they are intended to hurt the Titan bridging of regular freighters to stop people getting around the JF nerf, they do prevent people from getting into the HS wormholes of a C5/C6.
Otherwise, I haven't seen much. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Ray Kyonhe
Ray's Relentless Research Special Circumstances Alliance
13
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 12:16:00 -
[704] - Quote
Lara Divinity wrote:stop making things worse n call it improvement
It is improvement, in fact. Improvement to integrity of nullsecs' economical and political environment. It should be another bit of incentive to start building a real infrastracture here, and to apply more effort to its protection. Not just haul down all the stuff from Jita while investing nothing you would be afraid to loose in your current region of dislocation.
Lara Divinity wrote: the way this game is goin really dissapoints me and just will end up n me and a whole bunch of other players leaving this game
This never gets old
|
Wulfy Johnson
NorCorp Security
42
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 12:17:00 -
[705] - Quote
My god, you are on fire towards cronos fozzie..
I belive i will take upon me a new ganking hobby after this buff hits.
1 lowslot would have made a world of difference in choosing abilitys without this total makeover which will leave 90% of hisec haulers unrigged due to cost, 7% cargo fitted and the last 3 tanked, yes its a wildguess, but all in all, ganking will be very profitable from now on. |
Abulurd Boniface
The Scope Gallente Federation
128
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 12:22:00 -
[706] - Quote
Sweet Times wrote:i Now know why you didnt make this anouncement at fanfest some1 would nhave decked you at the pubcrawl
Anyone who physically abuses a dev or threatens to do so has lost their way and they should remove themselves from the community.
Joining EVE and the marvellous universe of opportunity it offers is a privilege. The people building it are incredibly smart and they give us a plethora of options to join the conversation. I am indignant to read someone would even consider violence over a difference of opinion.
If you come here, at least act as if you're worth it. |
Migui X'hyrrn
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
100
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 12:24:00 -
[707] - Quote
I am amazed by the amount of tears/threats that are posted in this thread considering that freighters / jump freighters are peaceful ships :D |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1528
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 12:28:00 -
[708] - Quote
Migui X'hyrrn wrote:I am amazed by the amount of tears/threats that are posted in this thread considering that freighters / jump freighters are peaceful ships :D
the most vicious and explosive players have always been carebears. 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" |
Axe Coldon
Coldon Enterprises Axion Bionics
32
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 12:42:00 -
[709] - Quote
Cyrek Ohaya wrote:My experience with JFs is that they jump from HS to LS and then to Null without any risk whatsoever, they don't even need align time to do it, what's the trouble then, use an ordinary freighter for highsec.
You must not use a JF. It makes the transition back to high sec. To do that it jumps to low sec and then has to go thru a high sec gate like everyone else..and there it can get ganked. There is the risk. Because you warp to 0 and jump its near impossible to get you on the low sec side. They do the high sec gank thing.
In jumping out of null/npc stations there is risk though not as much as before. Certain stations have almost no zero range at undock. What they do is wait above the station with a bumping ship and bubblers (null). You undock and they bump you away from zero while the guy puts a bubble up so you can't jump and you are bumped so you can't get back in. Then drop in the killing fleet and you are dead. No it doesn't happen much but it does. Just pointing out there is risk in cyno'ing.
and sometimes jf's go into systems with no stations. with a ship 1/3 to 1/2 the cost of a super is it to much to ask for a high slot to put in a cloaking module.
Eve tries to be real in a sense. but if it was real I would commission one of the major manufacturers for a bigger jf with the ability to modify it. The equivalent in game would be low med and high slots available.
I don't care so much about the freighter nerf as I do the jump freighter. When I get to high sec from null I transfer the load to a normal freighter (since the t3 battle cruisers were added to the game). So my Charon's will be fit for max agility and ehp. as long as they have a cargo capacity of a jf that is fine with me. But its insane that 10,000 years in the future they haven't figured out how to mount even 1 gun on a freighter. No modules no modifications. A big floating coffin. Well I would ask for increased jump range..hell I could think of lots of things.
It would never happen but increase the jump range to the same as a carrier. That offsets the bitter taste of nerfing some. On a long trip can save a cyno. Doesn't' save fuel or fix cargo but a 3 cyno jump is better then a 4 cyno jump.
And if you are going to nerf the core cargo hold they should be cheaper to make.
It kills me that people want the core logistics nerfed to the point they can wipe everything out and no one can function in high. Eve exists because of high sec. If there never was a High sec Eve would have died out long long ago. The brilliance of the developers of eve was having a High Low Null. You kill High you Kill EVE! And that is "I told you so"
You need a Council of Interstellar Industry and Mining. Made of of people in that profession not those that want to kill them.
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
693
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 12:43:00 -
[710] - Quote
Axe Coldon wrote:Cyrek Ohaya wrote:My experience with JFs is that they jump from HS to LS and then to Null without any risk whatsoever, they don't even need align time to do it, what's the trouble then, use an ordinary freighter for highsec. You must not use a JF. It makes the transition back to high sec. To do that it jumps to low sec and then has to go thru a high sec gate like everyone else..and there it can get ganked. There is the risk. Because you warp to 0 and jump its near impossible to get you on the low sec side. They do the high sec gank thing. In jumping out of null/npc stations there is risk though not as much as before. Certain stations have almost no zero range at undock. What they do is wait above the station with a bumping ship and bubblers (null). You undock and they bump you away from zero while the guy puts a bubble up so you can't jump and you are bumped so you can't get back in. Then drop in the killing fleet and you are dead. No it doesn't happen much but it does. Just pointing out there is risk in cyno'ing. and sometimes jf's go into systems with no stations. with a ship 1/3 to 1/2 the cost of a super is it to much to ask for a high slot to put in a cloaking module. Eve tries to be real in a sense. but if it was real I would commission one of the major manufacturers for a bigger jf with the ability to modify it. The equivalent in game would be low med and high slots available. I don't care so much about the freighter nerf as I do the jump freighter. When I get to high sec from null I transfer the load to a normal freighter (since the t3 battle cruisers were added to the game). So my Charon's will be fit for max agility and ehp. as long as they have a cargo capacity of a jf that is fine with me. But its insane that 10,000 years in the future they haven't figured out how to mount even 1 gun on a freighter. No modules no modifications. A big floating coffin. Well I would ask for increased jump range..hell I could think of lots of things. It would never happen but increase the jump range to the same as a carrier. That offsets the bitter taste of nerfing some. On a long trip can save a cyno. Doesn't' save fuel or fix cargo but a 3 cyno jump is better then a 4 cyno jump. And if you are going to nerf the core cargo hold they should be cheaper to make. It kills me that people want the core logistics nerfed to the point they can wipe everything out and no one can function in high. Eve exists because of high sec. If there never was a High sec Eve would have died out long long ago. The brilliance of the developers of eve was having a High Low Null. You kill High you Kill EVE! And that is "I told you so" You need a Council of Interstellar Industry and Mining. Made of of people in that profession not those that want to kill them.
none of this works if you aren't absolutely awful. it's all avoidable. |
|
Ray Kyonhe
Ray's Relentless Research Special Circumstances Alliance
13
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 12:49:00 -
[711] - Quote
I just can't believe how many people can't put aside their prejudice (which flourishes on fat lands of being accustomed to conviniences of fully supply all your needs on highsecs market like any other highsec carebear) and see in those changes what are they really are
gascanu wrote:ll a 7 bil ship just for lol with several t1 destroiers? where is the "balance" in that? where is the well known "risk vs reward" slogan you tossing around so proud? It is right there. Now it's cost more to haul things down from highsecs, and you should think about making them on spot really seriously. By doing so you will get less transport spending and hassles ("profit"), but someone can ruin your infrastructure("risk").
gascanu wrote: but really, this should be an "industry patch" buff and you are nefing the core of the industrial ships??? let me ask again: how out of touch are you with this game?
And now it should be clear why it IS part of industry patch to, shoudn't it? |
Ray Kyonhe
Ray's Relentless Research Special Circumstances Alliance
13
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 12:54:00 -
[712] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:
none of this works if you aren't absolutely awful. it's all avoidable.
But many people are convinced that if you isn't able to do something in a few mouse clicks and without spending any effort on precautions and taking some risk, than this is unbearably hard to accmoplish and should be buffed immediately.
|
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
3436
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 12:57:00 -
[713] - Quote
I still say the nerfs had nothing to do with the addition of rigs and the 'told you so' crowd is missing this point intentionally just to harvest more tears. Firs came the nerfs and to sell them as (semi-)boosts rigs were thrown in. Under this point of view the changes suddenly become logical. Sovereignty and Population New Mining Mechanics |
Dave Stark
5752
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 13:03:00 -
[714] - Quote
Abrazzar wrote:I still say the nerfs had nothing to do with the addition of rigs and the 'told you so' crowd is missing this point intentionally just to harvest more tears. Firs came the nerfs and to sell them as (semi-)boosts rigs were thrown in. Under this point of view the changes suddenly become logical.
if they wanted to nerf freighters they would have just nerfed them. they didn't need to "sell it" by adding rigs. |
Axe Coldon
Coldon Enterprises Axion Bionics
32
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 13:04:00 -
[715] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Axe Coldon wrote:Cyrek Ohaya wrote:My experience with JFs is that they jump from HS to LS and then to Null without any risk whatsoever, they don't even need align time to do it, what's the trouble then, use an ordinary freighter for highsec. You must not use a JF. It makes the transition back to high sec. To do that it jumps to low sec and then has to go thru a high sec gate like everyone else..and there it can get ganked. There is the risk. Because you warp to 0 and jump its near impossible to get you on the low sec side. They do the high sec gank thing. In jumping out of null/npc stations there is risk though not as much as before. Certain stations have almost no zero range at undock. What they do is wait above the station with a bumping ship and bubblers (null). You undock and they bump you away from zero while the guy puts a bubble up so you can't jump and you are bumped so you can't get back in. Then drop in the killing fleet and you are dead. No it doesn't happen much but it does. Just pointing out there is risk in cyno'ing. and sometimes jf's go into systems with no stations. with a ship 1/3 to 1/2 the cost of a super is it to much to ask for a high slot to put in a cloaking module. Eve tries to be real in a sense. but if it was real I would commission one of the major manufacturers for a bigger jf with the ability to modify it. The equivalent in game would be low med and high slots available. I don't care so much about the freighter nerf as I do the jump freighter. When I get to high sec from null I transfer the load to a normal freighter (since the t3 battle cruisers were added to the game). So my Charon's will be fit for max agility and ehp. as long as they have a cargo capacity of a jf that is fine with me. But its insane that 10,000 years in the future they haven't figured out how to mount even 1 gun on a freighter. No modules no modifications. A big floating coffin. Well I would ask for increased jump range..hell I could think of lots of things. It would never happen but increase the jump range to the same as a carrier. That offsets the bitter taste of nerfing some. On a long trip can save a cyno. Doesn't' save fuel or fix cargo but a 3 cyno jump is better then a 4 cyno jump. And if you are going to nerf the core cargo hold they should be cheaper to make. It kills me that people want the core logistics nerfed to the point they can wipe everything out and no one can function in high. Eve exists because of high sec. If there never was a High sec Eve would have died out long long ago. The brilliance of the developers of eve was having a High Low Null. You kill High you Kill EVE! And that is "I told you so" You need a Council of Interstellar Industry and Mining. Made of of people in that profession not those that want to kill them. none of this works if you aren't absolutely awful. it's all avoidable.
Not true. IF they lay in wait..put you on contact and all your alts and are out to get you..the high sec gank will happen. If someone is bound and determined to kill your jf in high there is nothing you can do. Yes dying in null is avoidable. I never undock without eye's on the station. but in high..they logoff at the gate and use alts to spot you.
|
Ammzi
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
1766
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 13:07:00 -
[716] - Quote
Axe Coldon wrote:
Not true. IF they lay in wait..put you on contact and all your alts and are out to get you..the high sec gank will happen. If someone is bound and determined to kill your jf in high there is nothing you can do. Yes dying in null is avoidable. I never undock without eye's on the station. but in high..they logoff at the gate and use alts to spot you.
What if the... unthinkable happened? You know, like... The JF jumped out of highsec when he started getting bumped because of these vicious people? If you always have an exit cyno ready in highsec I can guarantee you it is almost 99 % impossible to get ganked. The only thing I could remotely think about is 20 insta-locking tornados and even THAT is extremely rare. You'll need like 10 b+ of cargo or made the wrong people really mad. |
Kelsi Monroe
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 13:09:00 -
[717] - Quote
Arkon Olacar wrote:It's like Fozzie has never actually played Eve
-+Doing logistics for a big corp/alliance? Pretty sure. Only someone with a complete ignorace of how boring logistics can be would propose this changes.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21906
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 13:13:00 -
[718] - Quote
Abrazzar wrote:I still say the nerfs had nothing to do with the addition of rigs and the 'told you so' crowd is missing this point intentionally just to harvest more tears. Firs came the nerfs and to sell them as (semi-)boosts rigs were thrown in. Under this point of view the changes suddenly become logical. It just as logical the other way around, and more parsimonious too since they could just nerf stuff if they wanted to without any need to sell anything. 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. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1531
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 13:14:00 -
[719] - Quote
Kelsi Monroe wrote:Arkon Olacar wrote:It's like Fozzie has never actually played Eve -+Doing logistics for a big corp/alliance? Pretty sure. Only someone with a complete ignorace of how boring logistics can be would propose this changes.
and yet freighter pilots have been proposing it for years. 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" |
Ray Kyonhe
Ray's Relentless Research Special Circumstances Alliance
13
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 13:16:00 -
[720] - Quote
Axe Coldon wrote:[quote=Cyrek Ohaya]
You must not use a JF. It makes the transition back to high sec. To do that it jumps to low sec and then has to go thru a high sec gate like everyone else..and there it can get ganked. There is the risk. Because you warp to 0 and jump its near impossible to get you on the low sec side. They do the high sec gank thing.
In jumping out of null/npc stations there is risk though not as much as before. Certain stations have almost no zero range at undock. What they do is wait above the station with a bumping ship and bubblers (null). You undock and they bump you away from zero while the guy puts a bubble up so you can't jump and you are bumped so you can't get back in. Then drop in the killing fleet and you are dead. No it doesn't happen much but it does. Just pointing out there is risk in cyno'ing.
What you laid out here is just means that - like any other capitall type ship - it isn't a solo one. If you have an alt scout, or a friend of yours, you will be at least able to avoid these dangers. And if you have an armed escort, you can just break through. It all hardly can be percieved as argument.
|
|
Kelsi Monroe
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 13:33:00 -
[721] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Kelsi Monroe wrote:Arkon Olacar wrote:It's like Fozzie has never actually played Eve -+Doing logistics for a big corp/alliance? Pretty sure. Only someone with a complete ignorace of how boring logistics can be would propose this changes. and yet freighter pilots have been proposing it for years.
Freighter pilots can-¦t write devlogs.
Also this isn-¦t going to hit only freighter pilots. Industrial changes are risky, these changes are just dumb. And there are many CiFi games coming out in the last quarter of the year that doesn-¦t involve hauling s*** in the most boring mechanic posible while risking 60Gé¼ (+cargo) in virtual pixels. |
Batolemaeus
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
116
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 13:41:00 -
[722] - Quote
Quote: Seagull: Enablers are the people who make the logistics for these large-scale things actually work. They are people who run mad spreadsheets to organize production lines for war efforts, they are people who manage roles and membership of big corporations and alliances, they build tools to do different tasks. And we kind of have a history of treating these people likeGǪ****. We put these people through a lot of painful, unnecessary work.
Seagull: The approach that I want to take, is that if we look at these people and design exciting things for them, and make their lives less like hell doing the things they want to do anyway, that will create all kinds of interesting dynamics in EVE Online as a world.
CSM Winter 2012 Summit Minutes |
Ray Kyonhe
Ray's Relentless Research Special Circumstances Alliance
13
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 13:53:00 -
[723] - Quote
Kelsi Monroe wrote:Also this isn-¦t going to hit only freighter pilots. Industrial changes are risky, these changes are just dumb. And there are many CiFi games coming out in the last quarter of the year that doesn-¦t involve hauling s*** in the most boring mechanic posible while risking 60Gé¼ (+cargo) in virtual pixels. Then don't haul them. If no one will be willing to haul them, your alliance will think about building them on spot, at last. Thats your readiness to spend hours of your life on this boring stuff that makes it far more profitable to supply all corporation/alliance's needs from jita for your CEOs, and not to invest something in local infrastracture and risk those investments while deciding to participate in a war. That makes things rather boring than they could be down here.
|
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Brothers of Tangra
23
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 13:57:00 -
[724] - Quote
CCP FOZZIE
Are you going to rebalance the Fuel usage of the jf's now that they all have very similar cargo?
The extra Fuel expense of the Rhea was justified by it being able to carry an extra battle ship compared to the other races, now that's no longer the case, the extra fuel expense isn't justified, and needs rebalancing too.
Also, Why do 3 races of JF get a 4% boost to max cargo while the rhea gets a 1.2% boost? Its Racism against Caldari logistics
If the cargo is going to be affected by 2.8% compaired to the others. The fuel usage should be reduced by 2.8% too |
Vhelnik Cojoin
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
49
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 14:04:00 -
[725] - Quote
THIS IS A TERRIBLE IDEA !
(Copy-paste from an earlier post in the thread, as my views might not have been too obvious in my previous ramblings.)
The only possible justification for this idea is if CCP actually wants less industry in the game, not more. If the devs believe reducing mobility of bulky items like uncompressed ore will make people spread out more, while making logistics more risky as well (due to ease of suicide ganking), then all I can do is :faceplam:
Also, I never asked for this. Does this mean my freighter won't change? (Yeah, yeah...) Have you Communicated with your fellow capsuleers today? It is good for the EVE-oconomy and o-kay for you. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
410
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 14:05:00 -
[726] - Quote
Well these changes are part of the multiple different changes required to create local industry in 0.0. All these changes are changing the game massively and everybody will be affected.
Ignorant people claiming it was JF pilots asking for rigs are just being windup merchants and deserve a contempt filled stare and confirmation that they are very stupid, this is really pushing it to make industry local, which is what the big 0.0 alliances wanted, nothing to do with people wanting and not getting improved EHP for their freighters and Jump Freighters.
Its a bad change in terms of JF's and freighters, but for the goal that CCP is aiming at local industry in 0.0 it hits the spot, the problem is that for me is another kick in the nuts. Don't be a turd and follow the herd Instead be a Hero at Hub Zero |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21913
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 14:14:00 -
[727] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Ignorant people claiming it was JF pilots asking for rigs are just GǪstating facts, and are being met with abuse now as then when pointing out the obvious consequences.
Quote:this is really pushing it to make industry local, which is what the big 0.0 alliances wanted, nothing to do with people wanting and not getting improved EHP for their freighters and Jump Freighters. The big nullsec alliances weren't particularly fussed about industry being local GÇö they just wanted null industry to not be a thoroughly braindead proposition. The Crius changes will address that to some extent, but the main problem is that null industry can't be local. It relies on materials that can't be had locally, but which have to be imported from all over the place (via higsec).
This change makes such imports more annoying and will, if anything, concentrate industry more around the central trading hubs than before. Granted, in many cases it's thoroughly inefficient to import the materials rather than the final product regardless, so the effect will be fairly minor. 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. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
517
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 14:15:00 -
[728] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote: Its a bad change in terms of JF's and freighters, but for the goal that CCP is aiming at local industry in 0.0 it hits the spot, the problem is that for me is another kick in the nuts.
There has to and there are other way to improve and enable industry and self-sustainability in 00 sec. Ways that require a bit more thinking on CCP's and the player side, but that is too much to ask apparently. |
Vhelnik Cojoin
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
49
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 14:19:00 -
[729] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:There has to and there are other way to improve and enable industry and self-sustainability in 00 sec. Ways that require a bit more thinking on CCP's and the player side, but that is too much to ask apparently. Will be interesting to see if Mittens will ask his fellow Goons to venture forth and mine Veldspar in 0.0 for their supercap production, or if they still expect to import compressed ore from HiSec... Have you Communicated with your fellow capsuleers today? It is good for the EVE-oconomy and o-kay for you. |
Barton Breau
University of Caille Gallente Federation
34
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 14:21:00 -
[730] - Quote
Tippia wrote: The guy who wants a balance between cargo and agility and tank will end up with something that is mediocre in all three and which does not stack up to the old ships' capabilities because the overall baseline had to come down to compensate for those extremist fits.
That is not given, numbers can be tweaked and extremes accepted (like the new +20% cargo freighters).
|
|
Kelsi Monroe
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 14:29:00 -
[731] - Quote
Ray Kyonhe wrote:Kelsi Monroe wrote:Also this isn-¦t going to hit only freighter pilots. Industrial changes are risky, these changes are just dumb. And there are many CiFi games coming out in the last quarter of the year that doesn-¦t involve hauling s*** in the most boring mechanic posible while risking 60Gé¼ (+cargo) in virtual pixels. Then don't haul them. If no one will be willing to haul them, your alliance will think about building them on spot, at last. Thats your readiness to spend hours of your life on this boring stuff that makes it far more profitable to supply all corporation/alliance's needs from jita for your CEOs, and not to invest something in local infrastracture and risk those investments while deciding to participate in a war. That makes things rather boring than they could be down here.
Most of the items that players use are TII, in order to build TII you need material of all across the galaxy/server, are these materials going move by themselves to our local infrastructure?
I think giving a boost lo local production is a great idea, f***** freighter/JF pilots in the process isn-¦t. |
Ray Kyonhe
Ray's Relentless Research Special Circumstances Alliance
13
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 14:35:00 -
[732] - Quote
Kelsi Monroe wrote: Most of the items that players use are TII, in order to build TII you need material of all across the galaxy/server, are these materials going move by themselves to our local infrastructure?
Lets imagine for a second that you don't need to haul anything but those special material and components. No hulls, ammo, or minerals, available in your local space - nothing. Only those selected items you are absolutely need to import and can't gather them at home. Woulnd't it become even less of a hassle this way then it is now for logistics guys? |
Sorania Whiting
Souls of Steel SpaceMonkey's Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 14:46:00 -
[733] - Quote
Ty for this Changes
https://secure.eveonline.com/CancelSubscription.aspx https://secure.eveonline.com/CancelSubscription.aspx https://secure.eveonline.com/CancelSubscription.aspx https://secure.eveonline.com/CancelSubscription.aspx https://secure.eveonline.com/CancelSubscription.aspx https://secure.eveonline.com/CancelSubscription.aspx https://secure.eveonline.com/CancelSubscription.aspx https://secure.eveonline.com/CancelSubscription.aspx
makes it so much easyer to klick this link |
Sweet Times
Riptide Riot
4
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 14:46:00 -
[734] - Quote
Lets just all quit the game and let the ccp devs play the game on their own the can nerf the crap out of then all they like and nobody will care |
Sipphakta en Gravonere
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
605
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 14:48:00 -
[735] - Quote
I don't suppose you want to give your stuff away? If I'm wrong, just contract all to me, thanks! (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Kelsi Monroe
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 14:53:00 -
[736] - Quote
Ray Kyonhe wrote:Kelsi Monroe wrote: Most of the items that players use are TII, in order to build TII you need material of all across the galaxy/server, are these materials going move by themselves to our local infrastructure?
Lets imagine for a second that you don't need to haul anything but those special material and components. No hulls, ammo, or minerals, available in your local space - nothing. Only those selected items you are absolutely need to import and can't gather them at home. Woulnd't it become even less of a hassle this way then it is now for logistics guys?
The new industrial revamp increases manufacturing costs with each new work installed, even in null sec; so if you whant to make null industry worth it you won-¦t increase the cost of manufacturing (lets say) 1000munins (lol) manufacturing 1000 ruptures, so; where are this ships going to come from? And how?
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
411
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 14:53:00 -
[737] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Dracvlad wrote:Ignorant people claiming it was JF pilots asking for rigs are just GǪstating facts, and are being met with abuse now as then when pointing out the obvious consequences. Quote:this is really pushing it to make industry local, which is what the big 0.0 alliances wanted, nothing to do with people wanting and not getting improved EHP for their freighters and Jump Freighters. The big nullsec alliances weren't particularly fussed about industry being local GÇö they just wanted null industry to not be a thoroughly braindead proposition. The Crius changes will address that to some extent, but the main problem is that null industry can't be local. It relies on materials that can't be had locally, but which have to be imported from all over the place (via higsec). This change makes such imports more annoying and will, if anything, concentrate industry more around the central trading hubs than before. Granted, in many cases it's thoroughly inefficient to import the materials rather than the final product regardless, so the effect will be fairly minor.
That was a most amusing troll post, if you seriously believe all of that then I pity you... Don't be a turd and follow the herd Instead be a Hero at Hub Zero |
Priestess Lin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
116
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 14:58:00 -
[738] - Quote
Niko Lorenzio wrote:I love the fact that we will be able to customize the freighters now but being able to customize them to current or slightly better levels at a much higher cost doesn't make much sense. My basic observation of the numbers without doing any math maybe complete wrong but it looks like this is a major nerf. So the question is then, did freighters require a nerf? Were they too OP in the current form?
They are doing the same thing to the Rattlesnake. Drastic changes to a heavy SP intensive ship. The nerfs are more numerious than the buffs to that ship and totally unnecessary.
Clearly devs don't seem to understand the game and their players as well as they think they do. |
Vhelnik Cojoin
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
50
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 15:00:00 -
[739] - Quote
Ray Kyonhe wrote:Lets imagine for a second that you don't need to haul anything but those special materials and components. No hulls, ammo, or minerals, available in your local space - nothing. Only those selected items you are absolutely need to import and can't gather them at home. Woulnd't it become even less of a hassle this way then it is now for logistics guys? No, quite the contrary. The problem is not as much the materials you absolutely need to import in order to run your local production chains of *everything*.
If you *have* to produce as much as possible locally, then you risk loosing the economy of scale, gained when players specialize in manufacturing or collecting particular components or materials.
Access to the large trade hubs in Empire acts as buffers and insurance against scarcity of any bottlenecks in your supply pipeline. Your alliance T2 production won't suddenly grind to a halt, if the local PI enthusiasts decides to take a few weeks off.
Attempting to force as much as possible of the production of *everything* to be local by limiting ease of long distance logistics, would basically be the same as asking the players to do double effort on a *massive* scale. Meaning that it won't happen. It will just result in price increases across the board.
Time is money. Forcing players to do double effort for the same outcome means increased prices. Have you Communicated with your fellow capsuleers today? It is good for the EVE-oconomy and o-kay for you. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21916
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 15:02:00 -
[740] - Quote
Barton Breau wrote:That is not given, numbers can be tweaked and extremes accepted (like the new +20% cargo freighters).
That extreme isn't very extreme, for one, but its limiting factor was also able to be adjusted upwards. That is not always the case. In fact, I'd say that it's very rare that it's the case.
But even in your example, look at what those extremes have done: we accept a new upper bound for hauling volume that is 20% higher. That's effectively just one T2 rig. But look what they had to do to compensate for the fact that you can fit three rigs: the other two had to be completely swallowed up by the nerf.
And cargo is a very slight adjustment on the scale of things. Let's take the oft-mentioned DCII for instance. If you could fit one of those on a freighter, you'd almost triple its EHP, before we even fit anything else. That's so way over the top, and it comes so cheaply, that the baseline hull, shield, and armour values had to all come down to compensate so the end result GÇö should someone be so evil as to fit one GÇö would maybe only be that 20%. The mere possibility to fit a DCII requires hull HP to drop by nearly 50%.
Now do this same calculation across every statistic and every possibility and you'll end up with massive nerfs across the board. Of course, you have a limited amount of slots so you can't compensate for all of them GÇö at most you can push one up to the extreme value, or perhaps more sanely, you can push one up to its previous value and compensate a second one half-way. That just leaves every other stat on the ship worse off than before. 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. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21916
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 15:03:00 -
[741] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:That was a most amusing troll post, if you seriously believe all of that then I pity you... So I'm right then, seeing as how you can't present an argument to the contrary and have to go right for continue the ad hominems. 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. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
518
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 15:07:00 -
[742] - Quote
Vhelnik Cojoin wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:There has to and there are other way to improve and enable industry and self-sustainability in 00 sec. Ways that require a bit more thinking on CCP's and the player side, but that is too much to ask apparently. Will be interesting to see if Mittens will ask his fellow Goons to venture forth and mine Veldspar in 0.0 for their supercap production, or if they still expect to import compressed ore from HiSec...
Remains to be seen, but one of the CFC posters in this kind of threads (was it Grench?) said, they would not require their members to do this kind of labor. So ... go figure. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
411
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 15:07:00 -
[743] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Dracvlad wrote:That was a most amusing troll post, if you seriously believe all of that then I pity you... So I'm right then, seeing as how you can't present an argument to the contrary and have to go right for continue the ad hominems.
Well for example you said that null sec alliances were not asking for a buff in manufacturing, which is very very false, that one was so clearly a troll it was amusing, you actually trolled yourself on that one. Don't be a turd and follow the herd Instead be a Hero at Hub Zero |
Ray Kyonhe
Ray's Relentless Research Special Circumstances Alliance
14
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 15:10:00 -
[744] - Quote
Vhelnik Cojoin wrote: Attempting to force as much as possible of the production of *everything* to be local by limiting ease of long distance logistics, would basically be the same as asking the players to do double effort on a *massive* scale. Meaning that it won't happen. It will just result in price increases across the board.
Time is money. Forcing players to do double effort for the same outcome means increased prices.
Until someone will start to actually do what you refer to as infeasible and cut the prices, of course. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11621
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 15:14:00 -
[745] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Tippia wrote:Dracvlad wrote:That was a most amusing troll post, if you seriously believe all of that then I pity you... So I'm right then, seeing as how you can't present an argument to the contrary and have to go right for continue the ad hominems. Well for example you said that null sec alliances were not asking for a buff in manufacturing, which is very very false, that one was so clearly a troll it was amusing, you actually trolled yourself on that one.
Tippia did not say that. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Dave Stark
5755
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 15:15:00 -
[746] - Quote
considering there's always someone that says this regardless of what's been announced, i honestly don't think they care all that much. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
10160
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 15:15:00 -
[747] - Quote
Hey everyone. I haven't caught up on the entire thread yet (still working through page 19) but I wanted to quickly let you guys know that the mass values that were previously listed in the OP for freighters were a mistake on the forum post. We never changed the freighter mass values, and have no intention of preventing them from travelling through highsec wormholes.
The numbers are now corrected in the OP.
Ok, back to reading the rest of the thread. I'll let you guys know when I'm caught up. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11621
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 15:18:00 -
[748] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. I haven't caught up on the entire thread yet (still working through page 19) but I wanted to quickly let you guys know that the mass values that were previously listed in the OP for freighters were a mistake on the forum post. We never changed the freighter mass values, and have no intention of preventing them from travelling through highsec wormholes.
The numbers are now corrected in the OP.
Ok, back to reading the rest of the thread. I'll let you guys know when I'm caught up.
Odin help you. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21919
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 15:18:00 -
[749] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Well for example you said that null sec alliances were not asking for a buff in manufacturing So you decided to change from an ad hominem fallacy to a strawman fallacy. Yeah, I think I'll hang on to that GÇ£can't prove me wrong so applies fallacy insteadGÇ¥ interpretation because it's the only one that makes sense. 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. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6340
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 15:18:00 -
[750] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. I haven't caught up on the entire thread yet (still working through page 19) but I wanted to quickly let you guys know that the mass values that were previously listed in the OP for freighters were a mistake on the forum post. We never changed the freighter mass values, and have no intention of preventing them from travelling through highsec wormholes.
The numbers are now corrected in the OP.
Ok, back to reading the rest of the thread. I'll let you guys know when I'm caught up.
Excellent, thank you very much for that. Pretty sure a bunch of wormhole guys are in the hospital with heart attacks though. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21919
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 15:20:00 -
[751] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. I haven't caught up on the entire thread yet (still working through page 19) but I wanted to quickly let you guys know that the mass values that were previously listed in the OP for freighters were a mistake on the forum post. We never changed the freighter mass values, and have no intention of preventing them from travelling through highsec wormholes.
The numbers are now corrected in the OP.
Ok, back to reading the rest of the thread. I'll let you guys know when I'm caught up. Bah! Now I have to update my spreadsheets and everything will look much better. Stop ruining our complaintsGǪ wait what? 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. |
Delhaven
Vicis Inter Astrum I'd Rather Be Roaming
45
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 15:21:00 -
[752] - Quote
Just to make sure I've got this straight for Freighters (all numbers are rough and relative to current):
Option 1, 3 x cargo rigs: +70K m3 cargo, -12K EHP Option 2, 3 x warp speed rigs: +0.78 AU/sec, -210K m3 cargo, -9K EHP Option 3, 3 x hull HP rigs: +29K EHP, -250K m3 cargo Option 4, 1 x hull HP rig, 2 x cargo rigs: -40K m3 cargo
This is a nerf. You can slightly improve one stat, at a high cost to one other, or at a decrease in multiple stats. Maintaining the status quo for defense means a drop in cargo. So the question is whether this is as intended, like it is with Jump Freighters. |
Vhelnik Cojoin
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
50
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 15:23:00 -
[753] - Quote
Ray Kyonhe wrote:Until someone will start to actually do what you refer to as infeasible and cut the prices, of course. You mean similar to how local prices on the street go down in the real world, when local trade barriers go up?
I don't think so... Have you Communicated with your fellow capsuleers today? It is good for the EVE-oconomy and o-kay for you. |
Derath Ellecon
Washburne Holdings Situation: Normal
2242
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 15:24:00 -
[754] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. I haven't caught up on the entire thread yet (still working through page 19) but I wanted to quickly let you guys know that the mass values that were previously listed in the OP for freighters were a mistake on the forum post. We never changed the freighter mass values, and have no intention of preventing them from travelling through highsec wormholes.
The numbers are now corrected in the OP.
Ok, back to reading the rest of the thread. I'll let you guys know when I'm caught up.
Derath Ellecon wrote:Andrea Keuvo wrote:Odds that Fozzie posts in or even reads this thread again after today? Near zero I would bet. You really don't know Fozzie then do you? Given his history so far I'd bet a plex he keeps up on each and every one of the threads he has posted.
Knew I was right |
Dave Stark
5756
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 15:27:00 -
[755] - Quote
Derath Ellecon wrote:Knew I was right welcome to team 'i told you so', have a t-shirt. |
Theng Hofses
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
53
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 15:30:00 -
[756] - Quote
CargoholdIsotope/LJm3/isotope/LJDifference Nomad2700002700100 195000405048.14814815 Ark275625290095.043103455% 199000435045.747126445% Anshar281250310090.7258064510% 203000465043.6559139810% Rhea294375330089.2045454512% 207000495041.8181818215%
With the proposed changes the Rhea becomes even more uneconomical to use. As the premium to move a m3 with a Rhea increased from 12% to 15% over the Nomad. Also shouldn't the jump engines be equally efficient? |
Aiphona
The Scope Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 15:31:00 -
[757] - Quote
Giullare wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
But yes, the fact that this is a small reduction in Jump Freighter power is completely intended.
Everytime u post something on this forum you bring bad news for players and dumb changes. With actual capital rig cargo cost a rhea will end up with approx 93% of its actual cargo with 200 mil isk for a pair of t1 rigs and approx 102% of its actual cargo with a couple of t2 rigs for a cheap price of 1,45 bil. Well next time you come up with a fresh new idea, write it on a toilet paper... someone will have a better use of it.
^^ this
You are forcing JF pilots to buy 2 T2 rigs for 1.48 BILLION to have the same cargospace. And then also nerfing the already slow aligning JF with an extra 16 seconds more align time. This means high-sec ganking will get even more easier! they dont even need to bump it anymore with these align-times.
This is just not acceptable. We already had to pay almost 7 Billion for a Ship with already limited cargo-space. Why add the extra costs??? Why nerf it?? |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6340
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 15:31:00 -
[758] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Derath Ellecon wrote:Knew I was right welcome to team 'i told you so', have a t-shirt.
Hey, I thought we had agreed on a commemorative plaque? "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21923
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 15:31:00 -
[759] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Derath Ellecon wrote:Knew I was right welcome to team 'i told you so', have a t-shirt. Who do we lobby to get this in the NeX?
Aiphona wrote:You are forcing JF pilots to buy 2 T2 rigs for 1.48 BILLION to fly the SAME ship that aligns 16 seconds slower!! I had the same reaction first, but remember that they're giving base stats. Align time, in particular, drops dramatically once you factor in all the agility bonuses you collect on your way to JFs.
Look at this for where you end up with all-Vs. 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. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates RAZOR Alliance
430
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 15:34:00 -
[760] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. I haven't caught up on the entire thread yet (still working through page 19) but I wanted to quickly let you guys know that the mass values that were previously listed in the OP for freighters were a mistake on the forum post. We never changed the freighter mass values, and have no intention of preventing them from travelling through highsec wormholes.
The numbers are now corrected in the OP.
Ok, back to reading the rest of the thread. I'll let you guys know when I'm caught up.
It's good to see that you at least listen to the CSM advocate for WH's. This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |
|
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS type X
156
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 15:35:00 -
[761] - Quote
Ammzi wrote:
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~
The most important part of what you said was rigs AND MODS!!.
Are we getting mods so we get the flexibility we wanted at the cost of paying for rigs and mods....NO! Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6340
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 15:40:00 -
[762] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:Ammzi wrote:
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~
The most important part of what you said was rigs AND MODS!!. Are we getting mods so we get the flexibility we wanted at the cost of paying for rigs and mods....NO!
Why are you asking to get nerfed even further?
I mean, if they gave it even one lowslot they'd have to cut it's tank by about 40%. Nevermind everything else.
Or do you just not get it yet? You are not getting a net buff out of this. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Gumpy Bitterhawk
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 15:43:00 -
[763] - Quote
Loki Feiht wrote:I suppose this could set the stage for a new tech 2 freighter with a similar principle in mind to the old deep space transports (ie lower capacity but very tough)
So people need to have two 7billion isk ships to get their hauling (i mean work) done? Yeah sure that'll make it all easier lol. |
Dave Stark
5756
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 15:43:00 -
[764] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:You are not getting a net buff out of this. they are. they're only going to get it to 1 stat, not all of them. |
stoicfaux
4830
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 15:48:00 -
[765] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
The most important part of what you said was rigs AND MODS!!.
Are we getting mods so we get the flexibility we wanted at the cost of paying for rigs and mods....NO!
^^ this ^^
Modules mean we can make choices based on what we need to haul at the moment. Rigs, OTOH, are pretty inflexible.
WASABI: Warp Acceleration System Ancillary Boost Injected(Gäó)
|
Ammzi
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
1766
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 15:49:00 -
[766] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
Are we getting mods so we get the flexibility we wanted at the cost of paying for rigs and mods....NO!
I fear on behalf of all freighter pilots the day they can use a low slot module.
Take a watermelon, let it represent the ehp of a freighter. Now take an axe to the watermelon and you get to pick the smallest of the two sizes as your new freighter ehp after being given a low slot. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6340
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 15:52:00 -
[767] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
The most important part of what you said was rigs AND MODS!!.
Are we getting mods so we get the flexibility we wanted at the cost of paying for rigs and mods....NO!
^^ this ^^ Modules mean we can make choices based on what we need to haul at the moment. Rigs, OTOH, are pretty inflexible.
Pretty sure that was the point. That way you can't fit warp stabs. Or spend 700K with a DC 2 to vastly increase the effective hitpoints of the ship. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Buzz Dura
Epsilon Lyr Mordus Angels
9
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 15:52:00 -
[768] - Quote
without at least 2 T1 cargo rig, you can't transport CSAA or ihub...
|
Regan Rotineque
Arch Angels Assault Force The Kadeshi
325
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 15:54:00 -
[769] - Quote
what i dont understand is why you nerfed the freighters
could you not have left the stats the same and then built negative modifiers into the rigs?
that way i could fly the ship as is...OR..i could have real choice and nerf it myself
so i want extra hull - lose some cargo and align time i want more cargo - aling time that makes a dead snail look like an f1 racer pop a vap trimark on there - drop 10% cargo
i dont know what the actual penalties should be but you could make multiple penalties for using a specifc rig...sine its only capital rigs not many to modify...and then have those penalties affect only freighte/JF type ships
you could add specialized penalties to cap rigs for freighters and let US decide what is acceptable nerf
alternately you could do a fulll reblance and put slots on these and not just rigs
i think the best thing that can be done at this point is to withdraw these changes entirely and give this a rethink
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
10165
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 15:56:00 -
[770] - Quote
....And I'm caught up.
Ok thanks to the goodposters in this thread so far. I'll definitely be taking the feedback here into account.
As usual, a friendly reminder that death threats are generally a suboptimal way of convincing someone of the correctness of your perspective.
I'm seeing some good feedback about the unique role of Jump Freighters meaning that they don't get much benefit from rigs other than cargo rigs, and this is indeed a problem that limits player choice. I'm going to bring up a few ways to help solve that issue with the other designers early next week.
I do want to clarify that although it's very possible that a lot of these numbers can change, we're not going to simply give JFs a gigantic buff to their cargoholds and call it a day. The fast movement of goods across the galaxy has its advantages and also its disadvantages, and we are not going to simply let power creep get out of control in this area.
I'll be continuing to read this thread, chatting with the CSM and the other designers here and I'm confident we'll get to the best possible version of these changes.
Thanks! Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21925
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 15:56:00 -
[771] - Quote
Regan Rotineque wrote:what i dont understand is why you nerfed the freighters
could you not have left the stats the same and then built negative modifiers into the rigs? GǪthereby nerfing all capital ships rather than just balance freighters? Yeah, no. 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. |
Gamer4liff
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
88
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 15:59:00 -
[772] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: I'm seeing some good feedback about the unique role of Jump Freighters meaning that they don't get much benefit from rigs other than cargo rigs, and this is indeed a problem that limits player choice. I'm going to bring up a few ways to help solve that issue with the other designers early next week.
Three words: Fuel Consumption Rigs or Jump Range Rigs
There's literally no other meaningful choices to be had. |
Gumpy Bitterhawk
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 16:00:00 -
[773] - Quote
Buzz Dura wrote:without at least 2 T1 cargo rig, you can't transport CSAA or ihub...
Nice point. And what about high tier ihub upgrades? You already need a freighter to carry some of these, cause jf's holds are too small for those. |
Lair Osen
92
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 16:01:00 -
[774] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Regan Rotineque wrote:what i dont understand is why you nerfed the freighters
could you not have left the stats the same and then built negative modifiers into the rigs? GǪthereby nerfing all capital ships rather than just balance freighters? Yeah, no.
I think he means that the Rigs have inbuilt drawbacks already so why is an extra massive nerf needed? |
Aiphona
The Scope Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 16:01:00 -
[775] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Tippia wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:T1 rigs are easily enough to bring normal freighters above their current cargo values. Yes, but I fly a JF. I picked it because of its nippy align speed, good tank, and descent-enough cargo hold. I can restore one of those at a massive cost. Actually the tank on your JF is about the same as before, thanks to the extra resists. So you get one of the three for free! But yes, the fact that this is a small reduction in Jump Freighter power is completely intended.
Your not'"giving" anything if the tank is still the same. This is turning things around. All you did is TAKE the Agility and Cargospace away and make us pay 1.5 Billion to get 1 of those back. And that for a 7 Billion isk Ship.
|
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
809
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 16:02:00 -
[776] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:....And I'm caught up.
Ok thanks to the goodposters in this thread so far. I'll definitely be taking the feedback here into account.
As usual, a friendly reminder that death threats are generally a suboptimal way of convincing someone of the correctness of your perspective.
I'm seeing some good feedback about the unique role of Jump Freighters meaning that they don't get much benefit from rigs other than cargo rigs, and this is indeed a problem that limits player choice. I'm going to bring up a few ways to help solve that issue with the other designers early next week.
I do want to clarify that although it's very possible that a lot of these numbers can change, we're not going to simply give JFs a gigantic buff to their cargoholds and call it a day. The fast movement of goods across the galaxy has its advantages and also its disadvantages, and we are not going to simply let power creep get out of control in this area.
I'll be continuing to read this thread, chatting with the CSM and the other designers here and I'm confident we'll get to the best possible version of these changes.
Thanks!
any thoughts on the JF tanking bonuses i mentioned? Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
412
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 16:03:00 -
[777] - Quote
Tippia wrote:The big nullsec alliances weren't particularly fussed about industry being local GÇö they just wanted null industry to not be a thoroughly braindead proposition... .
Lets repeat what you said, your comment was actually trolling yourself, because improving industry in null sec means what? I know making it more effective to do it locally, so they have better refining and at last slots to do it.
The changes being imposed by Fozzie are in fact to make sure that null sec entities cannot use their new advantages to destroy hisec manufacturing because transport becomes an even bigger cost element and if the nullsec entities make their manufacturing closer to hisec then they can be disrupted.
While I don't like the impact for me, the actual change at the game balance level makes sense.
Don't be a turd and follow the herd Instead be a Hero at Hub Zero |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21925
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 16:04:00 -
[778] - Quote
Lair Osen wrote:I think he means that the Rigs have inbuilt drawbacks already so why is an extra massive nerf needed? It sounds like he wants more.
And still, that's an even simpler answer: because they have to keep the freighters balanced even after the bonuses that rigs will provide. 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. |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
809
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 16:05:00 -
[779] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Lair Osen wrote:I think he means that the Rigs have inbuilt drawbacks already so why is an extra massive nerf needed? It sounds like he wants more. And still, that's an even simpler answer: because they have to keep the freighters balanced even after the bonuses that rigs will provide.
are cargohold rigs stacking penalized? Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
694
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 16:06:00 -
[780] - Quote
Gamer4liff wrote: Jump Range Rigs
unsubbing all accounts |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21925
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 16:06:00 -
[781] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Lets repeat what you said GǪand notice that it is not even remotely what you claimed I said. That was just some nonsense you made up because you couldn't provide any kind of coherent point or counter-argument.
Quote:The changes being imposed by Fozzie are in fact GÇ£In fact?GÇ¥ What do you base that on?
Harvey James wrote:are cargohold rigs stacking penalized? Not as far as I know. They don't say anything to the effect and none of the fitting tools apply any such penalties. 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. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1531
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 16:07:00 -
[782] - Quote
Lair Osen wrote:Tippia wrote:Regan Rotineque wrote:what i dont understand is why you nerfed the freighters
could you not have left the stats the same and then built negative modifiers into the rigs? GǪthereby nerfing all capital ships rather than just balance freighters? Yeah, no. I think he means that the Rigs have inbuilt drawbacks already so why is an extra massive nerf needed?
if that is what he means then i would like to point out that the penalties on rigs are small and can further be halved by skills.
leaving the stats alone and just adding rigs slots is an absolute buff and power creep. Freighters dnt need buffs, and power creep is bad. 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" |
Regan Rotineque
Arch Angels Assault Force The Kadeshi
325
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 16:07:00 -
[783] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Regan Rotineque wrote:what i dont understand is why you nerfed the freighters
could you not have left the stats the same and then built negative modifiers into the rigs? GǪthereby nerfing all capital ships rather than just balance freighters? Yeah, no.
keep reading tippia
i said later that the penalties apply to freighter and jump freighter class vessels
|
Dave Stark
5756
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 16:07:00 -
[784] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Tippia wrote:Lair Osen wrote:I think he means that the Rigs have inbuilt drawbacks already so why is an extra massive nerf needed? It sounds like he wants more. And still, that's an even simpler answer: because they have to keep the freighters balanced even after the bonuses that rigs will provide. are cargohold rigs stacking penalized? not that i'm aware of. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
10167
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 16:09:00 -
[785] - Quote
Harvey James wrote: any thoughts on the JF tanking bonuses i mentioned?
It's an interesting idea, potentially combined with some other tank changes. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6340
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 16:09:00 -
[786] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Harvey James wrote:Tippia wrote:Lair Osen wrote:I think he means that the Rigs have inbuilt drawbacks already so why is an extra massive nerf needed? It sounds like he wants more. And still, that's an even simpler answer: because they have to keep the freighters balanced even after the bonuses that rigs will provide. are cargohold rigs stacking penalized? not that i'm aware of.
I also believe that the answer is no. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Regan Rotineque
Arch Angels Assault Force The Kadeshi
325
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 16:09:00 -
[787] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Lair Osen wrote:Tippia wrote:Regan Rotineque wrote:what i dont understand is why you nerfed the freighters
could you not have left the stats the same and then built negative modifiers into the rigs? GǪthereby nerfing all capital ships rather than just balance freighters? Yeah, no. I think he means that the Rigs have inbuilt drawbacks already so why is an extra massive nerf needed? if that is what he means then i would like to point out that the penalties on rigs are small and can further be halved by skills. leaving the stats alone and just adding rigs slots is an absolute buff and power creep. Freighters dnt need buffs, and power creep is bad.
penalties can be increased or skills not applied if necessary
the point of my post is to try to actually give some choice to the ship owner the current model is to nerf everyone...increase the price of the ships as you have to buy rigs to get back what you had im saying leave me what i had and let ME chose what nerf I want |
stoicfaux
4830
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 16:12:00 -
[788] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Pretty sure that was the point. That way you can't fit warp stabs. Or spend 700K with a DC 2 to vastly increase the effective hitpoints of the ship.
Or just prohibit DCs from being used on freighters.
The alternative, as you mentioned earlier, would be to reduce EHP by X% to compensate for the ability to mount a DC II so that freighters don't get a ridiculous tank buff. (But I really would not want to have to manually activate a DC after every jump, hence the suggestion to prohibit DCs on freighters.)
And WTF is wrong with putting warp stabs on a freighter?
Anyway, the point still stands; rigs aren't flexible enough to provide freighters with the desired level of customization based on what you're hauling at the time.
WASABI: Warp Acceleration System Ancillary Boost Injected(Gäó)
|
Pj Harvey
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
15
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 16:12:00 -
[789] - Quote
In an age where you can't autopilot through high sec without a good chance of being suicide ganked, you make freighters even more fragile?
I keep seeing a pattern these days in the changes you make, it's like you want everything to be more expensive and less durable, probably with the aim of selling more PLEX. |
Ammzi
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
1766
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 16:13:00 -
[790] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Harvey James wrote: any thoughts on the JF tanking bonuses i mentioned?
It's an interesting idea, potentially combined with some other tank changes.
Is the overall plan with these rebalances to buff local industry and make it difficult to export to highsec and vice versa? Usually a few paragraphs are posted in your rebalancing threads to review your reasoning, this thread seems to lack it. Care to elaborate a bit on the reasoning? I am sure people would be a bit more understanding then when they realize it's not the goal to end up with a net buff. |
|
Ammzi
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
1766
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 16:14:00 -
[791] - Quote
Pj Harvey wrote:In an age where you can't autopilot through high sec without a good chance of being suicide ganked, you make freighters even more fragile?
I keep seeing a pattern these days in the changes you make, it's like you want everything to be more expensive and less durable, probably with the aim of selling more PLEX.
What chance/risk? As long as you don't carry stupendous amounts of high value cargo then it's pretty unlikely for you to get ganked. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21925
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 16:15:00 -
[792] - Quote
Regan Rotineque wrote:keep reading tippia
i said later that the penalties apply to freighter and jump freighter class vessels That effectively means you're creating a completely separate rig class, which means you've now created more problems and balance issues through your solution. Is the creation of that problem worth it for solving your first perceived issue?
Like I said earlier in the thread, if a GÇ£solutionGÇ¥ cascades into new problems that have to have their own special unique tweaks and solutions, chances are that it's not a good solution to begin with, especially when there's already a perfectly serviceable way out.
Quote:the point of my post is to try to actually give some choice to the ship owner You have plenty of choice. The entire problem is that some people assumed all along that being given choice would itself come without a cost, but that was never going to happen GÇö choice itself is too valuable, and the full array of choices you can make have to fit in the overall balance of the game.
Quote:im saying leave me what i had and let ME chose what nerf I want This solution lets you do that. You're just unhappy with the size of the nerfs your choice leaves you with. 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. |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
102
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 16:15:00 -
[793] - Quote
Honestly, all of you people up in arms over this... there's something you should take into account that should give most of you pause in your opposition:
You are agreeing with Gevlon "I have never been right about anything in EVE, ever" Goblin.
Think about this, and hang your heads in shame. |
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS type X
157
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 16:17:00 -
[794] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Maldiro Selkurk wrote:Ammzi wrote:
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~
The most important part of what you said was rigs AND MODS!!. Are we getting mods so we get the flexibility we wanted at the cost of paying for rigs and mods....NO! Why are you asking to get nerfed even further? I mean, if they gave it even one lowslot they'd have to cut it's tank by about 40%. Nevermind everything else. Or do you just not get it yet? You are not getting a net buff out of this.
The ONLY people claiming I expected a net buff out of this is you and your kind. I expected them to set it up so that when you rigged and modded your freighter you could get it to exactly the same level of defense, maneuverability, capacity...etc...etc...etc as you do now. I even proposed freighter only rigs and mods to avoid unforeseeable consequences of adding rigs, lows, mids, and highs to freighters.
As i told another poster like yourself, please dont put words into my mouth I never said ("You are not getting a net buff out of this."). I know that speaking for both participants in an argument sure makes winning them easy and if people have let you get away with this cheap form of argumentation in the past I can assure you will not be repeating their mistake. Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11624
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 16:18:00 -
[795] - Quote
Pj Harvey wrote:In an age where you can't autopilot through high sec without a good chance of being suicide ganked, you make freighters even more fragile?
I keep seeing a pattern these days in the changes you make, it's like you want everything to be more expensive and less durable, probably with the aim of selling more PLEX.
We worked out that there are greater chances of you being struck by lightning in RL than getting ganked. Unless you do something silly like stuffing 10 billion in the hold. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6340
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 16:19:00 -
[796] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Pretty sure that was the point. That way you can't fit warp stabs. Or spend 700K with a DC 2 to vastly increase the effective hitpoints of the ship.
Or just prohibit DCs from being used on freighters. The alternative, as you mentioned earlier, would be to reduce EHP by X% to compensate for the ability to mount a DC II so that freighters don't get a ridiculous tank buff. (But I really would not want to have to manually activate a DC after every jump, hence the suggestion to prohibit DCs on freighters.)
And if they did that, it would be pretty much mandatory to put DC2s on your freighter, otherwise you can get ganked by 3 Vexors.
In such a case, why change anything? To make people feel better? Psh.
Quote: And WTF is wrong with putting warp stabs on a freighter?
If they were intended to have them, they would have lowslots. I for one, would be very happy if freighters (and especially jump freighters) were not invincible.
Quote: Anyway, the point still stands; rigs aren't flexible enough to provide freighters with the desired level of customization based on what you're hauling at the time.
Pretty sure they will never give you that option to tailor your freighters so thoroughly. Few enough of them die as it is without letting you freely refit for tank 2 jumps before Uedama or Perimeter. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
57
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 16:19:00 -
[797] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Tippia wrote:Lair Osen wrote:I think he means that the Rigs have inbuilt drawbacks already so why is an extra massive nerf needed? It sounds like he wants more. And still, that's an even simpler answer: because they have to keep the freighters balanced even after the bonuses that rigs will provide. are cargohold rigs stacking penalized?
No, neither are low slot cargo expanders |
Myst Valkyria
Red Frog Freight Red-Frog
11
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 16:26:00 -
[798] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:....And I'm caught up.
Ok thanks to the goodposters in this thread so far. I'll definitely be taking the feedback here into account.
As usual, a friendly reminder that death threats are generally a suboptimal way of convincing someone of the correctness of your perspective.
I'm seeing some good feedback about the unique role of Jump Freighters meaning that they don't get much benefit from rigs other than cargo rigs, and this is indeed a problem that limits player choice. I'm going to bring up a few ways to help solve that issue with the other designers early next week.
I do want to clarify that although it's very possible that a lot of these numbers can change, we're not going to simply give JFs a gigantic buff to their cargoholds and call it a day. The fast movement of goods across the galaxy has its advantages and also its disadvantages, and we are not going to simply let power creep get out of control in this area.
I'll be continuing to read this thread, chatting with the CSM and the other designers here and I'm confident we'll get to the best possible version of these changes.
Thanks!
So...no mention of how crippling these changes are to normal freighters? The freighter was never overpowered, nor has anyone ever complained that they were. They need a buff, not Sophie's Choice... |
Rhivre
TarNec Invisible Exchequer
741
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 16:26:00 -
[799] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:Honestly, all of you people up in arms over this... there's something you should take into account that should give most of you pause in your opposition: You are agreeing with Gevlon "I have never been right about anything in EVE, ever" Goblin. Think about this, and hang your heads in shame.
[Insert mumble about stopped clocks] Fluffy Bunny Pic! |
Regan Rotineque
Arch Angels Assault Force The Kadeshi
325
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 16:26:00 -
[800] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Regan Rotineque wrote:keep reading tippia
i said later that the penalties apply to freighter and jump freighter class vessels That effectively means you're creating a completely separate rig class, which means you've now created more problems and balance issues through your solution. Is the creation of that problem worth it for solving your first perceived issue? Like I said earlier in the thread, if a GÇ£solutionGÇ¥ cascades into new problems that have to have their own special unique tweaks and solutions, chances are that it's not a good solution to begin with, especially when there's already a perfectly serviceable way out. Quote:the point of my post is to try to actually give some choice to the ship owner You have plenty of choice. The entire problem is that some people assumed all along that being given choice would itself come without a cost, but that was never going to happen GÇö choice itself is too valuable, and the full array of choices you can make have to fit in the overall balance of the game. Quote:im saying leave me what i had and let ME chose what nerf I want This solution lets you do that. You're just unhappy with the size of the nerfs your choice leaves you with.
what i find amuzing about your post is that i would bet you either dont own, or even fly a freighter you probably have nothing to do with logistics or supplying your corp/alliance with goods and ships for an industrial themed release, kicking people who are responsible for these types of services that make everyones life in null better is a bit daft imho
no where did i say there should not be penalties for modifying a freighter or jump freighter....what i dont like is that they nerf the entire ship then force you to put back the parts you want. I prefer to start with the ship whole and if i want Leave it the way it was or choose to modify it. CCP is fond of saying risk vs reward these changes are 100% risk and 0% reward since all the changes do is increase the value of a km by addi expensive rigs to it |
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1531
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 16:29:00 -
[801] - Quote
Regan Rotineque wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:Lair Osen wrote:Tippia wrote:Regan Rotineque wrote:what i dont understand is why you nerfed the freighters
could you not have left the stats the same and then built negative modifiers into the rigs? GǪthereby nerfing all capital ships rather than just balance freighters? Yeah, no. I think he means that the Rigs have inbuilt drawbacks already so why is an extra massive nerf needed? if that is what he means then i would like to point out that the penalties on rigs are small and can further be halved by skills. leaving the stats alone and just adding rigs slots is an absolute buff and power creep. Freighters dnt need buffs, and power creep is bad. penalties can be increased or skills not applied if necessary the point of my post is to try to actually give some choice to the ship owner the current model is to nerf everyone...increase the price of the ships as you have to buy rigs to get back what you had im saying leave me what i had and let ME chose what nerf I want
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" |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6340
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 16:31:00 -
[802] - Quote
So, to everyone begging for a lowslot, have you actually considered the results of that?
The most likely mods to go there are a DC2, and a Cargo Expander 2. So for just one low slot you are paying for:
A ~24% cargo loss.
And a ~38% loss of tank.
For a single lowslot.
You would lose those things because, as Tippia mentioned, you have to account for both potential extremes in every potential case of what mod or rig might be fitted in there. They cannot under any circumstance be allowed to have more than a certain amount of cargo hold thanks to having to keep capitals out of highsec, and their tank can only be allowed to go so high.
So the more "options" you ask for, the more gets taken away overall by necessity. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Molic Blackbird
Orion Faction Industries Orion Consortium
130
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 16:34:00 -
[803] - Quote
Are Freighters and Jump Freighters also having their packaged volume increased to 1.3m m3? It would be nice to move freighters inside other freighters.
Will the maximum size of courier contracts be increased to meet the new maximum volume that freighters can carry?
Combining the two together would allow for courier contracts to be made for Freighters. |
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Brothers of Tangra
23
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 16:35:00 -
[804] - Quote
Any Thoughts on the Racist Fuel inbalance on the jump freighters? putting them all on the same level will balance some of the drawbacks of the buffs the others get |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21926
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 16:35:00 -
[805] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:The ONLY people claiming I expected a net buff out of this is you and your kind. I expected them to set it up so that when you rigged and modded your freighter you could get it to exactly the same level of defense, maneuverability, capacity...etc...etc...etc as you do now. GǪand as has been explained on multiple occasions now (as in the past), you will never be able to do that because the amount of nerfs required to properly balance all fitting combinations would by far outnumber what you'd be able to compensate for with a limited fitting space.
Regan Rotineque wrote:what i find amuzing about your post is that i would bet How much?
Quote:you either dont own, or even fly a freighter As has been made abundantly clear by now, I've been against this idea since the first time I saw it come up. Would you like to take a stab at guessing why that is?
Quote:what i dont like is that they nerf the entire ship then force you to put back the parts you want. Tough. That's the only way to do it that doesn't cascade into a whole new set of problems that is far bigger than the tiny grievance you're having. Either you use the existing systems GÇö which are largely based on adding bonuses to a less capable hull GÇö or you invent a completely new one that is specific to this one ship class, which does the exact opposite by adding penalties to a capable one. Since the latter is simply not worth it, we get the former, and that means the freighter hulls have to be made less capable.
It's really as simple as that. 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. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1531
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 16:36:00 -
[806] - Quote
Regan Rotineque wrote: CCP is fond of saying risk vs reward these changes are 100% risk and 0% reward since all the changes do is increase the value of a km by addi expensive rigs to it
Reward/Risk
Capacity / tank + speed tank / capacity + speed speed / capacity + tank 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" |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21928
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 16:39:00 -
[807] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Regan Rotineque wrote: CCP is fond of saying risk vs reward these changes are 100% risk and 0% reward since all the changes do is increase the value of a km by addi expensive rigs to it Reward/Trade off Capacity / tank + speed tank / capacity + speed speed / capacity + tank GǪand, hell, with the final numbers I'm seeing once you apply skills and more sensible (i.e. less extremist) fits, you sometimes don't even have to put two of those factors in the risk column. Depending on the final outcome, I may even ha spotted a few where you get two of them on the reward side of the calculationGǪ 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. |
Michael Mach
Nova Wolves RECURSIVE ASCENSION
14
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 16:40:00 -
[808] - Quote
Eanna Heart wrote:Fozzie pls go.
"I want to encourage industry in nullsec."
"Let's make nullsec logistics more costly, difficult, and risky."
This. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
413
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 16:42:00 -
[809] - Quote
In fact what is wrong in making the JF's and freighters have a low module each and so we can use a DCU II, the rigs are just a big annoyance and add a huge cost to what are already expensive ships. The changes to cargo capacity while hurting me make hisec industry more viable against null sec when the refining changes hit so why not. Don't be a turd and follow the herd Instead be a Hero at Hub Zero |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1532
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 16:43:00 -
[810] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:In fact what is wrong in making the JF's and freighters have a low module each and so we can use a DCU II,
oh i dunno... 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" |
|
Dave Stark
5760
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 16:44:00 -
[811] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:In fact what is wrong in making the JF's and freighters have a low module each and so we can use a DCU II, the rigs are just a big annoyance and add a huge cost to what are already expensive ships. The changes to cargo capacity while hurting me make hisec industry more viable against null sec when the refining changes hit so why not. because the resulting nerf in order to keep the ships balanced would drown us all in a sea of tears that's already close to overflowing. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6341
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 16:44:00 -
[812] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:In fact what is wrong in making the JF's and freighters have a low module each and so we can use a DCU II, the rigs are just a big annoyance and add a huge cost to what are already expensive ships. The changes to cargo capacity while hurting me make hisec industry more viable against null sec when the refining changes hit so why not.
You're assuming they are intending to buff Jump Freighters, rather than nerf them. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Brothers of Tangra
23
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 16:46:00 -
[813] - Quote
1 lowslot on the frighter would mean , dcu as tank, cargo expander as cargo, inertia stab for agility or nano or even a Capital AAR |
Wulfy Johnson
NorCorp Security
42
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 16:48:00 -
[814] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:So, to everyone begging for a lowslot, have you actually considered the results of that?
The most likely mods to go there are a DC2, and a Cargo Expander 2. So for just one low slot you are paying for:
A ~24% cargo loss.
And a ~38% loss of tank.
For a single lowslot.
You would lose those things because, as Tippia mentioned, you have to account for both potential extremes in every potential case of what mod or rig might be fitted in there. They cannot under any circumstance be allowed to have more than a certain amount of cargo hold thanks to having to keep capitals out of highsec, and their tank can only be allowed to go so high.
So the more "options" you ask for, the more gets taken away overall by necessity.
Assuming freighters are in such a good state as of today that nerfs are needed to allow them player chosen buffs.
Damage controll to get them trough risky systems or carrying around 4-5 t1 bs hulls, where the value has reached the grey area for ganking, cargo expanders when carrying ord and minerals or other high volume low value goods, inertia for house cleaning.
These nerfs are not needed as the ship wont get "overpowered" |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
413
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 16:48:00 -
[815] - Quote
Ncc 1709 wrote:1 lowslot on the frighter would mean , dcu as tank, cargo expander as cargo, inertia stab for agility or nano or even a Capital AAR
And is that a bad thing for a game that is paper rock scissors? Don't be a turd and follow the herd Instead be a Hero at Hub Zero |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1532
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 16:49:00 -
[816] - Quote
Ncc 1709 wrote:1 lowslot on the frighter would mean , dcu as tank, cargo expander as cargo, inertia stab for agility or nano or even a Capital AAR
one of these is disproportionately more powerful than the others. 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" |
Vhelnik Cojoin
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
51
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 16:50:00 -
[817] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:We worked out that there are greater chances of you being struck by lightning in RL than getting ganked. Unless you do something silly like stuffing 10 billion in the hold. Male bovine manure.
The average chance per year of getting hit by lightening for someone living in the US is around 1 in 500,000.
In EVE terms this means, that for the chances to just be equal, then there has to be an average of 500,000 freighter pilots active for each freighter killed by suicide ganks in EVE per year.
So with a total of 155 freighters and jump freighters killed just during the four days of Burn Jita 3, those losses alone would require a total of 155 * 500,000 = 77,500,000 individual (jump) freighter pilots being active in space at least once in a given year.
Then there are all the other suicide kills, like the ongoing CODEdot campaign in Isanamo, the russians and CFC in Niarja etc.
Somehow your statement seems just a tiny bit unlikely to be true... Have you Communicated with your fellow capsuleers today? It is good for the EVE-oconomy and o-kay for you. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21928
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 16:51:00 -
[818] - Quote
Ncc 1709 wrote:1 lowslot on the frighter would mean , dcu as tank, cargo expander as cargo, inertia stab for agility or nano or even a Capital AAR GǪput another way: a 50% nerf in base EHP; a 10GÇô15% nerf in base cargo capacity; a 10GÇô15% nerf in base agility; a 10GÇô15% nerf in base armour resists; probably a couple of capacitor nerfs, etc etc etc.
That's for one lowslot. I don't want to even begin to look at what would be required to accommodate two of 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. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
413
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 16:52:00 -
[819] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Ncc 1709 wrote:1 lowslot on the frighter would mean , dcu as tank, cargo expander as cargo, inertia stab for agility or nano or even a Capital AAR one of these is disproportionately more powerful than the others.
The DCU II of course, but it is a common perception that it is just too easy to gank freighters and Jump Freighters, except for the gankbears of course... Don't be a turd and follow the herd Instead be a Hero at Hub Zero |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6341
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 16:54:00 -
[820] - Quote
Wulfy Johnson wrote: Assuming freighters are in such a good state as of today that nerfs are needed to allow them player chosen buffs.
That's not an assumption. Cargohold can NOT be permitted above a certain level. Tank too. The agility can stand to be increased a bit, but it's the exception.
Quote: Damage controll to get them trough risky systems or carrying around 4-5 t1 bs hulls, where the value has reached the grey area for ganking, cargo expanders when carrying ord and minerals or other high volume low value goods, inertia for house cleaning.
These nerfs are not needed as the ship wont get "overpowered"
Yeah, it would become overpowered immediately. You would have to nerf each area that could be improved with a module, by only slightly less than the extreme of the module can provide a benefit.
Cargo expanders for example. The T2 can give 27.5% bonus, yes? So if they got a lowslot, they'd have to lose about 23% cargo to keep them under the capital carrying mark.
Same thing with tank. A DC2 would give it so much more EHP that it's overall tank would have to be nerfed close to 40% to compensate.
And in the end all you do is lose. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
|
Ray Kyonhe
Ray's Relentless Research Special Circumstances Alliance
14
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 16:54:00 -
[821] - Quote
Vhelnik Cojoin wrote:Ray Kyonhe wrote:Until someone will start to actually do what you refer to as infeasible and cut the prices, of course. You mean similar to how local prices on the street go down in the real world, when local trade barriers go up? I don't think so... More like someone will make additional efforts locally you don't want to do yourself and win the market. |
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS type X
157
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 17:00:00 -
[822] - Quote
Ammzi wrote:Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
Are we getting mods so we get the flexibility we wanted at the cost of paying for rigs and mods....NO!
I fear on behalf of all freighter pilots the day they can use a low slot module. Take a watermelon, let it represent the ehp of a freighter. Now take an axe to the watermelon and you get to pick the smallest of the two sizes as your new freighter ehp after being given a low slot.
Thanks, this is exactly what I want: choices !
I want gank pilots to have to scan my Charon to see what defenses (or lack thereof) I have on my ship. I want them to do more than have a static setup for ganking every Charon they see because they know exactly what defenses it is using because that setup cannot be changed.
Yes, i realize it will cost ISK, yes I'm prepared to pay that cost even if it means capital cost outlays, yes I fully understand what I'm asking for CCP to do as far as freighters are concerned.
This will also be more interesting for gankers (i put this in because they always seem so concerned for we high sec players getting bored or something), because now they have to have a fleet of different ship set ups and scan ships and make important decisions like, lets let this one pass it is too defense heavy, another will be along shortly with weaker defenses and we'll gank that one or lets gank this guy he is running full shiny and maybe we'll get lucky on drops. Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21931
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 17:02:00 -
[823] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Wulfy Johnson wrote: Assuming freighters are in such a good state as of today that nerfs are needed to allow them player chosen buffs.
That's not an assumption. Cargohold can NOT be permitted above a certain level. Tank too. The agility can stand to be increased a bit, but it's the exception. It's bizarre, really.
Here, in this very thread, we have indisputable evidence of what kind of nerfs are required to accommodate something as relatively benign as rigs. They offer rather small bonuses and they are fairly inflexible.
Now people are appalled by these (ultimately rather small) nerfs and want to see even more capable stat boosts instead, still apparently completely oblivious to the connection between allowing boosts and the nerfs that will have to accompany them. How does that conclusion even happen?!
Why could people not just leave the poor master-at-everything freighters alone. 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. |
NinjaStyle
hirr RAZOR Alliance
48
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 17:03:00 -
[824] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone, here's the skinny on the rebalance to Freighters and Jump Freighters. As we announced at the Fanfest keynote, a big part of this rebalance is the ability to use rigs.
To compensate for the ability to use rigs, the base capacity of all Freighters and Jump Freighters is going down, by between 27 and 30%. This means that Freighters can get significantly higher maximum capacity than before using rigs, 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. Because Jump Freighters only have two rig slots their maximum cargo is only going to be about 4% higher than current (with T2 rigs) and with T1 cargo rigs their cargo holds will be between 4 and 7% smaller than current.
Base HP is dropping on all of these ships, but by a much smaller percentage than cargo. They are gaining armor and shield, and losing some hull. This is especially noticeable on the JFs, which are now getting racial T2 resists to armor and shield at the same level as Marauders. The extra resists mean that Jump Freighters end up with about the same EHP as before.
if you had to nerf them THIS MUTCH just to give us 3 or 2 lousy Rig slots IT WAS NOT WORTH GETTING.
the fact you had to nerf everything to not make 1 single thing to powerfull speaks VOLUMES to how terribly executed this is and thats only if you focus all the rigs towards this single thing and yet we are stuck with all the other nerfs if we do?! yeah thats GREAT but not worth the rig slots!!! it allso seems no consideration has been given to the fact that capital rigs might be expencive and that the bonus from these should be suffecient to atleast show up overall rather than in 'nerfed unless you go full t2 on a JF' and yet as I mentioned that 1 thing you rig for is the only thing slightly better???? Not worth the Rigs to lose so mutch! |
Dave Stark
5761
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 17:03:00 -
[825] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:I want gank pilots to have to scan my Charon to see what defenses (or lack thereof) I have on my ship.
so you're willing to take a massive freighter nerf, just so gankers have to click 1 more button before they gank you? |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
413
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 17:04:00 -
[826] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Dracvlad wrote:Lets repeat what you said GǪand notice that it is not even remotely what you claimed I said. That was just some nonsense you made up because you couldn't provide any kind of coherent point or counter-argument. Quote:The changes being imposed by Fozzie are in fact GǣIn fact?Gǥ What do you base that on?
I cannot for the life of me work out why you think that improving industry in null sec does not mean making it so they produce items in null sec, your sentence is complete trash, which is why you edited it out when you made that statement, lets reapt it again to expose your woeful ignorance:
Tippia wrote:The big nullsec alliances weren't particularly fussed about industry being local GÇö they just wanted null industry to not be a thoroughly braindead proposition... .
As for the reduction is usability and efficiency of Jump Freighters, why would they do that? That has to be a reason above just tinkering with things that if you look at it at face value could have been left alone, but no they tinkered with it and to what ends, it sure is not to make them more difficult to gank, as if CCP would ever do something as sensible as that. Don't be a turd and follow the herd Instead be a Hero at Hub Zero |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6342
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 17:05:00 -
[827] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Why could people not just leave the poor master-at-everything freighters alone.
Read the post above yours.
Not sure if it's stupidity transcending hopefulness, or hopefulness transcending stupidity. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Wulfy Johnson
NorCorp Security
42
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 17:06:00 -
[828] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Wulfy Johnson wrote: Assuming freighters are in such a good state as of today that nerfs are needed to allow them player chosen buffs.
That's not an assumption. Cargohold can NOT be permitted above a certain level. Tank too. The agility can stand to be increased a bit, but it's the exception. Quote: Damage controll to get them trough risky systems or carrying around 4-5 t1 bs hulls, where the value has reached the grey area for ganking, cargo expanders when carrying ord and minerals or other high volume low value goods, inertia for house cleaning.
These nerfs are not needed as the ship wont get "overpowered"
Yeah, it would become overpowered immediately. You would have to nerf each area that could be improved with a module, by only slightly less than the extreme of the module can provide a benefit. Cargo expanders for example. The T2 can give 27.5% bonus, yes? So if they got a lowslot, they'd have to lose about 23% cargo to keep them under the capital carrying mark. Same thing with tank. A DC2 would give it so much more EHP that it's overall tank would have to be nerfed close to 40% to compensate. And in the end all you do is lose.
Cargo i can agree on beeing adjusted to not hitting the barrier, but the tank and inertia is needless to go after as all it does is having gankers need to prepare more and lift the grey area more. So how many more gankships are needed would you say? |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
57
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 17:07:00 -
[829] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Maldiro Selkurk wrote:I want gank pilots to have to scan my Charon to see what defenses (or lack thereof) I have on my ship.
so you're willing to take a massive freighter nerf, just so gankers have to click 1 more button before they gank you?
They could always just make freighters immune to scanning
That would cause a ruckus, but would be more in line with the risk/reward
Freighter ganking has zero risk, except maybe the loot fairy, and all the rewards |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
3630
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 17:07:00 -
[830] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Ok thanks to the goodposters in this thread so far. I'll definitely be taking the feedback here into account. I currently own 4 Charons and 2 Rhea.
Fozzie, how about rig drawback role bonuses? This way you could have finer control over the effects to freighters vs. jump freighters. |
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
413
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 17:08:00 -
[831] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:Ammzi wrote:Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
Are we getting mods so we get the flexibility we wanted at the cost of paying for rigs and mods....NO!
I fear on behalf of all freighter pilots the day they can use a low slot module. Take a watermelon, let it represent the ehp of a freighter. Now take an axe to the watermelon and you get to pick the smallest of the two sizes as your new freighter ehp after being given a low slot. Thanks, this is exactly what I want: choices ! I want gank pilots to have to scan my Charon to see what defenses (or lack thereof) I have on my ship. I want them to do more than have a static setup for ganking every Charon they see because they know exactly what defenses it is using because that setup cannot be changed. Yes, i realize it will cost ISK, yes I'm prepared to pay that cost even if it means capital cost outlays, yes I fully understand what I'm asking for CCP to do as far as freighters are concerned. This will also be more interesting for gankers (i put this in because they always seem so concerned for we high sec players getting bored or something), because now they have to have a fleet of different ship set ups and scan ships and make important decisions like, lets let this one pass it is too defense heavy, another will be along shortly with weaker defenses and we'll gank that one or lets gank this guy he is running full shiny and maybe we'll get lucky on drops.
It does not matter they are set up to gank the ship as it is now, there is a slight increase in defensive ability if you fit T2 rigs, big deal!
Don't be a turd and follow the herd Instead be a Hero at Hub Zero |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1535
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 17:08:00 -
[832] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:Ncc 1709 wrote:1 lowslot on the frighter would mean , dcu as tank, cargo expander as cargo, inertia stab for agility or nano or even a Capital AAR one of these is disproportionately more powerful than the others. The DCU II of course, but it is a common perception that it is just too easy to gank freighters and Jump Freighters, except for the gankbears of course... But why nerf it, it will make it a challenge for you gankbears, you want a challenge don't you?
common misconception. and i am a freighter pilot.
why nerf either? why buff either? things were fine. 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" |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21933
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 17:08:00 -
[833] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:I cannot for the life of me work out why you think that improving industry in null sec does not mean making it so they produce items in null sec That's because it's just some incoherent nonsense you've made up for god knows what reason, rather than something I've actually said. If you stop arguing against your own inventions and instead just calmly read what I wrote, it's actually very very easy to understand.
You have yet to provide any kind of counter-argument to what I actually said. Maybe you should try doing that, hmmGǪ? If there's any particular part you fail to process for whatever reason, just ask. I won't bite.
Quote:As for the reduction is usability and efficiency of Jump Freighters, why would they do that? Because it's required if they want to add rigs to them, like so many people have been asking them to do. 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. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
413
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 17:10:00 -
[834] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Dracvlad wrote:I cannot for the life of me work out why you think that improving industry in null sec does not mean making it so they produce items in null sec That's because it's just some incoherent nonsense you've made up for god knows what reason, rather than something I've actually said. If you stop arguing against your own inventions and instead just calmly read what I wrote, it's actually very very easy to understand. You have yet to provide any kind of counter-argument to what I actually said. Maybe you should try doing that, hmmGǪ? If there's any particular part you fail to process for whatever, just ask. I won't bite. Quote:As for the reduction is usability and efficiency of Jump Freighters, why would they do that? Because it's required if they want to add rigs to them, like so many people have been asking them to do.
Into insults, shows you are losing the plot there, also I noticed you removed that quote again so I will add it back:
Tippia wrote:The big nullsec alliances weren't particularly fussed about industry being local GÇö they just wanted null industry to not be a thoroughly braindead proposition... .
As for your comment on rigs, why the hell would people ask for rigs when there was massive increased cost and no benefit, I have Freighters and Jump Freighters and I never asked for rigs that cost me a fortune, and if I fitted T2 would give me a slight benefit, makes sense to me, not! Don't be a turd and follow the herd Instead be a Hero at Hub Zero |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6342
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 17:11:00 -
[835] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Maldiro Selkurk wrote:I want gank pilots to have to scan my Charon to see what defenses (or lack thereof) I have on my ship.
so you're willing to take a massive freighter nerf, just so gankers have to click 1 more button before they gank you? They could always just make freighters immune to scanning That would cause a ruckus, but would be more in line with the risk/reward Freighter ganking has zero risk, except maybe the loot fairy, and all the rewards
First of all, it's not zero. Concord will destroy your ship 100% of the time, so the risk is 100%. Steps taken to mitigate the effects of that risk is called smart gameplay.
Secondly, ganking is only as easy, and as profitable, as bad players make it for us.
Thirdly, I have seen 8 billion isk killmails that drop less than 300mil. It does happen, and since the possibility of that happening is NOT zero, that means that risk is in fact involved in any gank, regardless of how much the freighter is hauling. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Dave Stark
5762
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 17:12:00 -
[836] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Maldiro Selkurk wrote:I want gank pilots to have to scan my Charon to see what defenses (or lack thereof) I have on my ship.
so you're willing to take a massive freighter nerf, just so gankers have to click 1 more button before they gank you? They could always just make freighters immune to scanning That would cause a ruckus, but would be more in line with the risk/reward Freighter ganking has zero risk, except maybe the loot fairy, and all the rewards
so the answer is no? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21933
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 17:13:00 -
[837] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Into insults So stop using them. I'll keep repeating it until you get with the program: you have yet to provide any kind of counter-argument to what I actually said. Maybe you should try doing that, hmmGǪ? If there's any particular part you fail to process for whatever, just ask. I won't bite.
If you keep going with the nonsensical fallacies, you will never accomplish anything. 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. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
413
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 17:14:00 -
[838] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Dracvlad wrote:Into insults So stop using them. I'll keep repeating it until you get with the program: you have yet to provide any kind of counter-argument to what I actually said. Maybe you should try doing that, hmmGǪ? If there's any particular part you fail to process for whatever, just ask. I won't bite. If you keep going with the nonsensical fallacies, you will never accomplish anything.
Tippia wrote:The big nullsec alliances weren't particularly fussed about industry being local GÇö they just wanted null industry to not be a thoroughly braindead proposition... . Don't be a turd and follow the herd Instead be a Hero at Hub Zero |
Vhelnik Cojoin
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
51
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 17:16:00 -
[839] - Quote
Ray Kyonhe wrote:Vhelnik Cojoin wrote:Ray Kyonhe wrote:Until someone will start to actually do what you refer to as infeasible and cut the prices, of course. You mean similar to how local prices on the street go down in the real world, when local trade barriers go up? I don't think so... More like someone will make additional efforts locally you don't want to do yourself and win the market.
I would absolutely love to be a fly on the wall, the day Querns is summoned to his first meeting with His Bastardness, the Chairman of the Miner's Union for Outer Podunk, to be told the Tritanium prices for the coming week. Have you Communicated with your fellow capsuleers today? It is good for the EVE-oconomy and o-kay for you. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21933
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 17:16:00 -
[840] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:I have no argument. I know. That explains why you have yet to provide any kind of counter-argument to what I actually said, so maybe you should try doing that rather than just troll a lot, hmmGǪ? If there's any particular part you fail to process for whatever, just ask. I still won't bite. 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. |
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6342
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 17:16:00 -
[841] - Quote
So, bit off topic, but I noticed your signature, Dracvlad.
Wasn't Hub Zero that silly Grr Goons NPC null thing Infinity Ziona was working on before he got banned? Or am I thinking of something else? "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
415
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 17:17:00 -
[842] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Dracvlad wrote:I have no argument. I know. That explains why you have yet to provide any kind of counter-argument to what I actually said, so maybe you should try doing that rather than just troll a lot, hmmGǪ? If there's any particular part you fail to process for whatever, just ask. I still won't bite.
Tippia wrote:The big nullsec alliances weren't particularly fussed about industry being local GÇö they just wanted null industry to not be a thoroughly braindead proposition... .
Counter argument to your stupid counter argument, you are really bad at this. Don't be a turd and follow the herd Instead be a Hero at Hub Zero |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
415
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 17:20:00 -
[843] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:So, bit off topic, but I noticed your signature, Dracvlad.
Wasn't Hub Zero that silly Grr Goons NPC null thing Infinity Ziona was working on before he got banned? Or am I thinking of something else?
Infinity Ziona got banned, damn, I wondered what happened because he suddenly disappeared, please could you send me an in game mail on anything you know, the lads liked Infinity a lot as I did so we will all be a bit gutted if this is the case. Don't be a turd and follow the herd Instead be a Hero at Hub Zero |
Jatok Reknar
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 17:20:00 -
[844] - Quote
Hmm I was hoping this change would be a nice buff. But after reading it, kind of sad. :( Freighters were definitely not over-powered before and this feels like a nerf effectively.
If freighters need to be hyper-specialized like this, we need to be able to swap configurations on the fly (like modules). Not choose our setup based on rigs which can't be swapped out. This feels like:
- More expensive to setup a freighter for any job - Still no configuration to adapt to a new job without massive expensive to swap out rigs
You would essentially have at least the small-fish (who cannot afford a number of freighters setup for the job at hand) resorting to finding a mediocre balance of states, rigging it appropriately and never touching it again for the life of that ship. I don't think that counts as giving more configurable options.
|
Medalyn Isis
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
236
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 17:22:00 -
[845] - Quote
I doubt Inifinity got banned. Probably Kaarous just trolling as usual as he has an axe to grind with Infinity. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21936
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 17:24:00 -
[846] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Counter argument to your stupid counter argument, you are really bad at this. Your counter argument beingGǪ what? And what stupid about my argument? Again (no, it won't go away no matter how hard you try to avoid it GÇö only actually answering the questions will do that): you have yet to provide any kind of counter-argument to what I actually said, so maybe you should try doing that rather than just troll a lot, hmmGǪ? If there's any particular part you fail to process for whatever, just ask. I still won't bite.
I'm beginning to think that you don't even know what the supposed argument was to begin with by now because you've managed to confuse yourself so much with your fallacies. 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. |
Sipphakta en Gravonere
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
605
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 17:26:00 -
[847] - Quote
Medalyn Isis wrote:I doubt Inifinity got banned. Probably Kaarous just trolling as usual as he has an axe to grind with Infinity.
He didn't get banned, just had a hilarious meltdown in OOPE: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=337649 (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Station Sitter
Heavy Star Industries
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 17:33:00 -
[848] - Quote
How about a decrease in build costs to compensate in the need for rigs to return to what we have now? This sucks, to be perfectly honest. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
416
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 17:38:00 -
[849] - Quote
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:
The same person reported me for using a similar word to Twit and another for using the word d*ck, he is actively using the petition system to attack our people on any swear word he can find. Don't be a turd and follow the herd Instead be a Hero at Hub Zero |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11625
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 17:41:00 -
[850] - Quote
Vhelnik Cojoin wrote:baltec1 wrote:We worked out that there are greater chances of you being struck by lightning in RL than getting ganked. Unless you do something silly like stuffing 10 billion in the hold. Male bovine manure. The average chance per year of getting hit by lightening for someone living in the US is around 1 in 500,000. In EVE terms this means, that for the chances to just be equal, then there has to be an average of 500,000 freighter pilots active for each freighter killed by suicide ganks in EVE per year. So with a total of 155 freighters and jump freighters killed just during the four days of Burn Jita 3, those losses alone would require a total of 155 * 500,000 = 77,500,000 individual (jump) freighter pilots being active in space at least once in a given year. Then there are all the other suicide kills, like the ongoing CODEdot campaign in Isanamo, the russians and CFC in Niarja etc. Somehow your statement seems just a tiny bit unlikely to be true...
The average month sees around 30 to 40 ganks. Now, we dont work out the chance based on per pilot but per trip and we do not include people who made themselves a target by stuffing billions in the hold. There are millions of trips made by Freighters each and every month. Over the span of the last decade, taking into account the number of freighter trips made the numbers work out as being much lower than being struck by lightning. Granted you are still more likely to be ganked than win the lottery.
The vast bulk of people will never be ganked. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
|
Digger Pollard
Why So Platypus
3
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 17:47:00 -
[851] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
First of all, it's not zero. Concord will destroy your ship 100% of the time, so the risk is 100%. Steps taken to mitigate the effects of that risk is called smart gameplay.
Secondly, ganking is only as easy, and as profitable, as bad players make it for us.
Thirdly, I have seen 8 billion isk killmails that drop less than 300mil. It does happen, and since the possibility of that happening is NOT zero, that means that risk is in fact involved in any gank, regardless of how much the freighter is hauling.
First of all, it's zero. You know about concord, so it's not a risk, it's actually something you can reliably count on. Calling concord a "risk" should deprive you from using word "smart". But since you're a gankbear, you shouldn't use "risk" either...
Secondly, ganking is only as EXTREMELY easy as people ARE FORCED to make it for you, because there is no alternative to a freighter and no alternative to what you haul - you haul what you have to. There is no alternative to a route either. Just how much easier could it be?
Thirdly, I have seen 10 billion isk killmails which drop 11 billion, due to price calculator and jita price difference.
Gankbears being stupid lazy risk-averse crybabies as usual. |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
57
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 17:47:00 -
[852] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Kenneth Feld wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Maldiro Selkurk wrote:I want gank pilots to have to scan my Charon to see what defenses (or lack thereof) I have on my ship.
so you're willing to take a massive freighter nerf, just so gankers have to click 1 more button before they gank you? They could always just make freighters immune to scanning That would cause a ruckus, but would be more in line with the risk/reward Freighter ganking has zero risk, except maybe the loot fairy, and all the rewards First of all, it's not zero. Concord will destroy your ship 100% of the time, so the risk is 100%. Steps taken to mitigate the effects of that risk is called smart gameplay. Secondly, ganking is only as easy, and as profitable, as bad players make it for us. Thirdly, I have seen 8 billion isk killmails that drop less than 300mil. It does happen, and since the possibility of that happening is NOT zero, that means that risk is in fact involved in any gank, regardless of how much the freighter is hauling.
Concord is NOT a risk, it is a known outcome - a calculated outcome based on scanning the ship - NOT a risk, it is 100% a known quantity
second - has nothing to do with risk reward for ganking, that is risk/reward for hauling
third - I gave the loot fairy as a prime example - and the only real risk
So, if you couldn't scan would you stop ganking? probably not - therefore the risk is still worth the reward if if you can't scan |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11627
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 17:50:00 -
[853] - Quote
Digger Pollard wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
First of all, it's not zero. Concord will destroy your ship 100% of the time, so the risk is 100%. Steps taken to mitigate the effects of that risk is called smart gameplay.
Secondly, ganking is only as easy, and as profitable, as bad players make it for us.
Thirdly, I have seen 8 billion isk killmails that drop less than 300mil. It does happen, and since the possibility of that happening is NOT zero, that means that risk is in fact involved in any gank, regardless of how much the freighter is hauling.
First of all, it's zero. You know about concord, so it's not a risk, it's actually something you can reliably count on. Calling concord a "risk" should deprive you from using word "smart". But since you're a gankbear, you shouldn't use "risk" either... Secondly, ganking is only as EXTREMELY easy as people ARE FORCED to make it for you, because there is no alternative to a freighter and no alternative to what you haul - you haul what you have to. There is no alternative to a route either. Just how much easier could it be? Thirdly, I have seen 10 billion isk killmails which drop 11 billion, due to price calculator and jita price difference. Gankbears being stupid lazy risk-averse crybabies as usual.
As opposed to a freighter pilot who thinks he should be able to ship 10 billion at a time in safety Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Dave Stark
5764
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 17:51:00 -
[854] - Quote
oh stop saying there's 0 risk, it's false, and every time some one says it we have to wheel out the same old argument to prove them wrong.
instead of being wrong; just stop derailing the thread. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6343
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 17:52:00 -
[855] - Quote
"Risk".
As in "possibility of incurring loss".
Just because it's a 100% possibility does not mean that the loss isn't there. It doesn't mean the loss doesn't count.
And as for this hilarious statement:
Digger Pollard wrote: Secondly, ganking is only as EXTREMELY easy as people ARE FORCED to make it for you, because there is no alternative to a freighter and no alternative to what you haul - you haul what you have to. There is no alternative to a route either. Just how much easier could it be?
You are not forced to do anything. There is no game mechanic forcing you to put too much isk into your cargohold, and no game mechanic that forces you to autopilot.
And there is certainly no game mechanic forcing you to not use a web escort.
Those things are all choices you make. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21938
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 17:52:00 -
[856] - Quote
Digger Pollard wrote:First of all, it's zero. You know about concord, so it's not a risk, it's actually something you can reliably count on. GǪand that doesn't preclude it from being a risk (especially since it isn't a 100% chance).
Quote:Secondly, ganking is only as EXTREMELY easy as people ARE FORCED to make it for you, because there is no alternative to a freighter and no alternative to what you haul - you haul what you have to. There are plenty of alternatives in what you haul, how much of it you haul, what you haul it in, what route you take (yes, there are alternatives), how you fly that route, what protections you bring along etc etc etc. No-one is forcing you to do anything.
Quote:Thirdly, I have seen 10 billion isk killmails which drop 11 billion, due to price calculator and jita price difference. That just proves that the risks are huge.
No matter what, any attempt at framing ganking as risk free is inherently ignorant and rather disqualifies anyone who makes that kind of claim from taking part of the discussion since they are so unfamiliar with the topic. 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. |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
57
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 17:57:00 -
[857] - Quote
1risk noun \-êrisk\ : the possibility that something bad or unpleasant (such as an injury or a loss) will happen
: someone or something that may cause something bad or unpleasant to happen
: a person or thing that someone judges to be a good or bad choice for insurance, a loan, etc.
All 3 of those definitions rely on an unkown outcome
Possibilty, may and judges
Will, shall and certainly are in a different category altogether |
Vhelnik Cojoin
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
53
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 18:03:00 -
[858] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:The vast bulk of people will never be ganked. Stop squirming, for your own sake.
Completely empty freighters are being ganked in Isanamo at regular intervals 'for the lulz' or RP reasons. For your original statement to be true, then there needs to be 500'000 individual freighter pilots active in space at least once per year, just for a single gank like that. Even that cannot be true.
If you have better statistics available than the reference I provided, including hard facts on number of freighter trips made in EVE per year, then I wouldn't mind helping to calculate the exact chance of being ganked per trip.
Have you Communicated with your fellow capsuleers today? It is good for the EVE-oconomy and o-kay for you. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11629
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 18:03:00 -
[859] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:1risk noun \-êrisk\ : the possibility that something bad or unpleasant (such as an injury or a loss) will happen
: someone or something that may cause something bad or unpleasant to happen
: a person or thing that someone judges to be a good or bad choice for insurance, a loan, etc.
All 3 of those definitions rely on an unkown outcome
Possibilty, may and judges
Will, shall and certainly are in a different category altogether
You may not kill the target.
You might not get the drop.
You might be attacked at any time.
You own freighter may be attacked and killed.
And then we have all of the punishments for attacking someone in high sec. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Dave Stark
5769
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 18:03:00 -
[860] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:All 3 of those definitions rely on an unkown outcome wrong. |
|
Alexander McKeon
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
65
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 18:04:00 -
[861] - Quote
Did anyone take a look at that post I made a while back suggesting the use of subsystems instead of rigs? It would allow Freighters & JFs to be customized differently, permit JFs to be given rage / fuel consumption modifications without affecting any other capitals and avoid needing an across-the-board nerf to prevent freighters from over-excelling in any one area because the trade-offs are built into the subsystems.
Seems like an elegant solution to many of the concerns raised in this thread. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21946
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 18:05:00 -
[862] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:All 3 of those definitions rely on an unkown outcome GǪand they're very simplistic common-language descriptions rather than proper analytic definitions.
Risk is not limited to unpleasant outcomes, nor does it arbitrarily cut of parts of the probability spectrum. Any outcome that you can assign any probability to can be expressed as a risk. The higher the probability and/or outcome, the higher the risk.
The risks involved in ganking are so far away from zero that anyone who claims that they're even close has immediately proven themselves completely unfamiliar with everything related to ganking. 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. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6355
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 18:05:00 -
[863] - Quote
Vhelnik Cojoin wrote:baltec1 wrote:The vast bulk of people will never be ganked. Stop squirming, for your own sake. Completely empty freighters are being ganked in Isanamo at regular intervals 'for the lulz' or RP reasons. For your original statement to be true, then there needs to be 500'000 individual freighter pilots active in space at least once per year, just for a single gank like that. Even that cannot be true. If you have better statistics available than the reference I provided, including hard facts on number of freighter trips made in EVE per year, then I wouldn't mind helping to calculate the exact chance of being ganked per trip.
That, or five thousand freighter pilots in space a hundred times a year. And I'm pretty sure it's actually a lot higher than that.
Anyway, if you don't want to get ganked in New Order territory, first of all don't go there, but most of all don't autopilot through it. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11633
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 18:06:00 -
[864] - Quote
Vhelnik Cojoin wrote:baltec1 wrote:The vast bulk of people will never be ganked. Stop squirming, for your own sake. Completely empty freighters are being ganked in Isanamo at regular intervals 'for the lulz' or RP reasons. For your original statement to be true, then there needs to be 500'000 individual freighter pilots active in space at least once per year, just for a single gank like that. Even that cannot be true. If you have better statistics available than the reference I provided, including hard facts on number of freighter trips made in EVE per year, then I wouldn't mind helping to calculate the exact chance of being ganked per trip.
Whats with this 500,000 freighter pilots? Did you even bother to read what I said?
Also please post said empty freighters. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
518
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 18:08:00 -
[865] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Vhelnik Cojoin wrote:baltec1 wrote:The vast bulk of people will never be ganked. Stop squirming, for your own sake. Completely empty freighters are being ganked in Isanamo at regular intervals 'for the lulz' or RP reasons. For your original statement to be true, then there needs to be 500'000 individual freighter pilots active in space at least once per year, just for a single gank like that. Even that cannot be true. If you have better statistics available than the reference I provided, including hard facts on number of freighter trips made in EVE per year, then I wouldn't mind helping to calculate the exact chance of being ganked per trip. That, or five thousand freighter pilots in space a hundred times a year. And I'm pretty sure it's actually a lot higher than that. Anyway, if you don't want to get ganked in New Order territory, first of all don't go there, but most of all don't autopilot through it.
Neither nor is possible or helps a lot. Their space is "everywhere" and they besiege critical junctions... |
Ray Kyonhe
Ray's Relentless Research Special Circumstances Alliance
14
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 18:08:00 -
[866] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote: They could always just make freighters immune to scanning That would cause a ruckus, but would be more in line with the risk/reward Freighter ganking has zero risk, except maybe the loot fairy, and all the rewards
Suddenly, there is not so bad idea, for a change. A capital size anti-cargo scan rig. No other capital ship (aside from, probably, industrial capitals) will benefit from it anyway. |
PaulsAvatar
IXCO
4
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 18:11:00 -
[867] - Quote
Add me to the list of people who would prefer no changes at all over this poorly thought out mess. All the current proposed changes do is validate all the people who said CCP couldn't possibly do this right and would nerf things into the ground.
To be a bit more constructive: making it so that in order to get *most* of the current stats back, we need to fit T2 capital rigs, and overall performance drops no matter what, isn't going to work. T1 maybe we could bear with. It doesn't really add any flexibility, and only adds one choice made in the beginning, which is a small improvement. But as is you're basically saying we spend biollions in isk in order to get a small nerf or not spend billions and have a severely crippled half complete ship compared to what we have now. Spending billions on rigs is not an option for me, so you could see how I personally would prefer they be left as complete ships as they are now. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1537
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 18:13:00 -
[868] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:So, bit off topic, but I noticed your signature, Dracvlad.
Wasn't Hub Zero that silly Grr Goons NPC null thing Infinity Ziona was working on before he got banned? Or am I thinking of something else?
thankyou for that little gem. 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" |
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS type X
157
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 18:14:00 -
[869] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Maldiro Selkurk wrote:I want gank pilots to have to scan my Charon to see what defenses (or lack thereof) I have on my ship.
so you're willing to take a massive freighter nerf, just so gankers have to click 1 more button before they gank you?
There is no nerf, if rigs AND MODS are added to freighters it just makes them like all the other ships in the game (i.e. meaningful choice at a cost).
Let me ask you this, what if every ship in the game had no rigs and no mods, you got hull bonuses and that was it?
Would you even be playing this game? Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really. |
Dave Stark
5772
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 18:15:00 -
[870] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Maldiro Selkurk wrote:I want gank pilots to have to scan my Charon to see what defenses (or lack thereof) I have on my ship.
so you're willing to take a massive freighter nerf, just so gankers have to click 1 more button before they gank you? There is no nerf, if rigs AND MODS are added to freighters it just makes them like all the other ships in the game (i.e. meaningful choice at a cost). Let me ask you this, what if every ship in the game had no rigs and no mods, you got hull bonuses and that was it? Would you even be playing this game?
alternatively, you could just answer the question that i put to you. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11633
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 18:16:00 -
[871] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Maldiro Selkurk wrote:I want gank pilots to have to scan my Charon to see what defenses (or lack thereof) I have on my ship.
so you're willing to take a massive freighter nerf, just so gankers have to click 1 more button before they gank you? There is no nerf, if rigs AND MODS are added to freighters it just makes them like all the other ships in the game (i.e. meaningful choice at a cost). Let me ask you this, what if every ship in the game had no rigs and no mods, you got hull bonuses and that was it? Would you even be playing this game?
What you want would result is an enormous nerf to freighters. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Dave Stark
5777
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 18:17:00 -
[872] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:What you want would result is an enormous nerf to freighters. a fact he's clearly unwilling to accept due to the fact that he refused to answer the question. |
Max Goldwing
Homeworld Republic The East India Co.
11
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 18:19:00 -
[873] - Quote
Adding jump fuel rigs wont really change the fact that the cargo size is the only interesting stat on a JF. If the jump fuel rigs simply reduce fuel in a comparable way to the cargo buff gained with cargo rigs, it will just mean you can choose how much to haul each time at the same isk/m3 cost, granted thats slightly useful, but not by much.
Jump range rigs vs. cargo space probably wont be used, while saving a cyno is useful, in the end isk per m3 hauled is the selling factor.
Getting more tank on the regular freighters by trading cargo space is nice, but I wonder if the HP increase will be significant. As it is now freighters are being ganked with sub 1bil loads, so they can rarely use the space they have anyway. |
Mag's
the united
17266
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 18:19:00 -
[874] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:What you want would result is an enormous nerf to freighters. What we need is a thread that proves this to be the case. One may turn up at some point soon.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21949
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 18:20:00 -
[875] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:baltec1 wrote:What you want would result is an enormous nerf to freighters. a fact he's clearly unwilling to accept due to the fact that he refused to answer the question. An unwillingness that is baffling since this very thread is proof positive of exactly what we've been saying all this time. 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. |
Dave Stark
5777
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 18:20:00 -
[876] - Quote
Mag's wrote:baltec1 wrote:What you want would result is an enormous nerf to freighters. What we need is a thread that proves this to be the case. One may turn up at some point soon. it'd also be great if it was posted by a CCP employee to give it extra credibility. |
Glasgow Dunlop
The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People
140
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 18:22:00 -
[877] - Quote
Alexander McKeon wrote:Did anyone take a look at that post I made a while back suggesting the use of subsystems instead of rigs? It would allow Freighters & JFs to be customized differently, permit JFs to be given rage / fuel consumption modifications without affecting any other capitals and avoid needing an across-the-board nerf to prevent freighters from over-excelling in any one area because the trade-offs are built into the subsystems.
Seems like an elegant solution to many of the concerns raised in this thread.
And also using subsystems will give more value to sleeper loot to boot twitter: @glasgowdunlop-á TDSIN Jnr Recruitment Officer : Join 'TDSIN pub' Glasgow Meet Organiser |
Mag's
the united
17266
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 18:22:00 -
[878] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Mag's wrote:baltec1 wrote:What you want would result is an enormous nerf to freighters. What we need is a thread that proves this to be the case. One may turn up at some point soon. it'd also be great if it was posted by a CCP employee to give it extra credibility. Indeed that would be for the best.
Who knows, we may get lucky?
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Dave Stark
5777
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 18:23:00 -
[879] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Mag's wrote:baltec1 wrote:What you want would result is an enormous nerf to freighters. What we need is a thread that proves this to be the case. One may turn up at some point soon. it'd also be great if it was posted by a CCP employee to give it extra credibility. Indeed that would be for the best. Who knows, we may get lucky? fingers crossed. |
Digger Pollard
Why So Platypus
3
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 18:24:00 -
[880] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:You may not kill the target. Not killing a target with near-zero ehp variety and zero tanking variety? Are you worse at eve than my dog?
baltec1 wrote:You might not get the drop. As well as getting twice the expected. On average you will get 50%, so it's not a risk in the long run.
baltec1 wrote:You might be attacked at any time. Gank fleet under attack? Please! Not to mention that if somebody can attack a gank fleet, he's better off just ganking a freighter himself, but your gank fleet is already supposed to be disposable. At the very least, such an attack carries considerable risk, unlike ganking.
baltec1 wrote:You own freighter may be attacked and killed. This is hilarious argument. Unless you're worse than my dog at eve, your freighter won't get the crimewatch flag, and if you said that while not meaning the crimewatch, then there is no better argument imaginable than a ganker who's afraid of a freightee gank!
baltec1 wrote:And then we have all of the punishments for attacking someone in high sec. Removal-of-consequences tags are still there or I missed something?
|
|
Dave Stark
5781
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 18:26:00 -
[881] - Quote
Digger Pollard wrote:baltec1 wrote:You may not kill the target. Not killing a target with near-zero ehp variety and zero tanking variety? Are you worse at eve than my dog? because eve is a single player game where there's 0 chance of outside assistance? |
Ammzi
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
1767
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 18:27:00 -
[882] - Quote
No risk in ganking? Hah, I laugh at those people, when all you have to do to throw ganking out the window is a cheap t1 thrasher and just pop the wrecks as soon as they appear. Implying the loot fairy matters at all if the wreck goes pop.
Let's so some funny math though regarding ~risk~ to get ganked in a freighter based, not on cargo, but simply the risk associated with passing through choke point 0.5 systems. Every time you pass through the system there's a risk of you getting ganked.
Establishing assumptions:
To do this we have to throw out some relatively arbitrary, but well argumented numbers with regards to freighter sitings/trips throw 0.5 systems. We have: Niarja (amarr<->jita) and Uedama (Jita/Amarr<->many systems!) and Balle (Jita/Amarr<->Dodixie/Hek).
Let's say an average of 15 freighters pass through Niarja and the same value for Uedama per minute. Balle is probably a lot less, let's say 5 freighter a min. So we have 35 freighters/min. pass throw key choke point systems with high probability of getting ganked. That accumulates to just about 1.5 million freighter trips. About 1/40,000 chance you will get ganked passing through a 0.5 system. So about ~10 times more often to get ganked than hit by lightning. Pretty good odds I'd say myself. |
Mag's
the united
17269
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 18:27:00 -
[883] - Quote
Chances are, Digger had a straight face when posting that.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Dave Stark
5781
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 18:28:00 -
[884] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Chances are, Digger had a straight face when posting that. based on what he posted, it's the only thing he had straight. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11637
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 18:28:00 -
[885] - Quote
Digger Pollard wrote:Stuff.
You cant just brush them all away.
The risks are there and very real, the only people who think ganking is risk free are people who don't do it, have never done it, and have a personal gripe with piracy even being an option. The same people who think buying sec back with those tags is a good idea. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Mag's
the united
17269
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 18:29:00 -
[886] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Mag's wrote:Chances are, Digger had a straight face when posting that. based on what he posted, it's the only thing he had straight. That made me chuckle, thanks bud.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21950
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 18:31:00 -
[887] - Quote
Digger Pollard wrote:Not killing a target with near-zero ehp variety and zero tanking variety? It's called random number generator. The name should be a hint. It is also called not knowing what else the target brings and not being able to judge the EHP beforehand.
Quote:As well as getting twice the expected. On average you will get 50%, so it's not a risk in the long run. >_< Did you just say that? You can't have it both ways. Either you're talking about averages and percentages, or you're saying that there is no risk. You can't first say one and then conclude the other because they are inherently contradictory.
Quote:Gank fleet under attack? Yes. Remember that whole probability of outcome thing? Here's something that can happen with a decidedly bad outcome.
Quote:This is hilarious argument. Unless you're worse than my dog at eve, your freighter won't get the crimewatch flag It rather has to, you know, since there aren't that many ships that can pick up and handle freighter-sized loads of loot.
Quote:Removal-of-consequences tags are still there or I missed something? Those don't really help and is just a pointless waste of ISK for a career ganker.
So with those answers in mind, I feel pretty confident of my previous GÇ£0 risk = 0 insightGÇ¥ model for ganking risk assessments. 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. |
Ray Kyonhe
Ray's Relentless Research Special Circumstances Alliance
14
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 18:34:00 -
[888] - Quote
The funniest part is that people just don't like the idea to accept the fact that after this patch they will have somewhat less than they have now. Not useless, as some trying to put it, just less. But as the time passes, it will begin to be taken for granted, and those who haven't yet been in hauling things buisness before that fix will be happy that they are able to customize their freghters a little and competely fond with its other stats as they haven't used to current ones.
At least it's intended to serve some far-reaching nullsecs' industry rebalancing plans and probably will be accompanied by many others tweaks designed to force manufacturing all goods you can locally and import only those you are desperately need to. Its better just to stop clinging to the past and embrace a new reality, hoping its whole picture was thought out well. |
Digger Pollard
Why So Platypus
4
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 18:35:00 -
[889] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Digger Pollard wrote:Stuff.
You cant just brush them all away. The risks are there and very real, the only people who think ganking is risk free are people who don't do it, have never done it, and have a personal gripe with piracy even being an option. The same people who think buying sec back with those tags is a good idea.
If you convert those "risks" to numbers, I have to say you can't really call a number real if it only has imaginary part. Piracy is fine. Sitting on a gate lazily picking tastiest victim among those who have no choice but to be there is not piracy.
The only non-imaginary risk you have in ganking a freighter is being worse than my dog at eve. |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
58
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 18:36:00 -
[890] - Quote
Tippia wrote:[quote=Digger Pollard] Quote:This is hilarious argument. Unless you're worse than my dog at eve, your freighter won't get the crimewatch flag It rather has to, you know, since there aren't that many ships that can pick up and handle freighter-sized loads of loot. So with those answers in mind, I feel pretty confident of my previous GÇ£0 risk = 0 insightGÇ¥ model for ganking risk assessments.
If you don't know how to launder your loot with the fleet hangar in an Orca, you really shouldn't be ganking. the freighters picking up the loot are as safe as a baby in its mother womb |
|
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
58
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 18:37:00 -
[891] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Digger Pollard wrote:Stuff.
You cant just brush them all away. The risks are there and very real, the only people who think ganking is risk free are people who don't do it, have never done it, and have a personal gripe with piracy even being an option. The same people who think buying sec back with those tags is a good idea.
yeah, tags...LOL
They are more a one time thing, not to be used on a regular basis |
Dave Stark
5785
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 18:37:00 -
[892] - Quote
Digger Pollard wrote:baltec1 wrote:Digger Pollard wrote:Stuff.
You cant just brush them all away. The risks are there and very real, the only people who think ganking is risk free are people who don't do it, have never done it, and have a personal gripe with piracy even being an option. The same people who think buying sec back with those tags is a good idea. If you convert those "risks" to numbers, I have to say you can't really call a number real if it only has imaginary part. Piracy is fine. Sitting on a gate lazily picking tastiest victim among those who have no choice but to be there is not piracy. The only non-imaginary risk you have in ganking a freighter is being worse than my dog at eve. are you intent upon demonstrating how clueless you are, or are you going to stop posting?
either is fine, but i want to know in advance because i'd hate to miss any subsequent posts of yours. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11639
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 18:38:00 -
[893] - Quote
Digger Pollard wrote:baltec1 wrote:Digger Pollard wrote:Stuff.
You cant just brush them all away. The risks are there and very real, the only people who think ganking is risk free are people who don't do it, have never done it, and have a personal gripe with piracy even being an option. The same people who think buying sec back with those tags is a good idea. If you convert those "risks" to numbers, I have to say you can't really call a number real if it only has imaginary part. Piracy is fine. Sitting on a gate lazily picking tastiest victim among those who have no choice but to be there is not piracy. The only non-imaginary risk you have in ganking a freighter is being worse than my dog at eve.
So who forced the freighter to stuff 10 billion into the hold? Ganking is only as easy and profitable as the victim makes it.
Also, funnily enough, the gank Catalyst we use is profitable to gank. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6356
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 18:42:00 -
[894] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Digger Pollard wrote:Stuff.
You cant just brush them all away. The risks are there and very real, the only people who think ganking is risk free are people who don't do it, have never done it, and have a personal gripe with piracy even being an option. The same people who think buying sec back with those tags is a good idea.
Emphasis mine. Pretty sure that's what is really in play with so much of the complaints about ganking. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Mag's
the united
17271
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 18:43:00 -
[895] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:baltec1 wrote:Digger Pollard wrote:Stuff.
You cant just brush them all away. The risks are there and very real, the only people who think ganking is risk free are people who don't do it, have never done it, and have a personal gripe with piracy even being an option. The same people who think buying sec back with those tags is a good idea. Emphasis mine. Pretty sure that's what is really in play with so much of the complaints about ganking. I have to agree. It's also not real PvP, so I'm told.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Digger Pollard
Why So Platypus
4
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 18:47:00 -
[896] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Tippia's trademark nonsense derailment snafu.
This will be my one and only counter to Tippia's obvious ******** troll derailment past-time.
Target is a freighter - zero tanking variety. If you don't know he had friends, that makes you worse than my dog at eve, because freighter party is obvious as wood. It must be sitting on top of a freighter or they won't make it to counter gank. With those points in mind, ganking such a freighter means you are worse than my dog at eve and should quit. Gank fleets being ganked are simply impossible, unless they hang right on a gate with a flag on them, in which case they're worse than my dog at eve. Freighters align speed allows to bring in prealigned fleet from a safespot easily. If I have to point it out to you, there are things like freight containers you can deploy from your freighter and put stuff there with another account. Here you go, you have a freighter-load and no flag. But how could you know about it if you're worse than my dog at eve? Loot fairy? You can't have it both ways in a single occurrence, but you WILL have it both ways in a long run. Picking on this point was more likely a trolling though, typical Tippia nonsense.
So with those answers in mind, I feel pretty confident than the only real risk in ganking is being worse than my dog at eve.
From here on I keep ignoring Tippia nonsense till forever. |
Mag's
the united
17273
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 18:49:00 -
[897] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote: are you intent upon demonstrating how clueless you are, or are you going to stop posting?
either is fine, but i want to know in advance because i'd hate to miss any subsequent posts of yours.
Looks like he is Dave.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Vhelnik Cojoin
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
53
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 18:49:00 -
[898] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Whats with this 500,000 freighter pilots? Did you even bother to read what I said?
Also please post said empty freighters.
Yes, I did indeed read what you posted earlier, and what I quoted in one of my previous posts:
baltec1 wrote:We worked out that there are greater chances of you being struck by lightning in RL than getting ganked. Unless you do something silly like stuffing 10 billion in the hold.
However, first things first. I am unsure whether the forum allows direct KB links from this discussion, so you will have to look up the candidates I dug out for you: KillID: 23370943, 23370340, 23342061, 23317011 and 23261890. Please let me know if you are having difficulties using these numbers, and I will try to guide you.
These suicide ganks took place in Isanamo in the month of May 2014, and where the freighter was either completely empty, or very nearly so, to the point where there was no hope of making a profit from the gank. Additionally the pilots were all in NPC corporations, so these kills cannot be explained as being due to pilot error during live wardecs.
There were many more ganks in Isanamo in May, but the pilot was either in a player corp, or the cargo wasn't empty.
Please let me know if you are with me so far. Don't worry, we will take this in small steps, so I don't loose you along the way. Have you Communicated with your fellow capsuleers today? It is good for the EVE-oconomy and o-kay for you. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11639
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 18:50:00 -
[899] - Quote
Digger Pollard wrote:Tippia wrote:Tippia's trademark nonsense derailment snafu. This will be my one and only counter to Tippia's obvious ******** troll derailment past-time. Target is a freighter - zero tanking variety. If you don't know he had friends, that makes you worse than my dog at eve, because freighter party is obvious as wood. It must be sitting on top of a freighter or they won't make it to counter gank. With those points in mind, ganking such a freighter means you are worse than my dog at eve and should quit. Gank fleets being ganked are simply impossible, unless they hang right on a gate with a flag on them, in which case they're worse than my dog at eve. Freighters align speed allows to bring in prealigned fleet from a safespot easily. If I have to point it out to you, there are things like freight containers you can deploy from your freighter and put stuff there with another account. Here you go, you have a freighter-load and no flag. But how could you know about it if you're worse than my dog at eve? Loot fairy? You can't have it both ways in a single occurrence, but you WILL have it both ways in a long run. Picking on this point was more likely a trolling though, typical Tippia nonsense. So with those answers in mind, I feel pretty confident than the only real risk in ganking is being worse than my dog at eve. From here on I keep ignoring Tippia nonsense till forever.
So tell us, how do you spot a booster ship that can be active anywhere in the system? Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Sipphakta en Gravonere
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
605
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 18:51:00 -
[900] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:If you don't know how to launder your loot with the fleet hangar in an Orca, you really shouldn't be ganking. the freighters picking up the loot are as safe as a baby in its mother womb
Could you explain to me how you pick up a freight package of, let's say 200.000m3 or 400.000m3 without either your Orca or your Freighter pilot going suspect? (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
|
Mag's
the united
17273
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 18:53:00 -
[901] - Quote
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:Kenneth Feld wrote:If you don't know how to launder your loot with the fleet hangar in an Orca, you really shouldn't be ganking. the freighters picking up the loot are as safe as a baby in its mother womb Could you explain to me how you pick up a freight package of, let's say 200.000m3 without either your Orca or your Freighter pilot going suspect? Magic?
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6357
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 18:53:00 -
[902] - Quote
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:Kenneth Feld wrote:If you don't know how to launder your loot with the fleet hangar in an Orca, you really shouldn't be ganking. the freighters picking up the loot are as safe as a baby in its mother womb Could you explain to me how you pick up a freight package of, let's say 200.000m3 without either your Orca or your Freighter pilot going suspect?
Especially since, by definition, the gankers themselves are unable to protect their looting ship since they are all in station waiting out criminal timers. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21950
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 18:54:00 -
[903] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:If you don't know how to launder your loot with the fleet hangar in an Orca You mean the one that can't fit many of the things that a freighter will carry? Yeah, no. That's not a very good way of doing things. Oh and hey, it doesn't remove the risk of the freighter getting ganked by the way.
Agh. Quote limit. Let's do it this way.
Digger Pollard wrote:1. Target is a freighter - zero tanking variety. 2. It must be sitting on top of a freighter or they won't make it to counter gank. 3. Gank fleets being ganked are simply impossible 4. There are things like freight containers you can deploy from your freighter and put stuff there with another account 5. Loot fairy? You can't have it both ways in a single occurrence, but you WILL have it both ways in a long run 1. Incorrect. 2. Incorrect. 3. Incorrect. 4. Wow. Actually correct, assuming the loot is small enough, which is far from guaranteed. It doesn't remove it as a risk factor though. After all, people around here claim that freighter ganks happen for all kinds of reasonsGǪ 5. Which means it's an indisputable risk.
Quote:So with those answers in mind, I feel pretty confident than the only real risk in ganking is being worse than my dog at eve. In other words, you are fundamentally ignorant about everything even remotely related to ganks and even more clueles about risk as a concept. 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. |
Dave Stark
5785
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 18:55:00 -
[904] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:Kenneth Feld wrote:If you don't know how to launder your loot with the fleet hangar in an Orca, you really shouldn't be ganking. the freighters picking up the loot are as safe as a baby in its mother womb Could you explain to me how you pick up a freight package of, let's say 200.000m3 without either your Orca or your Freighter pilot going suspect? Especially since, by definition, the gankers themselves are unable to protect their looting ship since they are all in station waiting out criminal timers. even more so that you can't even put 200k m3 in an orca.... |
Mag's
the united
17273
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 18:57:00 -
[905] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:Kenneth Feld wrote:If you don't know how to launder your loot with the fleet hangar in an Orca, you really shouldn't be ganking. the freighters picking up the loot are as safe as a baby in its mother womb Could you explain to me how you pick up a freight package of, let's say 200.000m3 without either your Orca or your Freighter pilot going suspect? Especially since, by definition, the gankers themselves are unable to protect their looting ship since they are all in station waiting out criminal timers. even more so that you can't even put 200k m3 in an orca.... Unless it's a magic Orca.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1539
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 18:57:00 -
[906] - Quote
Digger Pollard wrote:
So with those answers in mind, I feel pretty confident than the only real risk in ganking is being worse than my dog at eve.
u say that as if avoiding ganks requires u to be better at playing the game than a dog. 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" |
Digger Pollard
Why So Platypus
4
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 18:57:00 -
[907] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:So tell us, how do you spot a booster ship that can be active anywhere in the system? Right after you tell us how booster ship boosts hull tank of a freighter.
...all right, I'll tell you anyway - you fit a ship scanner with a cargo scanner on your NPC scanning alt you scan freighters with. With amount of non-hull tank on a freighter, it's gotta be active all the time or it'll be too late. Not to mention that a booster will not boost freighter ehp more than 1%-2%, which is negligible. |
M'uva Wa'eva
Black Frog Logistics Red-Frog
32
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 18:58:00 -
[908] - Quote
Alexander McKeon wrote:Did anyone take a look at that post I made a while back suggesting the use of subsystems instead of rigs? It would allow Freighters & JFs to be customized differently, permit JFs to be given rage / fuel consumption modifications without affecting any other capitals and avoid needing an across-the-board nerf to prevent freighters from over-excelling in any one area because the trade-offs are built into the subsystems.
Seems like an elegant solution to many of the concerns raised in this thread.
Yes, that's a much more elegant solution than I suggested regarding customisability via slots. I'd be very happy if it could be adopted as a route forward. Obviously it'd push the changes to freighters and jump freighters back a monthly release or two, but that would be worth it to enable a properly thought-out solution and giving pilots the true customisation that would help the humble freighter to shine. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11642
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:00:00 -
[909] - Quote
Vhelnik Cojoin wrote:baltec1 wrote:Whats with this 500,000 freighter pilots? Did you even bother to read what I said?
Also please post said empty freighters. Yes, I did indeed read what you posted earlier, and what I quoted in one of my previous posts: baltec1 wrote:We worked out that there are greater chances of you being struck by lightning in RL than getting ganked. Unless you do something silly like stuffing 10 billion in the hold. However, first things first. I am unsure whether the forum allows direct KB links from this discussion, so you will have to look up the candidates I dug out for you: KillID: 23370943, 23370340, 23342061, 23317011 and 23261890. Please let me know if you are having difficulties using these numbers, and I will try to guide you. These suicide ganks took place in Isanamo in the month of May 2014, and where the freighter was either completely empty, or very nearly so, to the point where there was no hope of making a profit from the gank. Additionally the pilots were all in NPC corporations, so these kills cannot be explained as being due to pilot error during live wardecs. There were many more ganks in Isanamo in May, but the pilot was either in a player corp, or the cargo wasn't empty. Please let me know if you are with me so far. Don't worry, we will take this in small steps, so I don't loose you along the way.
The average month sees around 30 to 40 ganks. Now, we dont work out the chance based on per pilot but per trip and we do not include people who made themselves a target by stuffing billions in the hold. There are millions of trips made by Freighters each and every month. Over the span of the last decade, taking into account the number of freighter trips made the numbers work out as being much lower than being struck by lightning. Granted you are still more likely to be ganked than win the lottery.
This is what you ignored. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21953
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:00:00 -
[910] - Quote
Digger Pollard wrote:Not to mention that a booster will not boost freighter ehp more than 1%-2%, which is negligible. Incorrect. Even more so with these new numbers. 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. |
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6358
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:00:00 -
[911] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Unless it's a magic Orca.
That's it, I am renaming mine to Puff the Magic Orca. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11642
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:01:00 -
[912] - Quote
Digger Pollard wrote:baltec1 wrote:So tell us, how do you spot a booster ship that can be active anywhere in the system? Right after you tell us how booster ship boosts hull tank of a freighter. ...all right, I'll tell you anyway - you fit a ship scanner with a cargo scanner on your NPC scanning alt you scan freighters with. With amount of non-hull tank on a freighter, it's gotta be active all the time or it'll be too late. Not to mention that a booster will not boost freighter ehp more than 1%-2%, which is negligible.
So not only do you know nothing about ganking but also nothing about booster ships. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Digger Pollard
Why So Platypus
4
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:01:00 -
[913] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Digger Pollard wrote:
So with those answers in mind, I feel pretty confident than the only real risk in ganking is being worse than my dog at eve.
u say that as if avoiding ganks requires u to be better at playing the game than a dog.
Currently avoiding gank is 100% impossible even for gods. You can make it less profitable, but not avoid it. Losing a freighter, even an empty one, is bad enough to call it a huge risk to pilot one. |
Dave Stark
5786
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:02:00 -
[914] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Digger Pollard wrote:
So with those answers in mind, I feel pretty confident than the only real risk in ganking is being worse than my dog at eve.
u say that as if avoiding ganks requires u to be better at playing the game than a dog.
so if you're playing better than a dog, the ehp nerfs shouldn't be an issue since ganks are trivial to avoid. yes? |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1079
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:04:00 -
[915] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Digger Pollard wrote:Not to mention that a booster will not boost freighter ehp more than 1%-2%, which is negligible. Incorrect. Even more so with these new numbers.
I wonder if the best use is gonna be armor rigs + armor boost + slave set now. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21953
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:04:00 -
[916] - Quote
Digger Pollard wrote:Currently avoiding gank is 100% impossible even for gods. So how do you explain its monumental rarity and how people can go through their entire account lives without being victims of (or even seeing) one?
Frostys Virpio wrote:I wonder if the best use is gonna be armor rigs + armor boost + slave set now. It kind of looks like it because they're going to end up with an awful amount of armour it seems. I'm guessing that it's to slightly compensate for the assumed astronautic rig penalties, since even Caldari freighters will benefit immensely from armour boosting. 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. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11642
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:04:00 -
[917] - Quote
Digger Pollard wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:Digger Pollard wrote:
So with those answers in mind, I feel pretty confident than the only real risk in ganking is being worse than my dog at eve.
u say that as if avoiding ganks requires u to be better at playing the game than a dog. Currently avoiding gank is 100% impossible even for gods. You can make it less profitable, but not avoid it. Losing a freighter, even an empty one, is bad enough to call it a huge risk to pilot one.
30-40 ganked freighters a month out of the millions of trips made is a "huge risk". Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Narjack
CragCO
5
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:05:00 -
[918] - Quote
Not the first to suggest this in this thread but I'm ok with forcing pilots to make a choice in how they set up their ship...more tank or more cargo etc.
But for us small folk out here that don't have trillions of isk I really can't have 1 JF for tank, 1 for heavy cargo etc. Nor will I waste money ripping off rigs every time I need to change. Would rather see the ships have zero rig slots and have fitting option (a couple of low slots?) or something. Then I have to fit to mission. I'd be ok with that. |
Wulfy Johnson
NorCorp Security
42
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:05:00 -
[919] - Quote
Somehow i feel that a free for all community channel for bored gankbears in dessies are in order if this patch goes live, the tearharvesting for lost rigs and isk will be enormous.
Wonder how long hisec can burn before the obvious hits.. |
Mag's
the united
17273
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:05:00 -
[920] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Digger Pollard wrote:Currently avoiding gank is 100% impossible even for gods. So how do you explain its monumental rarity and how people can go through their entire account lives without being victims of (or even seeing) one? I covered this one in post 901.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
|
Digger Pollard
Why So Platypus
4
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:05:00 -
[921] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Digger Pollard wrote:Currently avoiding gank is 100% impossible even for gods. So how do you explain its monumental rarity and how people can go through their entire account lives without being victims of (or even seeing) one?
Somebody other than Tippia should ask me this so I could answer. |
Dave Stark
5787
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:05:00 -
[922] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Tippia wrote:Digger Pollard wrote:Not to mention that a booster will not boost freighter ehp more than 1%-2%, which is negligible. Incorrect. Even more so with these new numbers. I wonder if the best use is gonna be armor rigs + armor boost + slave set now.
i think, based on quick maths and some one else's calculation of the bonus of a slave set... even a 3 trimark slave'd obelisk would have less armour HP than hull HP. there aren't even any t2 resists on an obelisk to offset that fact. |
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
3439
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:06:00 -
[923] - Quote
Even I know how to pick up cargo from a can and warp off in the same tick, eliminating any threat from a suspect timer. Yay for counter can-flipping. Sovereignty and Population New Mining Mechanics |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1081
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:06:00 -
[924] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:Digger Pollard wrote:
So with those answers in mind, I feel pretty confident than the only real risk in ganking is being worse than my dog at eve.
u say that as if avoiding ganks requires u to be better at playing the game than a dog. so if you're playing better than a dog, the ehp nerfs shouldn't be an issue since ganks are trivial to avoid. yes?
Well if your dog is better than you, the ship might never undock because dogs have trouble with using mouse. If he manage to click the button, now you are **** out of luck and will die as you drift slowly away from the station because a dog definitely won't need less than a full day to select anything and then warp to is. |
Ammzi
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
1768
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:06:00 -
[925] - Quote
Digger Pollard wrote:
Currently avoiding gank is 100% impossible even for gods. You can make it less profitable, but not avoid it. Losing a freighter, even an empty one, is bad enough to call it a huge risk to pilot one.
100 % impossible? I can avoid gank with minimum effort. I can avoid almost all ganks with more effort. And webbing is only one of like 10 different tools you can use to protect your freighter. Alas people who think "My freighter is empty, therefore I should INVULNVERABLE!" are so utterly wrong. If people want to kill you for any reason what-so-ever they can probably muster the effort to do so. And if you know they are coming for you, you can prepare yourselves in a variety of ways.
There is no mother-of-all counter, on both sides. That's how it works. |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1081
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:07:00 -
[926] - Quote
Digger Pollard wrote:Tippia wrote:Digger Pollard wrote:Currently avoiding gank is 100% impossible even for gods. So how do you explain its monumental rarity and how people can go through their entire account lives without being victims of (or even seeing) one? Somebody other than Tippia should ask me this so I could answer.
So how do you explain its monumental rarity and how people can go through their entire account lives without being victims of (or even seeing) one? |
Dave Stark
5787
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:07:00 -
[927] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:Digger Pollard wrote:
So with those answers in mind, I feel pretty confident than the only real risk in ganking is being worse than my dog at eve.
u say that as if avoiding ganks requires u to be better at playing the game than a dog. so if you're playing better than a dog, the ehp nerfs shouldn't be an issue since ganks are trivial to avoid. yes? Well if your dog is better than you, the ship might never undock because dogs have trouble with using mouse. If he manage to click the button, now you are **** out of luck and will die as you drift slowly away from the station because a dog definitely won't need less than a full day to select anything and then warp to is.
are you calling Mr. Fuzzywiggles stupid? how dare you. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21954
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:09:00 -
[928] - Quote
Digger Pollard wrote:Tippia wrote:So how do you explain its monumental rarity and how people can go through their entire account lives without being victims of (or even seeing) one?
Somebody other than Tippia should ask me this so I could answer. I have no answer. Yeah, that's what happens when you pull such nonsensical ideas out of nowhere.
By the way, would you like to venture a guess at how much a Charon GÇö decidedly not an armour tanker GÇö benefits from having armour boosting in the system? Would you like to revise your 1GÇô2% number for something more realistic?
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. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1540
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:10:00 -
[929] - Quote
Digger Pollard wrote: Right after you tell us how booster ship boosts hull tank of a freighter.
...all right, I'll tell you anyway - you fit a ship scanner with a cargo scanner on your NPC scanning alt you scan freighters with. With amount of non-hull tank on a freighter, it's gotta be active all the time or it'll be too late. Not to mention that a booster will not boost freighter ehp more than 1%-2%, which is negligible.
more like 10% (will be more now that freighters are getting more hp into armour and shield) and logi reps.
Digger Pollard wrote: Currently avoiding gank is 100% impossible even for gods. You can make it less profitable, but not avoid it. Losing a freighter, even an empty one, is bad enough to call it a huge risk to pilot one.
Hard to prove that. all i can say is i freighter a lot, and have never once been successfully ganked.
Dave Stark wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:Digger Pollard wrote:
So with those answers in mind, I feel pretty confident than the only real risk in ganking is being worse than my dog at eve.
u say that as if avoiding ganks requires u to be better at playing the game than a dog. so if you're playing better than a dog, the ehp nerfs shouldn't be an issue since ganks are trivial to avoid. yes?
without trying to paint a bulls eye on my head, i intend to fit 3 cargo rigs on all my freighters. I expect the methods i use to keep myself safe now will continue to keep me safe. 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" |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1081
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:10:00 -
[930] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:Digger Pollard wrote:
So with those answers in mind, I feel pretty confident than the only real risk in ganking is being worse than my dog at eve.
u say that as if avoiding ganks requires u to be better at playing the game than a dog. so if you're playing better than a dog, the ehp nerfs shouldn't be an issue since ganks are trivial to avoid. yes? Well if your dog is better than you, the ship might never undock because dogs have trouble with using mouse. If he manage to click the button, now you are **** out of luck and will die as you drift slowly away from the station because a dog definitely won't need less than a full day to select anything and then warp to is. are you calling Mr. Fuzzywiggles stupid? how dare you.
He's not stupid, it's mostly a problem with using a mouse with PAWS! |
|
Mag's
the united
17274
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:12:00 -
[931] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:without trying to paint a bulls eye on my head, i intend to fit 3 cargo rigs on all my freighters. I expect the methods i use to keep myself safe now will continue to keep me safe. Jots that info down.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Vhelnik Cojoin
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
53
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:12:00 -
[932] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:The average month sees around 30 to 40 ganks. Now, we dont work out the chance based on per pilot but per trip and we do not include people who made themselves a target by stuffing billions in the hold. There are millions of trips made by Freighters each and every month. Over the span of the last decade, taking into account the number of freighter trips made the numbers work out as being much lower than being struck by lightning. Granted you are still more likely to be ganked than win the lottery.
This is what you ignored.
I'm terribly sorry Mr. baltec1,
Statistics is an exact scientific branch of mathematics. You do not get to change your statements later, or add qualifications when convenient, just to try and squirm your way out of a pinch.
We are trying to determine whether your original statement regarding the chance of getting suicide ganked as a freighter pilot, as compared to being struck by lightening in real life, is true or false.
Now. Do you concede that freighter pilots in NPC corporations are being suicide ganked in HiSec, even with no cargo? Yes or no. This question seemed important to you, so I need an answer. Have you Communicated with your fellow capsuleers today? It is good for the EVE-oconomy and o-kay for you. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11642
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:15:00 -
[933] - Quote
Vhelnik Cojoin wrote:
Now. Do you concede that freighter pilots in NPC corporations are being suicide ganked in HiSec, even with no cargo? Yes or no. This question seemed important to you, so I need an answer.
Sure they do, its just very very rare. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Digger Pollard
Why So Platypus
4
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:15:00 -
[934] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:So how do you explain its monumental rarity and how people can go through their entire account lives without being victims of (or even seeing) one? First, there is no rarity, just over-estimation of how many freighters actually pass per hour. I remember sitting for an hour on a Jita gate during a peak, gates were closed, and in an hour I've seen only about 30 or so freighters hanging there with me. Second, there are easier targets, namely T1 industrial ships people use to move stuff which doesn't require a freighter. I won't argue about those people being close or not to my dog, but as long as they exist, they just pay more isk/click(wanted to write "effort" but we're talking about ganking...) for gankers, and so they remain primary target. Third is gankers being simply too lazy. Why should they gank a freighter, which requires to multibox 7 accs, when they can multibox 2 catalysts and gank a miner instead? Ganking a miner is much easier than freighter, they are abundant, so if you just want easy tears, you go for them instead.
All in all, I am simply surprised how bad gankers are. They are crying to make freighters as easy to gank as miners, and it looks like they are succeeding. |
Dave Stark
5791
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:16:00 -
[935] - Quote
Vhelnik Cojoin wrote:Statistics is an exact scientific branch of mathematics. I'm so glad about that. I'd absolutely hate to have ended up with a BA instead of a BSc. nobody likes art students. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1541
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:16:00 -
[936] - Quote
Vhelnik Cojoin wrote:
Statistics is an exact scientific branch of mathematics.
quoting, and if i have space, this will go in my sig. ur shame will last till the end of time. 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" |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
9955
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:18:00 -
[937] - Quote
How about addressing the fact that freighter and especially JF pilots are more likely the least affected by such a change since they'll just pass the increased cost on to everybody else? "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21956
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:19:00 -
[938] - Quote
Digger Pollard wrote:First, there is no rarity, just over-estimation of how many freighters actually pass per hour. Do you have any statistics to support this assertion?
Quote:Second, there are easier targets Third is gankers being simply too lazy. So you're saying that it's actually very rare.
Quote:They are crying to make freighters as easy to gank as miners, and it looks like they are succeeding. Do you have any examples of this actually happening? 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. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
9955
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:19:00 -
[939] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Vhelnik Cojoin wrote:
Statistics is an exact scientific branch of mathematics.
quoting, and if i have space, this will go in my sig. ur shame will last till the end of time. Have you ever taken a course in statistics? Do you know what a significance test is? These things aren't open to interpretation any more so than any other branch of mathematics. "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
Sipphakta en Gravonere
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
606
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:20:00 -
[940] - Quote
Digger Pollard wrote:First, there is no rarity, just over-estimation of how many freighters actually pass per hour. I remember sitting for an hour on a Jita gate during a peak, gates were closed, and in an hour I've seen only about 30 or so freighters hanging there with me.
And how many of those have been ganked?
(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
|
Mag's
the united
17275
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:20:00 -
[941] - Quote
Repost. (For answers)Digger Pollard wrote:First, there is no rarity, just over-estimation of how many freighters actually pass per hour. Do you have any statistics to support this assertion?
Quote:Second, there are easier targets Third is gankers being simply too lazy. So you're saying that it's actually very rare.
Quote:They are crying to make freighters as easy to gank as miners, and it looks like they are succeeding. Do you have any examples of this actually happening?
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1081
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:21:00 -
[942] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Digger Pollard wrote:First, there is no rarity, just over-estimation of how many freighters actually pass per hour. Do you have any statistics to support this assertion? Quote:Second, there are easier targets Third is gankers being simply too lazy. So you're saying that it's actually very rare. Quote:They are crying to make freighters as easy to gank as miners, and it looks like they are succeeding. Do you have any examples of this actually happening?
What he's saying is the gankers still kill most of the freighter while being too lazy to do it and hunting for barge/industrial ship more because they are easier targets. All in a day of work. |
Commander A9
The Scope Gallente Federation
604
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:22:00 -
[943] - Quote
Great.
So we're hauling less...
We're less protected...
And we have to spend millions to achieve what we can maintain already now after the changes are applied.
I hate these changes; hands down. It's already easy enough to take down a freighter through the use of multi-client software; now, with these changes, it's going to get even worse.
Again, if 'no votes nerf boats,' why is it I vote, and all my favorite boats keep getting nerfed anyway? Recommendations: -enable ships wobbling in hangar view (pre-Captains Quarters) -add more missions (NPC fleet vs. NPC fleets that actually shoot) -less focus on graphics, more on mechanics Tune in to NewEdenRadio.com for awesome music! |
Dave Stark
5791
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:23:00 -
[944] - Quote
Commander A9 wrote:Again, if 'no votes nerf boats,' why is it I vote, and all my favorite boats keep getting nerfed anyway? this one's more a case of "stupid people kept asking for things, even though they were told this was going to happen". |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
9955
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:24:00 -
[945] - Quote
Commander A9 wrote:It's already easy enough to take down a freighter through the use of multi-client software I seriously doubt this has happened more than maybe once or twice ever. It's certainly not common. Freighter ganking isn't easy even as a group effort among individual players. "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
Digger Pollard
Why So Platypus
4
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:25:00 -
[946] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Commander A9 wrote:Again, if 'no votes nerf boats,' why is it I vote, and all my favorite boats keep getting nerfed anyway? this one's more a case of "stupid people kept asking for things, even though they were told this was going to happen".
More like "people were asking for obviously needed buffs and stupid people nerfed it instead". |
Dave Stark
5793
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:26:00 -
[947] - Quote
Digger Pollard wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Commander A9 wrote:Again, if 'no votes nerf boats,' why is it I vote, and all my favorite boats keep getting nerfed anyway? this one's more a case of "stupid people kept asking for things, even though they were told this was going to happen". More like "people were asking for obviously needed buffs and stupid people nerfed it instead".
no, people were told this would happen but kept insisting on this idiotic change. |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1082
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:26:00 -
[948] - Quote
Digger Pollard wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Commander A9 wrote:Again, if 'no votes nerf boats,' why is it I vote, and all my favorite boats keep getting nerfed anyway? this one's more a case of "stupid people kept asking for things, even though they were told this was going to happen". More like "people were asking for obviously needed buffs and stupid people nerfed it instead".
Freighter didn't needed a buff. |
Retar Aveymone
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
374
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:27:00 -
[949] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: I'm seeing some good feedback about the unique role of Jump Freighters meaning that they don't get much benefit from rigs other than cargo rigs, and this is indeed a problem that limits player choice. I'm going to bring up a few ways to help solve that issue with the other designers early next week.
I do want to clarify that although it's very possible that a lot of these numbers can change, we're not going to simply give JFs a gigantic buff to their cargoholds and call it a day. The fast movement of goods across the galaxy has its advantages and also its disadvantages, and we are not going to simply let power creep get out of control in this area.
As a note: I completely get that you don't want to make JFs even more powerful. But without new types of rigs, there's no gameplay benefit to giving JFs rig slots - they'll just fit the required cargohold rigs and all you've really done is increase their price.
As a side note, I think the agility nerf is unneeded - there's never going to be a situation you fit for agility. And where jfs are aligning, they're almost always doing so in complete safety (a station docking ring, pos shields, etc) so an agility nerf is really just making flying them more unpleasant rather than doing much gameplay-wise. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6361
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:28:00 -
[950] - Quote
Digger Pollard wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Commander A9 wrote:Again, if 'no votes nerf boats,' why is it I vote, and all my favorite boats keep getting nerfed anyway? this one's more a case of "stupid people kept asking for things, even though they were told this was going to happen". More like "people were asking for obviously needed buffs and stupid people nerfed it instead".
No buffs were needed, that was just wishful thinking among those who thought CCP would ever support their dreams of them autopiloting through space with several billion isk in their cargohold.
Nerfs seemingly were needed, though. "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
1542
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:28:00 -
[951] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:Vhelnik Cojoin wrote:
Statistics is an exact scientific branch of mathematics.
quoting, and if i have space, this will go in my sig. ur shame will last till the end of time. Have you ever taken a course in statistics? Do you know what a significance test is? These things aren't open to interpretation any more so than any other branch of mathematics.
its the exact part.
data may be exact. however there is nothing exact about which data should be used or how it is gathered.
for example: baltec is using the amount of freighter trips as his population. vhelnik is using the amount of freighter pilots as his population.
both are correct, but they arent the same. which u use is ur opinion.
and there is nothing exact about a significance test either. in fact what should be used as a significance level is entirely open to OPINION, and even when a significance level suggests one thing or the other it is only a suggestion. it is entirely open to interpretation how we read data. Statistical analysis has inference written all over it.
yes i have taken courses in statistics. 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" |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
9960
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:28:00 -
[952] - Quote
There were no buffs necessary, freighters and JFs were fine. The predominant effect of the nerf however will be the increase in prices for people living in remote areas of space. "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
handige harrie
Hedion University Amarr Empire
252
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:31:00 -
[953] - Quote
This is CCP saying people with one account are not wanted in EVE. It's cheaper to haul with 2x freighters now than it is with 1x with Rigs.
so plebs, please get out. Baddest poster ever |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
9960
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:31:00 -
[954] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:and there is nothing exact about a significance test either. in fact what should be used as a significance level is entirely open to OPINION, and even when a significance level suggests one thing or the other it is only a suggestion. it is entirely open to interpretation. Uh no, when you do a significance test at the 90% level you're saying that you want to be 90% certain that your confidence interval contains the true population proportion, or that you want to be 90% certain that rejecting the null hypothesis is correct.
It's about probabilities, not interpretation. "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21957
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:33:00 -
[955] - Quote
handige harrie wrote:This is CCP saying people with one account are not wanted in EVE. It's cheaper to haul with 2x freighters now than it is with 1x with Rigs. So your freighters cost less than 300M ISK? Can I a buy one five? 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. |
Jatok Reknar
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:35:00 -
[956] - Quote
You do have to factor in the concept of individual loss - rather than cumulative isk loss - when balancing risk vs reward for ganking imo. A well fitted catalyst costs what? Getting a group together, I can imagine is challenging and requires organizational skills. But an individual's sense of loss for losing his gank ship to CONCORD is minimal at best when compared to the owner of a freighter (which is supposed to be a capital ship), even if that owner isn't doing anything stupid like pack multiple billions in his freighter.
Though I think we digress. This change just feels rushed and not fully thought out. Hopefully CCP will keep refining it a bit more before.
|
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1082
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:35:00 -
[957] - Quote
Tippia wrote:handige harrie wrote:This is CCP saying people with one account are not wanted in EVE. It's cheaper to haul with 2x freighters now than it is with 1x with Rigs. So your freighters cost less than 300M ISK? Can I a buy one five?
I guess it depends on which rigs you plan on using... |
Dave Stark
5793
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:36:00 -
[958] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:and there is nothing exact about a significance test either. in fact what should be used as a significance level is entirely open to OPINION, and even when a significance level suggests one thing or the other it is only a suggestion. it is entirely open to interpretation. Uh no, when you do a significance test at the 90% level you're saying that you want to be 90% certain that your confidence interval contains the true population proportion, or that you want to be 90% certain that rejecting the null hypothesis is correct. It's about probabilities, not interpretation. hate to be pedantic, but that's the definition of a credible interval. |
Vhelnik Cojoin
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
53
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:37:00 -
[959] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Vhelnik Cojoin wrote:
Now. Do you concede that freighter pilots in NPC corporations are being suicide ganked in HiSec, even with no cargo? Yes or no. This question seemed important to you, so I need an answer.
Sure they do, its just very very rare. Excellent. We just need more than zero examples per year to proceed.
It is getting late here, so we will have to continue tomorrow, I'm afraid. Some light reading might be in order before then. I suggest the first few chapters of "Fundamentals of Statistical and Thermal Physics" by Federick Reif. McGraw-Hill (1985), ISBN 0-07085615-X. Despite the title the introductory chapters deals purely with the mathematical aspects of statistics without being too terse. Others may be able to suggest better alternatives.
Daichi Yamato wrote:Vhelnik Cojoin wrote:
Statistics is an exact scientific branch of mathematics.
quoting, and if i have space, this will go in my sig. ur shame will last till the end of time.
I'm honored. You might consider using the above literature reference as well. Have you Communicated with your fellow capsuleers today? It is good for the EVE-oconomy and o-kay for you. |
Vigilanta
S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS.
34
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:42:00 -
[960] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Quote:the point of my post is to try to actually give some choice to the ship owner You have plenty of choice. The entire problem is that some people assumed all along that being given choice would itself come without a cost, but that was never going to happen GÇö choice itself is too valuable, and the full array of choices you can make have to fit in the overall balance of the game.
I dont ever think anyone assumed choice would come without a cost, I think most imagined that with the introduction of rigs we would have the opportunity to marginally increase cargo and tank ./ or speed, OR massively improve cargo OR tank. Please note the or. The main issue that is created with the current proposed set of changes is that there really isn't a middle ground. If i want to be able to move and ihub or 2 sov upgrades there is more or less only 1 way for me to really rig a freighter, that is hardly choice.
Coming into this thread I fully expected and embraced that there would be at least a marginal nerf in base hauling capacity to both the JF and Freightor, but the degree to which Fozzie nerfed them is amazing. Realistically, freighters were in dire need of a buff, as someone who has been bumped around madrimille for 15 minutes there is no way one can consider the current gank meta fair or balanced. Jump freighters were more or less fine as is and realistically didn't need any change, though having them being able to move 400k m3 would have been kind of nice just because of the aforementioned sov upgrades.
Some things that i think would make this more palatable. (not necessarily all, but pick and choose)
1. Give each races frieghtor / JF a defined role, before they each had some uniqueness, I feel like you have removed some of that as most of them have very similar capacity's now, especially the jfs. It would be cool if there was a reason to spec into multiple races of freightor and each race had a reason to use it above others for certain situations. I.E. Minmatar for speed, Amarr for tank, Caldari for Capacity. This somewhat exists already but it would be nice to see these more defined. This adds some more diversity to the high level logistics play.
2. 2 rigs slots on freightors 1 on jf's, Allow for some choice but make it so we can at least use the base model without having to make the investment into capital rigs i.e. throw away ihub freighters, I really don't want to be using a 3 bil isk freighter in nullsec to get things done.
3. Some agility or warp speed increase, i'm not talking anything massive, but it is hard to resist autopiloting sometime as this is the most boring thing in the game. Your either going to live or your going to die on any given trip, there is little you can do (aside from cargo selection) that is going going to change that.
Do remember that you are already effectively nerfing JF;s with the jump fuel consumption changes, im not seeing why they need additional nerfs. Nor do I see how JF's were contributing to power creep as since empire is central, and jfs move goods from the central location empire to the war front, not matter which front your fighting on HS is usually about the same distance away for both sides. Living in Deep null, it is already pretty expensive to move out to null and back, a 50% increase in cost is going to make a big difference in cost for those of us that are 5 jumps deep. |
|
handige harrie
Hedion University Amarr Empire
252
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:43:00 -
[961] - Quote
Tippia wrote:handige harrie wrote:This is CCP saying people with one account are not wanted in EVE. It's cheaper to haul with 2x freighters now than it is with 1x with Rigs. So your freighters cost less than 300M ISK? Can I a buy one five?
try making a freighter have the same EHP AND cargo in Kronos as now, Tech 1 rigs will only get your so far.... Baddest poster ever |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
9963
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:46:00 -
[962] - Quote
At least make it so jump freighters can regain their current cargo values or close to it with two T1 cargo rigs instead of needing two T2 rigs. "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
3630
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:48:00 -
[963] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:I'm seeing some good feedback about the unique role of Jump Freighters meaning that they don't get much benefit from rigs other than cargo rigs, and this is indeed a problem that limits player choice. I'm going to bring up a few ways to help solve that issue with the other designers early next week. You do realize that the PRIMARY REASON people use freighters / jump freighters is because of their cargo capacity, right?
Of course cargo is a priority! Otherwise smaller cargo ships would be used, like Orca or carrier / Rorqual.
There should be no surprise that any proposed reduction of cargo is going to result in a huge backlash against it.
|
Lyn Fel
Black Frog Logistics Red-Frog
38
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:49:00 -
[964] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Commander A9 wrote:It's already easy enough to take down a freighter through the use of multi-client software I seriously doubt this has happened more than maybe once or twice ever. It's certainly not common. Freighter ganking isn't easy even as a group effort among individual players.
This literally happens almost every day in Niarja, Uedama, Balle area and other common ganking spots. There are are at least a few people who run isboxer freighter gank squads regularly. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6361
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:51:00 -
[965] - Quote
Lyn Fel wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Commander A9 wrote:It's already easy enough to take down a freighter through the use of multi-client software I seriously doubt this has happened more than maybe once or twice ever. It's certainly not common. Freighter ganking isn't easy even as a group effort among individual players. This literally happens every day in Niarja and/or Uedama.
See, while people say it does, I wonder if that that's not just an urban legend like the "recycling alts" that people always talk about. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Dave Stark
5794
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:53:00 -
[966] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Lyn Fel wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Commander A9 wrote:It's already easy enough to take down a freighter through the use of multi-client software I seriously doubt this has happened more than maybe once or twice ever. It's certainly not common. Freighter ganking isn't easy even as a group effort among individual players. This literally happens every day in Niarja and/or Uedama. See, while people say it does, I wonder if that that's not just an urban legend like the "recycling alts" that people always talk about. also how do they know it's 1 guy with mutliboxing software, not just 20 really well co-ordinated pilots? |
Basterd2Vill
2
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:56:00 -
[967] - Quote
So if I'm to understand this, you've significantly increased fuel cost for Jump Freighters, drastically reduced the base cargo hold and HP with the CHANCE to bring back either EHP or Cargo at a likely gigantic isk cost. I sincerely hope Riot is knocking on your door next. These changes are 100% unwarranted. There are 10 million other things in this game that need to be balanced, nerfing a 7b isk ship who's primary purpose is strictly logistical is not one of them. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1542
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:57:00 -
[968] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:and there is nothing exact about a significance test either. in fact what should be used as a significance level is entirely open to OPINION, and even when a significance level suggests one thing or the other it is only a suggestion. it is entirely open to interpretation. Uh no, when you do a significance test at the 90% level you're saying that you want to be 90% certain that your confidence interval contains the true population proportion, or that you want to be 90% certain that rejecting the null hypothesis is correct. It's about probabilities, not interpretation.
what we said was that it suggested the null hypothesis is correct, but we understood it does not give 100% certainty. u cannot say its exact and un manipulable when ppl use different significant levels for different tests. they pull whatever number they want to use out their arse.
saying the the significance test is open to interpretation is wrong, its not what i meant. whats open to interpretation is ur theory based on the information gathered from the test.
but theres nothing exact about statistics apart from raw data. which can still be collected in various ways and give different out comes. 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" |
Ray Kyonhe
Ray's Relentless Research Special Circumstances Alliance
14
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:58:00 -
[969] - Quote
Jatok Reknar wrote: Getting a group together, I can imagine is challenging and requires organizational skills Well, that part is outdated. After isboxer got legalazied and SS can be laundered with ease, it's much easier to just do most of the work by yourself, no need for organizing people and practice together. In fact, capital anti-cargo scan rig which would eat all hull's calibration points as proposed here before, would made a reasonable addtion now. |
Dave Stark
5794
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 20:01:00 -
[970] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:which can still be collected in various ways and give different out comes. not if you have population data. |
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
416
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 20:02:00 -
[971] - Quote
Vigilanta wrote:Tippia wrote:Quote:the point of my post is to try to actually give some choice to the ship owner You have plenty of choice. The entire problem is that some people assumed all along that being given choice would itself come without a cost, but that was never going to happen GÇö choice itself is too valuable, and the full array of choices you can make have to fit in the overall balance of the game. I dont ever think anyone assumed choice would come without a cost, I think most imagined that with the introduction of rigs we would have the opportunity to marginally increase cargo and tank ./ or speed, OR massively improve cargo OR tank. Please note the or. The main issue that is created with the current proposed set of changes is that there really isn't a middle ground. If i want to be able to move and ihub or 2 sov upgrades there is more or less only 1 way for me to really rig a freighter, that is hardly choice. Coming into this thread I fully expected and embraced that there would be at least a marginal nerf in base hauling capacity to both the JF and Freightor, but the degree to which Fozzie nerfed them is amazing. Realistically, freighters were in dire need of a buff, as someone who has been bumped around madrimille for 15 minutes there is no way one can consider the current gank meta fair or balanced. Jump freighters were more or less fine as is and realistically didn't need any change, though having them being able to move 400k m3 would have been kind of nice just because of the aforementioned sov upgrades. Some things that i think would make this more palatable. (not necessarily all, but pick and choose) 1. Give each races frieghtor / JF a defined role, before they each had some uniqueness, I feel like you have removed some of that as most of them have very similar capacity's now, especially the jfs. It would be cool if there was a reason to spec into multiple races of freightor and each race had a reason to use it above others for certain situations. I.E. Minmatar for speed, Amarr for tank, Caldari for Capacity. This somewhat exists already but it would be nice to see these more defined. This adds some more diversity to the high level logistics play. 2. 2 rigs slots on freightors 1 on jf's, Allow for some choice but make it so we can at least use the base model without having to make the investment into capital rigs i.e. throw away ihub freighters, I really don't want to be using a 3 bil isk freighter in nullsec to get things done. 3. Some agility or warp speed increase, i'm not talking anything massive, but it is hard to resist autopiloting sometime as this is the most boring thing in the game. Your either going to live or your going to die on any given trip, there is little you can do (aside from cargo selection) that is going going to change that. Do remember that you are already effectively nerfing JF;s with the jump fuel consumption changes, im not seeing why they need additional nerfs. Nor do I see how JF's were contributing to power creep as since empire is central, and jfs move goods from the central location empire to the war front, not matter which front your fighting on HS is usually about the same distance away for both sides. Living in Deep null, it is already pretty expensive to move out to null and back, a 50% increase in cost is going to make a big difference in cost for those of us that are 5 jumps deep.
Good god a common sense post among all the inane chatter from multiple forum trolls black slapping each other over how wonderful they are. +1 to you sir for getting it spot on. Don't be a turd and follow the herd Instead be a Hero at Hub Zero |
Myst Valkyria
Red Frog Freight Red-Frog
11
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 20:03:00 -
[972] - Quote
So...looking at the math...you are making it take almost 1 minute for a freighter to actually align (without any rigs it will be worse with hull rigs). It won't matter how much hull hp you have because you will never get off the gate alive. And that align time is with Evasive Maneuvering 5.
These changes get worse and worse the more you look at them. |
Tyr Dolorem
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 20:03:00 -
[973] - Quote
I swear this thread has just become the same 5 people trolling each other. |
Dave Stark
5794
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 20:04:00 -
[974] - Quote
Tyr Dolorem wrote:I swear this thread has just become the same 5 people trolling each other. i think there are more than 4 freighter pilots, and ccp fozzie posting in this thread. |
Tyr Dolorem
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 20:05:00 -
[975] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Tyr Dolorem wrote:I swear this thread has just become the same 5 people trolling each other. i think there are more than 4 freighter pilots, and ccp fozzie posting in this thread.
Actually I was talking about you. |
Valterra Craven
233
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 20:07:00 -
[976] - Quote
I get WHY you are doing alot of the industry oriented changes, but with a few minor exceptions it seems like all of the industry changes are across the board nerfs.
Things are getting more expensive Things are taking longer to research Minerals are getting less abundant Inflation will still be a problem.
While likely a lot of people would disagree I don't think better UI is a buff, but that's neither here nor there.
I guess what I'm saying is that if you are going to follow through with the freighter rig changes, you should balance the across the board nerfs to them by decreasing their build cost. For example a freighter with no rigs at all will be a straight nerf across the board and will have no upsides over the previous freighters. (Sophie's choice on rigs are not upsides IMO) So in terms of balance why dont you cut the mineral cost out of the hull by roughly the same percentage that you are nerfing the ship? This will be more than made up for by the cost adding rigs to the ship. |
Dave Stark
5794
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 20:08:00 -
[977] - Quote
Tyr Dolorem wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Tyr Dolorem wrote:I swear this thread has just become the same 5 people trolling each other. i think there are more than 4 freighter pilots, and ccp fozzie posting in this thread. Actually I was talking about you.
i'm well aware, darling.
i'm flattered. |
Ray Kyonhe
Ray's Relentless Research Special Circumstances Alliance
15
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 20:08:00 -
[978] - Quote
Vigilanta wrote: Do remember that you are already effectively nerfing JF;s with the jump fuel consumption changes, im not seeing why they need additional nerfs. Nor do I see how JF's were contributing to power creep as since empire is central, and jfs move goods from the central location empire to the war front, not matter which front your fighting on HS is usually about the same distance away for both sides. Living in Deep null, it is already pretty expensive to move out to null and back, a 50% increase in cost is going to make a big difference in cost for those of us that are 5 jumps deep.
It has already been stated that it was exactly the reason why they were nerfed. You aren't supposed to import all you want, you have to think about founding some local infrastructure. And you are not supposed to dump all the goods you want to highsecs' markets and dominate them, after the summer's industry changes which will improve somewhat nullsecs industry's capacities. |
Dave Stark
5794
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 20:09:00 -
[979] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Minerals are getting less abundant. objectively false.
in one of the recent updates, and in one of the coming updates. extra minerals have been added to various ores. minerals are becoming nothing but MORE abundant. |
Valterra Craven
233
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 20:12:00 -
[980] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Minerals are getting less abundant. objectively false. in one of the recent updates, and in one of the coming updates. extra minerals have been added to various ores. minerals are becoming nothing but MORE abundant.
50% Decrease across the board to minerals being removed from object refines is making them less abundant. Adding minerals to ores in deep 0.0 does not change this fact. Prices will increase. |
|
Lyn Fel
Black Frog Logistics Red-Frog
38
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 20:12:00 -
[981] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Lyn Fel wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Commander A9 wrote:It's already easy enough to take down a freighter through the use of multi-client software I seriously doubt this has happened more than maybe once or twice ever. It's certainly not common. Freighter ganking isn't easy even as a group effort among individual players. This literally happens every day in Niarja and/or Uedama. See, while people say it does, I wonder if that that's not just an urban legend like the "recycling alts" that people always talk about. also how do they know it's 1 guy with mutliboxing software, not just 20 really well co-ordinated pilots?
http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=23381051
http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=23364606
Here is one of them, Wrong Target Sorry__. Are you seriously going to try and tell me those aren't an isboxer group?
There is also the Amm_i group that often gank with him...
http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=22913391
Go through the KB histories a bit. There are actually a lot more not on killboards because they don't post them. My alliance mates see them happen though since it is in their best interest to scout choke points. |
Dave Stark
5794
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 20:16:00 -
[982] - Quote
no, i'm telling you that you've offered no proof that it is. |
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars
126
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 20:18:00 -
[983] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:The numbers are now corrected in the OP.
Can you confirm in contrast that the agility nerf to JFs is intentional? (from 0.05 to 0.0625)?
|
Axe Coldon
Coldon Enterprises Axion Bionics
34
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 20:21:00 -
[984] - Quote
See, while people say it does, I wonder if that that's not just an urban legend like the "recycling alts" that people always talk about.[/quote wrote: also how do they know it's 1 guy with mutliboxing software, not just 20 really well co-ordinated pilots?
http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=23381051
http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=23364606
Here is one of them, Wrong Target Sorry__. Are you seriously going to try and tell me those aren't an isboxer group?
There is also the Amm_i group that often gank with him...
http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=22913391
Go through the KB histories a bit. There are actually a lot more not on killboards because they don't post them. My alliance mates see them happen though since it is in their best interest to scout choke points.[/quote]
How can one tell by a kill board whether the attacking gang used ISBOXER..which far as I know is allowed. Its not bot software |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21961
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 20:23:00 -
[985] - Quote
Vigilanta wrote:I dont ever think anyone assumed choice would come without a cost, I think most imagined that with the introduction of rigs we would have the opportunity to marginally increase cargo and tank ./ or speed, OR massively improve cargo OR tank. Please note the or. The main issue that is created with the current proposed set of changes is that there really isn't a middle ground. Maybe some didn't, but if you look back at the threads they are chock-full of people who seem to assume that the only cost would be something along the lines of rig penalties and nothing more. The reason why these kinds of overarching nerfs to the base stats are needed never got past their blinders.
The same goes for the middle ground: the notion that the middle ground would forcibly be something pretty bad since the balancing had to compensate for the extremes never sunk in. In truth, they actually end up being much less severe than expected GÇö in most cases, you can shift the penalties to something that doesn't hurt too much.
Quote:Realistically, freighters were in dire need of a buff, as someone who has been bumped around madrimille for 15 minutes there is no way one can consider the current gank meta fair or balanced. Sure it is. There are ways of escaping from that kind of trap but nothing sane or sensible done to the freighters themselves could ever help you there. What you have there is a one-vs-many GÇ£problemGÇ¥, not a ship problem. Not the quotation marks on the first since it's entirely fair and balanced that many pilots working together can beat one. Realistically, freighters were so far from needing a buff that the best you could hope for was that they remained the same. Instead, we got rigs and all the nerfs that had to follow.
Freighters were in an excellent position if people just flew them properly. Jump freighters were, if anything, slated for a slight nerf but many thought it would stop with the fuel changes.
As for your suggestions, yes, they would all make the nerfs sting less. The question is, why should they? They're already mild compared to what could have been, and all you're really doing is creeping back towards not having rigs to being with.
handige harrie wrote:try making a freighter have the same EHP AND cargo in Kronos as now, Tech 1 rigs will only get your so far.... Nah. I think I'll instead adapt to the new balance and pick and choose what I need from the ship rather than (futilely) trying to reconstruct a state that no longer exists.
I think I may have already picked the two rigs I need to get back to what I want from my JF, but I'll have to test it on sisi against another set up to see which one works best. Neither of them will be T2 even though it's almost a sensible investment compared to a JF's price tag. But then, I also have to test it against a fully (still T1) rigged freighter to see if I can cash out some profit in the process. 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. |
Steijn
Quay Industries
509
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 20:24:00 -
[986] - Quote
Tippia wrote:handige harrie wrote:This is CCP saying people with one account are not wanted in EVE. It's cheaper to haul with 2x freighters now than it is with 1x with Rigs. So your freighters cost less than 300M ISK? Can I a buy one five?
with all the crossed out text in your posts, you should change your name to Tippex. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
10213
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 20:24:00 -
[987] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:The numbers are now corrected in the OP. Can you confirm in contrast that the agility nerf to JFs is intentional? (from 0.05 to 0.0625)?
It's intentional, although I have been seeing a few good arguments for reconsidering it in the thread so far. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1542
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 20:27:00 -
[988] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:which can still be collected in various ways and give different out comes. not if you have population data.
What was used by peeps in the thread was the US population and a year.
but what if u only live in arizona and dnt really travel anywhere else. i expect the average number of lightning storms is higher or lower in arizona than the entire US average. so the actual chance of being struck by lightning in a given year is actually different for this person who doesnt leave arizona.
what data u use and why is upto u. but when ppl say the chance of something happening is such and such, the number they give u is meaningless to ur individual circumstances. thats what im trying to say.
also using past records as data is flawed because even though something has happened in the past, does not necessarily mean its going to happen in the future.
Probability isnt exact as nothing is truly random. Causality and all that. 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" |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21962
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 20:32:00 -
[989] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:It's intentional, although I have been seeing a few good arguments for reconsidering it in the thread so far. \o/ 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. |
Rick Wroll
The Milkmen Real Alliance Such Relevance
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 20:33:00 -
[990] - Quote
This really upsets me. All the reasons have been said by others so I'm not going to relist them. I'm just throwing in saying I'm with the rest of the logistics pilots out there. These changes are horrible.
Hey Fozzie, I heard Riot's accepting applications. |
|
Theng Hofses
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
54
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 20:37:00 -
[991] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:no, i'm telling you that you've offered no proof that it is.
It is obvious to any reasonable person that does not have an ulterior motive. |
Azrin Stella Oerndotte
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
114
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 20:46:00 -
[992] - Quote
How about delaying this and release it with the industry changes?
I understand that you want to have industry more spread out, more hubs, make it more costly to transport a lot of wares, but this is going to hurt until the industry stuff happens.
Its like replacing half a working system with one made to work with another that isn't out yet. |
vikari
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Nulli Secunda
79
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 20:48:00 -
[993] - Quote
What I honestly got out of this is that you nerf multiple areas so we can't boost something to extremes (ie align time, agility and cargo) but giving us the ability to only get one back on par or higher. So it's an over all nerf.
They already cost a small fortune to buy, and to use. They no longer are in a position to run nullsec economy, and their purpose can't be replaced by boosts to Production. I'm sorry but massive T2 production will never meet the needs of nullsec. You have to use outside resources, and that means highsec. CCP shouldn't be trying to sever the only link nullsec and highsec have with each other. If EVE is a massive sandbox we need to have some type of interlinking relationship. |
Lara Divinity
Seles Deep Space Industries Order of the Exalted
3
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 20:58:00 -
[994] - Quote
just keep the damm rigs already llike someone said before all this changes for stupid rigs n the outcome is worse then before leave the freighters as they r so everybody can stop bitchin |
Aerissa Nolen
XYJAX
8
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 20:59:00 -
[995] - Quote
I've been working on a web tool to help wrap my head around these changes. Fairly limited right now but gets some basic info across. Works in IGB as well, does not require trust.
http://xyjax.com/optimizer_kronos/index.html |
lombodo
lombodo Corporation
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 20:59:00 -
[996] - Quote
Just out of curiosity....
I fly a Freighter, I should not carry more than a bil worth in cargo to make it worth while for gankers (probably pre-talos rule)
With the current changes, I buy the HP rigs and which cost around 1-15b so technically gankers no longer need any cargo value to make any gank cost effective?
If I am wrong please let me know but it seems like I really shouldn't bother hauling anything due to risk vs reward. |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
29
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 21:02:00 -
[997] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:I see we've reached physically threatening CCP employees. This thread is coming along nicely. Haven't seen death threats yet. Other games get them for far, FAR, minor nerfs, why not CCP? |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3281
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 21:04:00 -
[998] - Quote
lombodo wrote:Just out of curiosity....
I fly a Freighter, I should not carry more than a bil worth in cargo to make it worth while for gankers (probably pre-talos rule)
With the current changes, I buy the HP rigs and which cost around 1-15b so technically gankers no longer need any cargo value to make any gank cost effective?
If I am wrong please let me know but it seems like I really shouldn't bother hauling anything due to risk vs reward.
Rigs don't drop.
In case people are wondering where we are, we're talking with Fozzie, and keeping an eye on the thread, to pick out good posts. Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Steijn
Quay Industries
509
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 21:06:00 -
[999] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:lombodo wrote:Just out of curiosity....
I fly a Freighter, I should not carry more than a bil worth in cargo to make it worth while for gankers (probably pre-talos rule)
With the current changes, I buy the HP rigs and which cost around 1-15b so technically gankers no longer need any cargo value to make any gank cost effective?
If I am wrong please let me know but it seems like I really shouldn't bother hauling anything due to risk vs reward. Rigs don't drop. In case people are wondering where we are, we're talking with Fozzie, and keeping an eye on the thread, to pick out good posts.
Leave freighters as they currently are. There, thats a good post imo. |
Lyn Fel
Black Frog Logistics Red-Frog
39
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 21:07:00 -
[1000] - Quote
Axe Coldon wrote:
How can one tell by a kill board whether the attacking gang used ISBOXER..which far as I know is allowed. Its not bot software
I never said it was. I use isboxer. I was saying that its not an urban myth that people gank freighters solo as someone said it was. |
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates RAZOR Alliance
438
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 21:08:00 -
[1001] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Lena Lazair wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:The numbers are now corrected in the OP. Can you confirm in contrast that the agility nerf to JFs is intentional? (from 0.05 to 0.0625)? It's intentional, although I have been seeing a few good arguments for reconsidering it in the thread so far.
The best argument is that Eve is supposed to be fun and engaging gameplay. Making flying a freighter or jump freighter less fun or even less engaging is poor design. I'm all in favor of smaller cargos across the board, but make the ships less horrible to fly. I say lower freighter cargo holds to around 600k m3, jump freighters to 250k m3, and make them align/warp 30% faster. This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1082
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 21:15:00 -
[1002] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:lombodo wrote:Just out of curiosity....
I fly a Freighter, I should not carry more than a bil worth in cargo to make it worth while for gankers (probably pre-talos rule)
With the current changes, I buy the HP rigs and which cost around 1-15b so technically gankers no longer need any cargo value to make any gank cost effective?
If I am wrong please let me know but it seems like I really shouldn't bother hauling anything due to risk vs reward. Rigs don't drop. In case people are wondering where we are, we're talking with Fozzie, and keeping an eye on the thread, to pick out good posts.
What's the opinion on a freighter now costing 2 freighter worth of ISK to have the same function as previously? Anyone who went with the charon most likely did it because of the best cargo capacity in class. This then require fitting 1,4 bill ISK worth of rigs on it. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
416
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 21:17:00 -
[1003] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Lena Lazair wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:The numbers are now corrected in the OP. Can you confirm in contrast that the agility nerf to JFs is intentional? (from 0.05 to 0.0625)? It's intentional, although I have been seeing a few good arguments for reconsidering it in the thread so far. The best argument is that Eve is supposed to be fun and engaging gameplay. Making flying a freighter or jump freighter less fun or even less engaging is poor design. I'm all in favor of smaller cargos across the board, but make the ships less horrible to fly. I say lower freighter cargo holds to around 600k m3, jump freighters to 250k m3, and make them align/warp 30% faster.
I would be happy with this, there are good reasons for game balance to reduce cargo capacity and make jumps more expensive, especially after the advantages you gave to null sec industry, but apart from the reduction in capacity leave as is, though an improved alignment would be appreciated as its so damn boring to move anything. Don't be a turd and follow the herd Instead be a Hero at Hub Zero |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
9965
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 21:22:00 -
[1004] - Quote
Walter Hart White wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:I see we've reached physically threatening CCP employees. This thread is coming along nicely. Haven't seen death threats yet. Other games get them for far, FAR, minor nerfs, why not CCP? Well CCP has seen them in this thread. "Why not CCP?" Are you suggesting that they should be getting death threats? That's certainly what your post looks like it's saying, but I can't imagine you would be so stupid and immoral to actually mean such a thing. "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
Regan Rotineque
Arch Angels Assault Force The Kadeshi
326
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 21:26:00 -
[1005] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:lombodo wrote:Just out of curiosity....
I fly a Freighter, I should not carry more than a bil worth in cargo to make it worth while for gankers (probably pre-talos rule)
With the current changes, I buy the HP rigs and which cost around 1-15b so technically gankers no longer need any cargo value to make any gank cost effective?
If I am wrong please let me know but it seems like I really shouldn't bother hauling anything due to risk vs reward. Rigs don't drop. In case people are wondering where we are, we're talking with Fozzie, and keeping an eye on the thread, to pick out good posts.
good to hear
i think for many freight and logistics stuff is just boring, but it is essential to the economy and the game. making some of these things harder does not seem to make that game any bettter. lets face it piloting a freighter is simlly boring game play.....making that game play cost billions more than it currently does with zero return is just daft
i think this should be shelved - look what CCP came up with when the t1 halulers were actually reblanced....some of thise changes are awesome...mineral haulers, pi specialists etc... that battle nereus is bloody brilliant.
i would rather CCP take the time and look at all the options for this than rush into a lets add rigs option. One that lets the player make decisions about cost and effectiveness. Not one that nerfa an entire class and then forces you to spend billions to get back what you had.
perhaps there could be cargo control by putting specialized holds on freighters....ie only soo much general cargo...maybe a fleet hanger.....or a rig to add a specialized bay
that is all outside this current discussion but i think that we should not proceed with this current change without thinking about the whole gamit of options.....we have waited this long to even consider changing freighters and stuff up...i have zero problem waiting longer to get it done right |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
29
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 21:28:00 -
[1006] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:"Risk". As in "possibility of incurring loss". Just because it's a 100% possibility does not mean that the loss isn't there. It doesn't mean the loss doesn't count. And as for this hilarious statement: Digger Pollard wrote: Secondly, ganking is only as EXTREMELY easy as people ARE FORCED to make it for you, because there is no alternative to a freighter and no alternative to what you haul - you haul what you have to. There is no alternative to a route either. Just how much easier could it be?
You are not forced to do anything. There is no game mechanic forcing you to put too much isk into your cargohold, and no game mechanic that forces you to autopilot. And there is certainly no game mechanic forcing you to not use a web escort. Those things are all choices you make. Are you ******* kidding me? I have ganker alt, I know this. There is NO RISK. Ships you fly are cheap/free and you are criminal anyways, so you don't care about stat penalty. With 20 t2 fit gankalysts is what, 300m? If 300m drops, you are neutral. If anything more, you are in profit. What the **** are you talking about? With CODE it's even more fun. You don't care about cargo at all. You gank anyone. |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
29
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 21:29:00 -
[1007] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Walter Hart White wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:I see we've reached physically threatening CCP employees. This thread is coming along nicely. Haven't seen death threats yet. Other games get them for far, FAR, minor nerfs, why not CCP? Well CCP has seen them in this thread. "Why not CCP?" Are you suggesting that they should be getting death threats? That's certainly what your post looks like it's saying, but I can't imagine you would be so stupid and immoral to actually mean such a thing. I am not saying anything, just wondering.... As for actual threats, well I am only at page 40 something, dunno maybe some were posted later? Getting slugged ain't a death threat. |
Althalus Stenory
Flying Blacksmiths
18
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 21:32:00 -
[1008] - Quote
Sounds like a troll "because we add rigs, we just change everything to adapt", in other word, put rigs if you want, at least, the same value as before. (btw, you can have more, but at what cost ?)
IMO, it would have been a better improvement to make slighter changes regarding those announced, but adding something like a few "hull resistance" by level since instead of that speed bonus nobody cares about : - freighter are hull "tanked" (at least, if we say they can tank) - they cannot warp quick - they cannot defend themselves.
With triple Hull HP rigs, you'll get around 50-59k more EHP (since hull have no resist), really nothing, but you'll lose 150k m3 cargohold. But let's say you add 2% hull res (all res) by racial freighter skill level, so 10% res at level 5. you get something like this for the obelisk (best hull hp with the current announcements) - base HP : 97500 - 3 hull rigs bonus HP (t2, 20% per rigs): 58200 And it would give something like 171k hull EHP with the 10% res. Even if we add shield and armor EHP, it's still not "ungankable" (it should still be gankable!) but, it shouldn't be a free "6 tornado gank target".
it is now really worth the cargo loss :P
tl;dr; give a few hull resistance to freighters to allow them being "serious ganking target" if they want to be so, but still easy target when they chose to use cargo rigs. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1542
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 21:32:00 -
[1009] - Quote
Walter Hart White wrote: Are you ******* kidding me? I have ganker alt, I know this. There is NO RISK.
people who pretend to have ganker alts is also something that never gets old. 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" |
Paz Heiwa
New Order Logistics CODE.
6
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 21:34:00 -
[1010] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Walter Hart White wrote: Are you ******* kidding me? I have ganker alt, I know this. There is NO RISK.
people who pretend to have ganker alts is also something that never gets old. I am the ganking alt. Now who is pretending? |
|
Althalus Stenory
Flying Blacksmiths
18
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 21:35:00 -
[1011] - Quote
Paz Heiwa wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:Walter Hart White wrote: Are you ******* kidding me? I have ganker alt, I know this. There is NO RISK.
people who pretend to have ganker alts is also something that never gets old. I am the ganking alt. Now who is pretending? The correct question is "who care ?" |
Paz Heiwa
New Order Logistics CODE.
6
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 21:36:00 -
[1012] - Quote
Althalus Stenory wrote:Paz Heiwa wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:Walter Hart White wrote: Are you ******* kidding me? I have ganker alt, I know this. There is NO RISK.
people who pretend to have ganker alts is also something that never gets old. I am the ganking alt. Now who is pretending? The correct question is "who care ?" Apparently he did? |
Althalus Stenory
Flying Blacksmiths
18
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 21:37:00 -
[1013] - Quote
Paz Heiwa wrote:Apparently he did? Well let him speak. Don't feed the trolls :) |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
29
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 21:39:00 -
[1014] - Quote
Althalus Stenory wrote:Paz Heiwa wrote:Apparently he did? Well let him speak. Don't feed the trolls :) Just don't want to be called liar. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1543
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 21:44:00 -
[1015] - Quote
fair enough WP. so ill point out where u urself explained where the risk is.
Walter Hart White wrote: If 300m drops, you are neutral. If anything more, you are in profit.
this is risk. u guys may put in the effort to increase the chances of getting a kill and making money. but its not something u can deliver with 100% certainty. This is widely understood, and why assumed u weren't being truthful
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
29
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 21:49:00 -
[1016] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:fair enough WP. so ill point out where u urself explained where the risk is. Walter Hart White wrote: If 300m drops, you are neutral. If anything more, you are in profit. this is risk. u guys may put in the effort to increase the chances of getting a kill and making money. but its not something u can deliver with 100% certainty. This is widely understood, and why assumed u weren't being truthful. sorry With CODE, there is no risk. Ships are paid off by someone who does not expect any profit. With pirates, well, alright, it didn't drop 300m, it dropped 0. Next one will. In 15m. Costs are 300m, but you do not pay 300m total. Everyone pays 20m. Losing 20m is nothing. Peanuts. |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
123
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 21:49:00 -
[1017] - Quote
The best solution is to just leave JF alone. Don't touch them. They are perfectly fine the way they are. This is a bad change. |
Lyn Fel
Black Frog Logistics Red-Frog
39
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 21:49:00 -
[1018] - Quote
I am pretty sure that most players would agree that flying a freighter is currently one of the most boring and tedious things to do in Eve.
So Fozie decided to make them:
- More boring and tedious to fly (less agility)
- More expensive (rig costs)
- Easier to kill (less tank)
- Less useful (smaller cargo)
Of course if you double the cost of the ship with T2 rigs you can fix some of that.
Apparently making the game more fun to play is not one of the current design goals of Eve Online. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
518
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 21:50:00 -
[1019] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:fair enough WP. so ill point out where u urself explained where the risk is. Walter Hart White wrote: If 300m drops, you are neutral. If anything more, you are in profit. this is risk. u guys may put in the effort to increase the chances of getting a kill and making money. but its not something u can deliver with 100% certainty. This is widely understood, and why assumed u weren't being truthful. sorry
This is not a risk. Who cares about the drop when you gank? You are ISK-efficient regardless on the killboards. The drop is only icing on top of the already delicious cake. |
lombodo
lombodo Corporation
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 21:50:00 -
[1020] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:lombodo wrote:Just out of curiosity....
I fly a Freighter, I should not carry more than a bil worth in cargo to make it worth while for gankers (probably pre-talos rule)
With the current changes, I buy the HP rigs and which cost around 1-15b so technically gankers no longer need any cargo value to make any gank cost effective?
If I am wrong please let me know but it seems like I really shouldn't bother hauling anything due to risk vs reward. Rigs don't drop. In case people are wondering where we are, we're talking with Fozzie, and keeping an eye on the thread, to pick out good posts. What's the opinion on a freighter now costing 2 freighter worth of ISK to have the same function as previously? Anyone who went with the charon most likely did it because of the best cargo capacity in class. This then require fitting 1,4 bill ISK worth of rigs on it.
Maybe this is the point I was trying to make, I am down 2 bil in the hole before I even calculate the risk with transporting 500mil in goods.
IF an extra 1.5bil cost in rigs made my ship superior in terms of value vs gankability I would consider it BALANCED. After reading the replies I think that whoever thought up these changes does not own or even use these ships.
I really dont mind the idea of rigs and having reductions and positive effects around them. But as it stands I get the same ship for an extra 1.5bil with NO quality of improvement from what I had before minus half my cargo which is effectively a nerf.
I would understand if you main goals around these rig changes was to limit hub dominance for example but meh, I wouldn't even bother using my freighter due to the increase costs and risk involved in a single region.
|
|
Azami Nevinyrall
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
1897
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 21:50:00 -
[1021] - Quote
Besides the nerf to cargo size and Capital packaged size.
I do not understand the need for any of this!
Keep the rest as they are now, there's nothing wrong with making it harder to gank freighters.
I'd love to hear the reasoning behind these changes! I hope everyone voted in the CSM elections! Thank you to those who actually supported my campaign! Even if I don't get elected in, I hope that the CSM that do, and Devs actually use my ideas somewhere! |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
518
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 21:51:00 -
[1022] - Quote
Azami Nevinyrall wrote:Besides the nerf to cargo size and Capital packaged size.
I do not understand the need for any of this!
Keep the rest as they are now, there's nothing wrong with making it harder to gank freighters.
I'd love to hear the reasoning behind these changes!
Generation Angry Bird and Farmville. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
9965
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 21:53:00 -
[1023] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:fair enough WP. so ill point out where u urself explained where the risk is. Walter Hart White wrote: If 300m drops, you are neutral. If anything more, you are in profit. this is risk. u guys may put in the effort to increase the chances of getting a kill and making money. but its not something u can deliver with 100% certainty. This is widely understood, and why assumed u weren't being truthful. sorry This is not a risk. Who cares about the drop when you gank? You are ISK-efficient regardless on the killboards. The drop is only icing on top of the already delicious cake. Who cares about ISK efficiency? That's entirely not the point. "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
29
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 21:54:00 -
[1024] - Quote
Azami Nevinyrall wrote:Besides the nerf to cargo size and Capital packaged size.
I do not understand the need for any of this!
Keep the rest as they are now, there's nothing wrong with making it harder to gank freighters.
I'd love to hear the reasoning behind these changes! Actually there is nothing wrong with this. Freighters getting buff would be awesome. Ganking them will feel more like something wroth doing and fun unlike now. There will be plenty of pinatas that will antitank and carry huge cargo, so they will neft themselves. Keep them the same they are now and add rig slots. Everything is fixed. People who fit hull upgrades, lose cargo. People who fit cargo, lose hull. People who fit agility, lose hull. People who do not fit anything (and that should be a god damn option too), lose nothing but gain nothing. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21967
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 21:55:00 -
[1025] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:This is not a risk. Who cares about the drop when you gank? The professional gankers.
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. |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
123
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 22:00:00 -
[1026] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:This is not a risk. Who cares about the drop when you gank? The professional gankers. Walter Hart White wrote:People who fit hull upgrades, lose cargo. People who fit cargo, lose hull. People who fit agility, lose hull. They lose armour, not hull. You're thinking about expander modules, and I have seen no mention of them moving that over to the rigs. That detail makes this whole change far easier to compensate for.
The risk is still zero since all you have to do is ship scan the freighter 3 or 4 times. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1544
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 22:00:00 -
[1027] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:fair enough WP. so ill point out where u urself explained where the risk is. Walter Hart White wrote: If 300m drops, you are neutral. If anything more, you are in profit. this is risk. u guys may put in the effort to increase the chances of getting a kill and making money. but its not something u can deliver with 100% certainty. This is widely understood, and why assumed u weren't being truthful. sorry This is not a risk. Who cares about the drop when you gank? You are ISK-efficient regardless on the killboards. The drop is only icing on top of the already delicious cake.
even the kill itself is not a certainty.
what if the freighter pilot uses webs as this guy pointed out.
If ur measuring the chances of a successful gank from after the point a freighters been bumped, ill admit, the chances of escape are almost 0 (which is why i say dnt get bumped). but even the turrets catalysts and talos's use work on a random number generator. fingers crossed... 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" |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21968
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 22:01:00 -
[1028] - Quote
Allison A'vani wrote:The risk is still zero since all you have to do is ship scan the freighter 3 or 4 times. No. The only way for the risk to be zero is for all probabilities and all outcomes to be zero. They're not. There are simply far too many GÇ£ifGÇ¥s and far too many RNG rolls involved. 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. |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
123
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 22:02:00 -
[1029] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:fair enough WP. so ill point out where u urself explained where the risk is. Walter Hart White wrote: If 300m drops, you are neutral. If anything more, you are in profit. this is risk. u guys may put in the effort to increase the chances of getting a kill and making money. but its not something u can deliver with 100% certainty. This is widely understood, and why assumed u weren't being truthful. sorry This is not a risk. Who cares about the drop when you gank? You are ISK-efficient regardless on the killboards. The drop is only icing on top of the already delicious cake. even the kill itself is not a certainty. what if the freighter pilot uses webs as this guy pointed out. If ur measuring the chances of a successful gank from after the point a freighters been bumped, ill admit, the chances of escape are almost 0 (which is why i say dnt get bumped). but even the turrets catalysts and talos's use work on a random number generator. fingers crossed...
Who cares if they use webs, just fit one of the 15 dessys with a single point. |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
29
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 22:02:00 -
[1030] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:fair enough WP. so ill point out where u urself explained where the risk is. Walter Hart White wrote: If 300m drops, you are neutral. If anything more, you are in profit. this is risk. u guys may put in the effort to increase the chances of getting a kill and making money. but its not something u can deliver with 100% certainty. This is widely understood, and why assumed u weren't being truthful. sorry This is not a risk. Who cares about the drop when you gank? You are ISK-efficient regardless on the killboards. The drop is only icing on top of the already delicious cake. even the kill itself is not a certainty. what if the freighter pilot uses webs as this guy pointed out. If ur measuring the chances of a successful gank from after the point a freighters been bumped, ill admit, the chances of escape are almost 0 (which is why i say dnt get bumped). but even the turrets catalysts and talos's use work on a random number generator. fingers crossed... As far as I know, even webber can be foiled. Of course chancesare stacked for the webber, but one bad spawn you are screwed :) |
|
Angelina Duvolle
Homeworld Technologies
33
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 22:03:00 -
[1031] - Quote
As much as I dislike these changes, anyone making threats is to put it bluntly, lacking in intelligence.
Now, many people here keep saying that the object of these nerfs are aimed at helping decentralize the Jita market. I previously haven never even bought into the notion that CCP even wants to push people into regionalized markets because it seemed trivial to make that happen, but have seen it referred to now so many times I'd like to ask if it really is.
It seems daft to me to penalize the delivery men to counteract what ccp has basically enabled and in fact built their infrastructure around. (going so far as to add dedicated hardware for Jita)
Here is an explanation of why it would be silly to expect changes to freighters to have any effect at all on the market.
Many of the people hauling things to Jita, are simply providing a service, to the people who want to sell their wares and or buy their wares in a centralized location. They may not be a "Frog" or working via courier contracts, heck they may just be moving stuff for their friends/corp mates, but they are doing it at the behest of some person wanting to buy or sell something. They do this in Jita, because of one thing, volume. If Joe Player makes 20 cruisers a month via invention and a few thousand modules, he might just sell his stuff in Amarr. If Joe Player makes 1200 t2 ships, and 15000 t2 mods, along with ammo, drones etc etc, their is only one place that has the volume to move that amount of product. Yes they could stick that stuff on the market in Amarr, but not enough would sell to warrant that level of production for long. Now he might be able to undercut Jita prices by a substantial amount to encourage resellers, however this is not fixing an issue, it is just post-poning it, as the reseller will need to freight all the stuff to, you guessed it, Jita.
Making the game harder for the "truck driver" won't change this. The person needing to buy/sell the item in Jita, is not going to care one bit that the "truck driver" had to buy some rigs, and take additional time, endure additional boredom, to make that trip. It doesn't matter to them. The only way to encourage sellers to sell their stuff in a different location is to make sure it is financially viable for them to do so.
If you want to decentralize the Jita market, it is very simple. You do what "countries, Cities, Towns, malls, mom and pop stores etc do, you provide an incentive for people to both buy and sell their good in your location.
Jack the sales tax in Jita. Like a lot. Tie the tax to volume in fact. The old market hub in Oursalert for example, perhaps they would like a return to market relevance, so they offer capsuleers a reduced sales tax, and sellers decreased broker fees.. This is how you move the people out of Jita, and back to Ours, Amarr, and dare I say it, maybe even Yulai? (That only makes sense if you are very old)
If you make it substantially cheaper to buy and sell items in regional centers, people WILL move. If you just penalize the freighter pilot, nothing changes, except they have less fun. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6363
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 22:03:00 -
[1032] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Allison A'vani wrote:The risk is still zero since all you have to do is ship scan the freighter 3 or 4 times. No. The only way for the risk to be zero is for all probabilities and all outcomes to be zero. They're not. There are simply far too many GÇ£ifGÇ¥s involved.
And when there's even one, the risk is not zero.
And we all know the loot fairy exists, even the fake ganker. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
123
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 22:06:00 -
[1033] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Allison A'vani wrote:The risk is still zero since all you have to do is ship scan the freighter 3 or 4 times. No. The only way for the risk to be zero is for all probabilities and all outcomes to be zero. They're not. There are simply far too many GÇ£ifGÇ¥s and far too many RNG rolls involved.
Look at that politician speak. There is zero risk involved, you have an alt with a passive targeter and a ship scanner. If the target is carrying more than 300m then you have an extremely high success rate of profit. If the loot is all destroyed, then who cares. You get a multibillion isk kill for your own investment of 15m. This isn't rocket science, it is pretty simple probability. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
519
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 22:07:00 -
[1034] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:even the kill itself is not a certainty. what if the freighter pilot uses webs as this guy pointed out. If ur measuring the chances of a successful gank from after the point a freighters been bumped, ill admit, the chances of escape are almost 0 (which is why i say dnt get bumped). but even the turrets catalysts and talos's use work on a random number generator. fingers crossed...
Yeah, sure, webbing helps a whole lot. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21971
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 22:07:00 -
[1035] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Tippia wrote:Allison A'vani wrote:The risk is still zero since all you have to do is ship scan the freighter 3 or 4 times. No. The only way for the risk to be zero is for all probabilities and all outcomes to be zero. They're not. There are simply far too many GÇ£ifGÇ¥s involved. And when there's even one, the risk is not zero. And we all know the loot fairy exists, even the fake ganker. The main point of confusion seems to be the perception that, just because you can hedge and mitigate your risks, they don't exist. That's where the logic goes off the tracks. The fact that you can (and have to) hedge and mitigate them is precisely because the risks exist and you want to reduce them as much as possible.
Short of injecting code into TQ, that mitigation and hedging will not make the risks go away. 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. |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
124
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 22:09:00 -
[1036] - Quote
This is all besides the fact that most who gank freighters for profit, like freight club, get the initial tackle with a suicide tackle alt and log in their mains who have a war declared against the target, so they only lose 1 or 2 cheep tackle frigs. Those who do it for lolz are the ones who use catalysts. Lolz > profit and they don't really care about the drop either way. |
DarkMoth
Xoth Inc Usurper.
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 22:10:00 -
[1037] - Quote
i might as well sell mine, better of using a rorq to jump stuff around yo.. why even lose the cargo capacity period.. they dont haul enough as it is for the prices for them.. you need to revisit this plain and simple |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21971
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 22:10:00 -
[1038] - Quote
Allison A'vani wrote:Look at that politician speak. There is zero risk involved That is indeed pure politician speak you're providing: you're ignoring the facts and definitions and data and altering them all to fit your narrative. The fact remains, the risks are not zero. You accidentally prove this byGǪQuote:you have an alt with a passive targeter and a ship scanner. If [yadda yadda] GǪhaving to do all this stuff just to mitigate those risks. You can't get rid of them. You can just choose to gamble on better odds. The risk is not gone.
Quote:This isn't rocket science, it is pretty simple probability. GǪand as long as that probability Gëá 0 (which it never ever is, so don't even bother lying about it) there is risk. 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. |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
124
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 22:11:00 -
[1039] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Allison A'vani wrote:Look at that politician speak. There is zero risk involved That is indeed pure politician speak you're providing: you're ignoring the facts and the data and altering to fit your narrative. The fact remains, the risks are not zero. You prove this byGǪ Quote:you have an alt with a passive targeter and a ship scanner. If GǪhaving to do all this stuff just to mitigate those risks. You can't get rid of them. You can just choose to gamble on better odds. The risk is not gone. Quote:This isn't rocket science, it is pretty simple probability. GǪand as long as that probability Gëá 0 (which it never ever is, so don't even bother lying about it) there is risk.
If you read my last post, you will see how insignificant the risk really is. Loot fairy means nothing when you have a war dec up.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21971
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 22:12:00 -
[1040] - Quote
Allison A'vani wrote:If you read my last post, you will see how insignificant the risk really is. You mean, not zero. Oh, and idiots losing valuable ships to wardecs isn't the kind of ganking people are talking about.
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. |
|
Lyn Fel
Black Frog Logistics Red-Frog
40
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 22:13:00 -
[1041] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:fair enough WP. so ill point out where u urself explained where the risk is. Walter Hart White wrote: If 300m drops, you are neutral. If anything more, you are in profit. this is risk. u guys may put in the effort to increase the chances of getting a kill and making money. but its not something u can deliver with 100% certainty. This is widely understood, and why assumed u weren't being truthful. sorry This is not a risk. Who cares about the drop when you gank? You are ISK-efficient regardless on the killboards. The drop is only icing on top of the already delicious cake. even the kill itself is not a certainty. what if the freighter pilot uses webs as this guy pointed out. If ur measuring the chances of a successful gank from after the point a freighters been bumped, ill admit, the chances of escape are almost 0 (which is why i say dnt get bumped). but even the turrets catalysts and talos's use work on a random number generator. fingers crossed...
A single mach can keep a webbed freighter from warping with bumping only. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6363
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 22:13:00 -
[1042] - Quote
Allison A'vani wrote: zero risk involved ...*snip*... then you have an extremely high success rate
"extremely high success rate" does not equal "zero risk".
That's pretty simple probability. "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
9965
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 22:14:00 -
[1043] - Quote
Bringing wardecs into this discussion? You do realize that no amount of tank is going to help you in that event, right?
I mean you could literally fly your empty freighter in 1.0 space and give it 20 million EHP and people would still kill it because they could. It's not like it could fight back, it would just take longer. "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
125
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 22:17:00 -
[1044] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Allison A'vani wrote:If you read my last post, you will see how insignificant the risk really is. You mean, not zero. Oh, and idiots losing valuable ships to wardecs isn't the kind of ganking people are talking about.
OOOhhhh... I'm sorry Mr. Lawyer dicing my words, let me be more specific. The risk is the limit of X as X approaches the axis. A extremely infinitesimally small nonzero value. 5m in tackle frigs is literally the penny that I threw away on the side walk so that it wasn't weighing down my pocket.
Even then, catalyst ganking done over a large period of time still will net a profit. Regardless of any "risk," involved. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6364
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 22:18:00 -
[1045] - Quote
We're not talking about mental deficients who fly freighters under a wardec.
The entire conversation, which is itself a derailling of the thread, was about suicide ganking. You're just derailing further, and making a huge ass of yourself into the bargain. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
125
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 22:19:00 -
[1046] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Bringing wardecs into this discussion? You do realize that no amount of tank is going to help you in that event, right?
I mean you could literally fly your empty freighter in 1.0 space and give it 20 million EHP and people would still kill it because they could. It's not like it could fight back, it would just take longer.
This is why in every one of my post actually arguing about the changes I have only cared about agility and cargo size. Tank really means nothing. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21972
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 22:20:00 -
[1047] - Quote
Allison A'vani wrote:The risk is the limit of X as X approaches the axis. Not that either.
Quote:Even then, catalyst ganking done over a large period of time still will net a profit. Good. That means the game is working properly and that it is possible to take make a living off of the stupidity and mistakes of other players.
Quote:This is why in every one of my post actually arguing about the changes I have only cared about agility and cargo size. Tank really means nothing. Neither does agility or cargo size at that point. No ship stat counteracts decision-making failures. 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. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1544
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 22:26:00 -
[1048] - Quote
Lyn Fel wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:fair enough WP. so ill point out where u urself explained where the risk is. Walter Hart White wrote: If 300m drops, you are neutral. If anything more, you are in profit. this is risk. u guys may put in the effort to increase the chances of getting a kill and making money. but its not something u can deliver with 100% certainty. This is widely understood, and why assumed u weren't being truthful. sorry This is not a risk. Who cares about the drop when you gank? You are ISK-efficient regardless on the killboards. The drop is only icing on top of the already delicious cake. even the kill itself is not a certainty. what if the freighter pilot uses webs as this guy pointed out. If ur measuring the chances of a successful gank from after the point a freighters been bumped, ill admit, the chances of escape are almost 0 (which is why i say dnt get bumped). but even the turrets catalysts and talos's use work on a random number generator. fingers crossed... A single mach can keep a webbed freighter from warping with bumping only.
i bolded the part i think u missed
the uncertainty lies in whether the webber can make a lock before the freighter is bumped. i mean u could have 20 dare devils all jump through with the freighter to give them a good spread, then give them dual faction webs for longer ranged insta warping.
the only certainty is that nothing is certain. 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" |
Lithorn
The Dark Tribe
26
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 22:46:00 -
[1049] - Quote
I had trained for these ships (jump freighters) but now the changes being made have certainly made up my mind as to whether I will ever buy them, decidedly no. Compared to this, other capital ships with some hauling capability are a far better trade-off for most tasks, especially now after these proposed changes. Better fuel usage, better jump range, better price. |
Beofryn Sedorak
84
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 23:14:00 -
[1050] - Quote
Maybe the riggable freighters need to be a new set of ships in addition to the ones we have now.... A new t2 variant maybe?
This would allow people to continue using their ship exactly the way they've been using them, or train up for the riggable one with more choices as to how to fit/fly it and would also justify less of a nerf to it's stats overall. |
|
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
58
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 23:25:00 -
[1051] - Quote
Beofryn Sedorak wrote:Maybe the riggable freighters need to be a new set of ships in addition to the ones we have now.... A new t2 variant maybe?
This would allow people to continue using their ship exactly the way they've been using them, or train up for the riggable one with more choices as to how to fit/fly it and would also justify less of a nerf to it's stats overall.
They suck, no one would ever use them |
Beofryn Sedorak
84
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 23:27:00 -
[1052] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:Beofryn Sedorak wrote:Maybe the riggable freighters need to be a new set of ships in addition to the ones we have now.... A new t2 variant maybe?
This would allow people to continue using their ship exactly the way they've been using them, or train up for the riggable one with more choices as to how to fit/fly it and would also justify less of a nerf to it's stats overall. They suck, no one would ever use them
Good to see you used your massive intellect to realize that this would require a different balance than the ones being proposed. We're all better for your contribution. |
Lara Divinity
Seles Deep Space Industries Order of the Exalted
4
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 23:39:00 -
[1053] - Quote
do we even get our skillpoints back since i was training for the regular prepatch freighter n not this piece of crap nerf that is goin to come out if i knew this sooner i wouldnt have been training for the damm freighter at all it is just goin to become a giant ganking target easy kill juicy killmail so yh ccp return me my skillpoints all the days i put into training for a ship i prolly wont even buy nomore |
Max Kolonko
High Voltage Industries Ash Alliance
413
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 23:49:00 -
[1054] - Quote
Fozzie, while I like overall changes to allow more versatile fittings on Freighter (speed vs tank vs cargo vs mix of some) there is one aspect of that changes I don't like - EHP reduction for T1 freighters (can't really tell for T2 as I dont use JF's)
While on paper its seems ok to have it slightly (20% or so) reduced it really have almost no influence on any "normal" pvp situation (when You caught one where You are allowed to shoot him - little less or little more EHP have almost no effect on survival chances) but really have effect on suiciding. We are living in environment driven by suicide ganking, that is being more and more powerful with every change introduced (destroyer rebalance, tier 3 bc's and now ehp reduction of freighters).
So in the end this will increase amount of suicide ganks on all except heavily tanked freighters. While I agree that suciding is valid and important game-play choice I'm not sure it should be made more powerfull by default.
While it requires only single tanking module to get back to pre-nerf level which is fine in my book it dampens cargo to the point where two T2 cargo rigs only get it back to 80'sh % of curent cargo.
So in effect:
To get better tank than pre-nerf You need to sacrifice a lot of cargo - GOOD To get better cargo than pre-nerf You need to lover EHP = more ganks = GOOD To get pre-nerf cargo level You need to expose Yourself to more ganking than before the change - NOT so good
Overall this will reduce ammount of cargo being transported by 10%-20% because everyone will try to get at least pre-nerf EHP loosing 10-20% cargo or even go full EHP and loose 50% cargo to avoid as much ganking as possible. The ammount of catalyst needed to gank You should stay the same for the same cargo level as before, so that choices You make during fitting are in comparison to current ganking resistance of freighter.
I think it should be possible to fit ship to get pre-nerf'ish EHP and pre-nerf'ish cargo by simple reducing penalty to cargo on hull rigs. I think that ideal situation should be where You fit T2 cargo, T1 cargo and T1 hull to get the same EHP and cargo as before. Read and support: Don't mess with OUR WH's What is Your stance on WH stuff? |
Vigilanta
S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS.
36
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 23:57:00 -
[1055] - Quote
Ray Kyonhe wrote:Vigilanta wrote: Do remember that you are already effectively nerfing JF;s with the jump fuel consumption changes, im not seeing why they need additional nerfs. Nor do I see how JF's were contributing to power creep as since empire is central, and jfs move goods from the central location empire to the war front, not matter which front your fighting on HS is usually about the same distance away for both sides. Living in Deep null, it is already pretty expensive to move out to null and back, a 50% increase in cost is going to make a big difference in cost for those of us that are 5 jumps deep.
It has already been stated that it was exactly the reason why they were nerfed. You aren't supposed to import all you want, you have to think about founding some local infrastructure. And you are not supposed to dump all the goods you want to highsecs' markets and dominate them, after the summer's industry changes which will improve somewhat nullsecs industry's capacities.
Yea except for the fact that the margins on most industry require mass production, and that mass producation capacity cant be bought up in nullsec. It has to go somewhere, additionally, there is alot of stuff you jsut cant get in 1 area of nullsec or another. Nullsec is realistically too hostile of a place to harbor the # of miners required to supply the kind of industry you are talking about either. Especially with the global this system has miners index viewable by all players. |
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS type X
157
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 00:07:00 -
[1056] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Maldiro Selkurk wrote:Dave Stark wrote:[quote=Maldiro Selkurk]I want gank pilots to have to scan my Charon to see what defenses (or k thereof) I have on my ship. [/qu,ote] so you're willing to take a massive freighter nerf, just so gankers have to click 1 more button before they gank you? There is no nerf, if rigs AND MODS are added to freighters it just makes them like all the other ships in the game (i.e. meaningful choice at a cost). Let me ask you this, what if every ship in the game had no rigs and no mods, you got hull bonuses and that was it? Would you even be playing this game? alternatively, you could just answer the question that i put to you.
There is no nerf under the plan I proposed no matter how many times I have to restate that fact it isn't going to change. You can adjust the hulls and then make rigs - mods to either put it back exactly like it is now or choose to rig + mod differently if you so choose just like all the other ships in the game.
Now its my turn to ask you to respond to my question because it is relevant to the seriously restricted portions currently available to freighter pilots. Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really. |
Sweet Times
Riptide Riot
11
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 00:09:00 -
[1057] - Quote
so ccp you say you listen to your player base and their opinion matters
so you have heard what the players think what are you going to do about it
i say fire Fozzie and get in a dev who doesnt cause players to cancel subs |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
29
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 00:15:00 -
[1058] - Quote
Sweet Times wrote:so ccp you say you listen to your player base and their opinion matters
so you have heard what the players think what are you going to do about it
i say fire Fozzie and get in a dev who doesnt cause players to cancel subs I wouldnt want someone lose job over internet spacepixels. Maybe move him to different department, maybe working on Legion? |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6367
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 00:19:00 -
[1059] - Quote
Sweet Times wrote:so ccp you say you listen to your player base and their opinion matters
so you have heard what the players think what are you going to do about it
i say fire Fozzie and get in a dev who doesnt cause players to cancel subs
I can't actually think of a dev who could reasonably be said to have not caused people to quit. So that's a tall order.
Oh, and can I have your stuff? "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
29
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 00:22:00 -
[1060] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Sweet Times wrote:so ccp you say you listen to your player base and their opinion matters
so you have heard what the players think what are you going to do about it
i say fire Fozzie and get in a dev who doesnt cause players to cancel subs I can't actually think of a dev who could reasonably be said to have not caused people to quit. So that's a tall order. Oh, and can I have your stuff? That is false assumption there. Most of the lost subs would be alts, thus main would get their stuff. |
|
Vigilanta
S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS.
36
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 00:34:00 -
[1061] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Quote:Realistically, freighters were in dire need of a buff, as someone who has been bumped around madrimille for 15 minutes there is no way one can consider the current gank meta fair or balanced. Sure it is. There are ways of escaping from that kind of trap but nothing sane or sensible done to the freighters themselves could ever help you there. What you have there is a one-vs-many GÇ£problemGÇ¥, not a ship problem. Not the quotation marks on the first since it's entirely fair and balanced that many pilots working together can beat one. Realistically, freighters were so far from needing a buff that the best you could hope for was that they remained the same. Instead, we got rigs and all the nerfs that had to follow. Freighters were in an excellent position if people just flew them properly. Jump freighters were, if anything, slated for a slight nerf but many thought it would stop with the fuel changes. As for your suggestions, yes, they would all make the nerfs sting less. The question is, why should they? They're already mild compared to what could have been, and all you're really doing is creeping back towards not having rigs to being with.
Not many good ones that I know of to the first but granted for me it is just a here and there thing, not a way of life. I just dont think the current gank mechanics vs what a freighter can do to defend itself are very realistic. And even if i brought 8 friends any gank group with half a brain will always win because they are based on 1-2 volley, 7 guys cant stop the 2 volley without some very lucky jams. so its not an issue of one vs many its an issue of easy to alpha. Your only way around it is webs which is akin to increased agility (mind blown).
But that aside, i just would like to see a higher barrier to entry on ganking, I.E. hit point increase via rigs or otherwise, with marginal reduction in cargo, based on the numbers ive seen im not going to be able to acheive say, 750k m3 cargo and greater hitpoints that current. (correct me if im wrong, who knows)
|
Valterra Craven
234
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 00:56:00 -
[1062] - Quote
Fozzie, I know you guys see these posts, and I know you can't comment on everything, and lastly I know that introducing art assets to the game takes time. However this is my proposal and will likely be far more appeasing to all parties involved than the current changes.
Leave the current freighters as they are.
Make smaller new freighters.
Make them have half the cargo, hit points, align time and build cost and double the warp speed.
Give them 3 rig slots
Win
OR
Leave the current freighters alone
Make ONE new freighter in the ORE line with the above stats and say that ORE needed something with better agility for deep space mining or some mobo jumbo like that. |
X Alias
Twin Tech
2
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 01:02:00 -
[1063] - Quote
I think they are doing this so we all build our own stargates when they roll that out. But that will not be for several expansions. |
Redo Kor
J and L Trust
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 01:27:00 -
[1064] - Quote
This seems like such a poorly thought out change. This nerf is not just a nerf to Haulers but a nerf to all of EVE. A restriction in logistics in general will always result in a increase in prices. A 20% decrease in space might as well be listed as we are putting an additional tax on all goods sold on the market.
The thought that things in this game could become even more expensive is especially ridiculous considering the recent conversations about the lack of New player retention. A higher cost to entry in a game with an already daunting learning curve seems like a poor move for a game like EVE and a company in the position of CCP.
Finally, I came to EVE on the sale that this was a Space Sandbox game, a game where you could play the way you want to play and make a mark in space for yourself. I have increasingly seen how this has been pushed out of existence as CCP continues to push people into the larger Alliances to be able to efficiently continue to play this game. Making industry harder for those who already put up with TERRIBLE mechanics deployed by CCP seems like the best way to make sure that these individuals find a game where the company cares for their game play more. I for one will be paying close attention to this and my 16 accounts will be as well. |
Thandi Uhura
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 01:37:00 -
[1065] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:T1 rigs are easily enough to bring normal freighters above their current cargo values.
Sure, what's a couple of billion extra for a hauler to earn with a smaller cargo bay to carry less freight and a thinner hull to be more easily ganked.
The Haulers Channel is a meeting place for independent haulers where contractors can arrange to have their goods moved and new haulers can learn the tricks of the trade. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
47
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 01:38:00 -
[1066] - Quote
Aerissa Nolen wrote:I've been working on a web tool to help wrap my head around these changes. Fairly limited right now but gets some basic info across. Works in IGB as well, does not require trust. http://xyjax.com/optimizer_kronos/index.html
You sir, are a fricken boss. |
Alp Khan
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
93
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 02:06:00 -
[1067] - Quote
Changes proposed in the original post of Fozzie appear to me as poorly thought and planned.
As somebody that has stakes at both sides of freighter business (I do null logistics, empire logistics and freighter ganking), I would recommend CCP to leave the freighters and Jump Freighters as they are, or if they really must be changed, consider getting a team on the job that actually has knowledge about the usage of these ships, and can propose and implement useful changes that does not break the balance between viable logistics capability and piracy in EVE.
Overall, these changes are by no means beneficial to either gankers, or people who do null or empire logistics. Quite the contrary, both sides of the fence suffer from these so called 'freighter buffs'. New ISK sinks are created and even with those sinks, the utility of Jump Freighters and Freighters in their current form will not be attained by logistics people if these ridiculous changes go into effect, while on the other hand, with maximum tank rigged freighters (albeit with useless and gutted cargo space) ganking meta will shift into more expansive ships fit with high end modules and specialized ammo.
I'm terribly sorry to state this Fozzie (and to an extent, Rise) but you two seem to have taken the "changes for the change's sake" mantra lately. I have witnessed the same pattern in the Rattlesnake changes, in which, you two have gutted the ship largely against frigate sized opponents by severely restricting their utility to drones of specific sizes and attempted to explain this uncalled for nerf as "Well, you can fit Rapid Light Missile launchers to counter frigates", which in reality actually cut back the Rattlesnake's DPS to insignificant levels as compared to current ungutted Rattlesnake combination of Cruise Missiles/Torpedos and sets of Scout/Heavy/Sentry drones.
If something is not broken, I would rather have you two refrain from fixing it. Or you know, if you want to improve something without disturbing the balance of certain aspects of the game, have someone look into it with actual experience and insight. I do not think that you two are paying attention and actually considering the greater affect of the ridiculous changes you keep pushing for.
I have paid attention to Rise and Fozzie continually referring to a set of rules that they have stated they must adhere to for making ship changes. While they are continuing to gut more and more ships with their changes, perhaps they should let us know whatever set of rules is making them appear to have committed to create an elephant in china shop impression as far as ship balance in EVE is concerned. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates RAZOR Alliance
439
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 02:06:00 -
[1068] - Quote
If you really want to make it harder to do null sec logistics, without making it more painful to fly the ships, you need to seriously nerf the cargo holds on freighters and jump freighters. I think somewhere between 25% and 40% would do it (all freighters could still carry an IHub upgrade).
High sec folks should not care about this because you cannot efficiently fill a freighter with anything useful and stay below the 1b ISK mark, except maybe shrink-wrapped, unpackaged ships.
WH folks will still be able to move in fuel, because mass is not affected, only volume. They might have to do it more often, but life is imperfect. So will the rest of us...
Well-organized groups can still Titan bridge freighters down to 0.0, without changing the ability to move fleets, but it becomes less cost effective because they are moving 30% less per freighter. And they still have to get that freighter from high sec to the Titan...
Jump freighters become more expensive per m3 to move, because they lose 30% of their space. This is on top of the other changes to jump drives. Jump freighters now get used less for every day or bi-weekly stuff, because more people find it cost effective to use a BR or some other ship. More pilots moving stuff is a good thing.
In return, players get a straight up agility and warp speed buff of 30%, to make it less painful to pilot the ship. The ships get no nerf to tank. On top of that, players can still rig for warp speed, tank, agility, cargo, etc. This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |
I Love Boobies
All Hail Boobies
1143
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 03:51:00 -
[1069] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Fozzie, I know you guys see these posts, and I know you can't comment on everything, and lastly I know that introducing art assets to the game takes time. However this is my proposal and will likely be far more appeasing to all parties involved than the current changes.
Leave the current freighters as they are.
Make smaller new freighters.
Make them have half the cargo, hit points, align time and build cost and double the warp speed.
Give them 3 rig slots
Win
OR
Leave the current freighters alone
Make ONE new freighter in the ORE line with the above stats and say that ORE needed something with better agility for deep space mining or some mobo jumbo like that.
Already in game... it's called an Orca. |
Beofryn Sedorak
85
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 04:16:00 -
[1070] - Quote
I Love Boobies wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Fozzie, I know you guys see these posts, and I know you can't comment on everything, and lastly I know that introducing art assets to the game takes time. However this is my proposal and will likely be far more appeasing to all parties involved than the current changes.
Leave the current freighters as they are.
Make smaller new freighters.
Make them have half the cargo, hit points, align time and build cost and double the warp speed.
Give them 3 rig slots
Win
OR
Leave the current freighters alone
Make ONE new freighter in the ORE line with the above stats and say that ORE needed something with better agility for deep space mining or some mobo jumbo like that. Already in game... it's called an Orca.
Thinking is hard though. |
|
Axe Coldon
Coldon Enterprises Axion Bionics
34
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 04:35:00 -
[1071] - Quote
Dr Mr CCP Fozzie,
I get that you want to change the Meta Game and shake things up. I think we all do. And maybe you do want us to do more in null. I rather think you just want to enable us to make more in null. That I approve of. But null doesn't operate the same as high sec. It can't. I would like to see more hulls made there and most cap's. But its too big an operation to make the hundreds (or thousands) of modules rigs and other stuff that goes into ships. The big guys can do it..their home turf is more stable. But if you want to mess up the Meta Game..one assumes that is give others a chance to come into power, cause wars over resources and such nerfing freighters does none of that.
With all the buffing you have being doing to indies..and mining barges..a massive nerf to freighters was very unexpected. That is alot of the uproar. We all assumed we were getting a buff.
I still don't get how it hurts anyone to not nerf us but give us way more tank. I think its not too unrealistic to cost 1bil to gank a Freighter..(as in the old days before T3 bc's.)
What always bothered me was the high cost of a JF for how lilttle it holds. Yes I know they are the greatest thing since sliced butter. I fly one and I wouldn't give it up for nothing...not even if you nerf the hell out of it. It can jump from High sec to Low Null. No other cap ship can do that. But I don't see how nerfing it helps shake things up.
If you want some exciting conflict, give JF's Low Med and High slots. 1 or 2 each. They are T2's after all. The only T2 capital in the game. So yes. all my jf's would have cloaks on them. But think of the big battles if people wanted to change their cap modules (the 4k ones) in a big battle so they call in a JF to jump in. Hoping to get it to a safe spot and cloak. and the other side finds out and tracks it down (after all has to decloak to unload). Now that is meta game change.
For a 6 bil isk ship (more usually) its painfully sad in terms of ehp and abilities. With 1/3 the cargo approximately of a regular freighter you would think it would have heavier armor and such. And being T2 some fancy options.
Do what you want with regular freighters. As people point out, they have options. They can switch to Orca's or Indy's. We can't. Not for any serious industry production like you want. In null its JF or Rorq. but for moving goods to high you have to unload a Rorq in low and indy it to high. A scary and dangerous proposition. And some will do that. But its no reason to force them. This is a sandbox. We want choices. Not to be pushed into a corner.
I assume by "mixing up the meta game" you want to help the smaller guy. The guy without titans. The guy with out deep pockets. For that we need JF's. We don't have the logistics to keep a titan safe. So for big ticket items we pay thru the nose for a titan bridge. But the rest we haul our selves or find a buddy with a jf to haul it.
JF's should be massively buffed or you should make the cost to make them only 2 or 3 bil.
To me a Charon doesn't need any more capacity. But I would want to only have to use t1 rigs to get it where it is now. If I can afford 2 t2 cargo rigs in a charon I would expect to get more capacity then now and the trade of is I will probably die in a gank.
But a JF is T2 Capital. The ONLY ONE!. It deserves either a massive reduction in price or way way more buff. 2 slots in L M H, and rigs. I would reduce the cargo of the Rhea to 300k and the other accordingly. Keep the agile ones agile. Have each good at something. Rhea size, (I dont know the rest) one for tank one for agility one for something else). |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
3633
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 05:20:00 -
[1072] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:High sec folks should not care about this because you cannot efficiently fill a freighter with anything useful and stay below the 1b ISK mark, except maybe shrink-wrapped, unpackaged ships. You've obviously never hauled. You can fill a Charon with hisec ores and ices, and be well under 1b.
I own 4 Charons (soon 5) primarily for hauling Tritanium, and it takes several trips just for that. |
Feka
IX Legio Hispana Aquila Fidelas Constans
2
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 05:22:00 -
[1073] - Quote
I think the attribute reductions are too strong, especially with Jump Freighters.
Hauling stuff is not fun. There is fun no game play, either. You undock, jump to your next cyno and dock again. Repeat.
Hauling, logistics in general is a job the "enablers" in this game do. They move millions and millions of ships and equipment from one place to another so everyone who likes shooting space ships actually has space ships.
You are reducing 3 attributes and giving us the means to get one of them back to where they were before spending 1b+ on T2 rigs.
The "increase" in cargo capacity especially on the Rhea is a joke (if you used a different JF before you are bad anyways). Mose JF will use cargo rigs anyways because of the way you use them: You jump from station to station.
Still it is a big disadvantage. The longer align time just makes it more not-fun to move them between a station and a POS, or from lowsec into Jita.
I can live with the tank vs cargo decision and think that could lead to interesting decision making, because either I play it safe or try to mitigate the risk of being ganked in highsec. And I mean only highsec, if you are cought in null or low, you are buggered usually and no tank in the world will save you.
But making them take longer to align at the same time is really just reducing the quality of live and time to do fun things for JF pilots. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3283
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 05:27:00 -
[1074] - Quote
Some things to bear in mind, when you think a developer should respond to you quickly:
The developers are, primarily, in Iceland. That's GMT. They don't, in general, work weekends. If they're responding, it's on their own time.
So don't expect a quick response, when you post at 3am Monday morning.
(I know most of you are reasonable. There are one of two posts which suggest otherwise for some individuals)
In addition, a quick turn around on a change suggests that it's had less thought put into it. So you'll want to think about that. Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3531
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 05:53:00 -
[1075] - Quote
"Why not modules instead" is a bit of a common question, so on a whim I threw together a concept for just that.
New Module: "Warp Speed Lowslot" Requires Warp Drive Operation V 50 CPU +35% Warp Speed
The most obvious issue with low slots on freighters is lack of a warp speed rig. Solve that with a warp speed low slot. At +35% you get a bit larger benefit than with three T1 warp speed rigs, though smaller than three T2 rigs, but at 50 CPU you'll be making some major choices to fit them. The high fitting cost also serves as a check against their casual use for subcaps, as they'd be a huge, huge deal for shield tanking subcaps. 50 CPU isn't necessarily a final number but I'm not sure about going lower either.
e: Has been pointed out to me that this module would instantly obsolete the new Angel bonuses. This is somewhat problematic, but for now I'm not going to worry about it.
Providence
Amarr Freighter Bonus per level: +5% Cargo Capacity +5% Maximum Velocity
Slot Layout: 0H, 0M, 3L Fitting: 1 PWG, 100 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull): 2500 (-2500) / 12000 (-12000) 60000 (-52500) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time / warp speed): 70 / 0.0625 / 900,000,000 / 107.22s / 1.37 Cargo Capacity: 500000 (-235000)
Charon
Caldari Freighter Bonus per level: +5% Cargo Capacity +5% Maximum Velocity
Slot Layout: 0H, 0M, 3L Fitting: 1 PWG, 100 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull): 32500 (+26500) / 6000 (-14000) 45000 (-61250) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time / warp speed): 60 / 0.0625 / 960,000,000 / 114.37s / 1.37 Cargo Capacity: 517500 (-267500)
Obelisk
Gallente Freighter Bonus per level: +5% Cargo Capacity +5% Maximum Velocity
Slot Layout: 0H, 0M, 3L Fitting: 1 PWG, 100 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull): 3000 (-2313) / 8000 (-14500) 62500 (-57500) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time / warp speed): 65 / 0.0625 / 940,000,000 / 111.99s / 1.37 Cargo Capacity: 500000 (-250000)
Fenrir
Minmatar Freighter Bonus per level: +5% Cargo Capacity +5% Maximum Velocity
Slot Layout: 0H, 0M, 3L Fitting: 1 PWG, 100 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull): 30000 (+24375) / 8000 (-13250) 44000 (-56000) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time / warp speed): 80 / 0.0625 / 820,000,000 / 97.69s / 1.37 Cargo Capacity: 492500 (-227500)
Still no free lunch here; you're not getting better at everything, unless I messed up somewhere. For the most part it hews to the same overall principles as with rigs (tighten the gap between the different classes a bit) but the upsides are bigger (though the downsides are too) and you can hit a lot of interesting combos. It also doesn't demand a fortune to swap. Use of low slots is obviously an advantage for the armor tanking freighters. To offset that, shield freighters put a great deal of their EHP into shields while armor freighters continue to focus mainly on structure. This has the following effects:
- Fully tanked (DCII+2x Bulkheads), armor freighters have the most EHP, by ~10% or so.
- When "low penalty tanked" (DC plus either two PDS II for shields or two hardeners for armor), armor has the most EHP by about the same ~10% when considering blaster damage specifically.
- With two tank mods, they're about even.
- With one tank mod, shield freighters have slightly more EHP, and more still with no tank mods.
A few fit examples for illustration; this all assumes all skills at V and Tech II mods.
DC II, 2x Bulkhead Providence: 324k EHP, 495k cargo Charon: 297k EHP, 512.3k cargo Obelisk: 328k EHP, 504k cargo Fenrir: 291k EHP, 487.6k cargo
DC II, 2x Expanders Providence: 151k EHP, 1.016m cargo Charon: 167k EHP, 1.051m cargo Obelisk: 148k EHP, 1.036m cargo Fenrir: 164.5k EHP, 1m cargo
3x Expander Providence: 65k EHP, 1.295m cargo Charon: 96k EHP, 1.34m cargo Obelisk: 60k EHP, 1.32m cargo Fenrir: 94.7k EHP, 1.28m cargo
DC II, Expander, Bulkhead Providence: 218.6k EHP, 709k cargo Charon: 217.7k EHP, 734k cargo Obelisk: 218.7k EHP, 723k cargo Fenrir: 214k EHP, 698k cargo
"Low Penalty" tank (DCII, Thermal & Kinetic hardener for Providence/Obelisk, 2x PDS II for Charon & Fenrir) Providence: 229k EHP (omni), 253k EHP (against Caldari Navy Antimatter), 625k cargo Charon: 224k EHP (omni), 230.6k EHP (against CNAM), 646.9k cargo Obelisk: 225k EHP (omni), 241.9k EHP (against CNAM), 637.5k cargo Fenrir: 220k EHP (omni), 226k EHP (against CNAM), 615.6k cargo
DC II, 2x Inertia Stabilizers Providence: 218k EHP, 625k cargo, 25.3s align Charon: 218k EHP, 646.9k cargo, 26.9s align Obelisk: 218.6k EHP, 637.5k cargo, 26.4s align Fenrir: 214k EHP, 615.6k cargo, 23s align.
One warp speed low is 1.85 AU/s. Two is 2.41 AU/s. If the CPU allowed fitting three, that'd be 2.9 AU/s.
Going to sleep now, if people like the idea maybe I can whip through jump freighters to illustrate them as well. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
30
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 06:25:00 -
[1076] - Quote
I would really like if they switch from capital to large rigs. The prices are insane, for Capital Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer II x 2 you need 0.5b with cheapest order right now, who knows how much it will be after the change... and who knows how much Capital Transverese Bulkheads II will cost... |
Ben Hatton
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 06:29:00 -
[1077] - Quote
mynnna wrote:"Why not modules instead" is a bit of a common question, so on a whim I threw together a concept for just that.
I think you are onto something there, 2 low slots would seemingly achieve the desired outcomes mostly, plus provide a cheaper more flexible outcome for pilots. Obviously, the trade offs will still be required (less baseline cargo space etc), but this is a much less painful approach for those involved, especially those who require cargo today, speed tomorrow and then cargo next weekend for example. |
Oxide Ammar
122
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 06:29:00 -
[1078] - Quote
Walter Hart White wrote:I would really like if they switch from capital to large rigs. The prices are insane, for Capital Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer II x 2 you need 0.5b with cheapest order right now, who knows how much it will be after the change... and who knows how much Capital Transverese Bulkheads II will cost...
Actually they need to tackle the whole salvage profession and rigs material cost especially T2. |
Luscius Uta
84
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 06:31:00 -
[1079] - Quote
This is the worst idea that ever came out of Fozzie's head, and a lot of people will agree that he had some pretty terrible ideas before.
Freighters worked well without slots and rigs, and by reducing their cargo and forcing them to use expensive capital rigs, you're both increasing their price and reducing their effectiveness (since freighters are all about their cargo). Only two things I would change about Freighters is give them higher warp speed (2.0 AU/s is enough) and way more tank, maybe even make their tank about the same as Rorqual's (since it's a challenge to fill a Freighter full of anything other than Veldspar without making it a gank target). It's also a bit silly that Jump Freighters have more tank (in terms of raw EHP, as better resists are expected for a T2 ship) as they comparably spend much less time in space and are therefore much less likely to be ganked if the pilot has brains.
Needless to say, despite of how much I dislike the man, I'm disgusted to see death threats against Fozzie. We would be all happy if he just got fired
Which gives me an idea:
If this post gets 100 likes, I promise to start a CSM campaign next year with the sole purpose of requesting CCP to fire Fozzie and undo all the damage he caused Highsec is for casuals. |
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
104
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 06:39:00 -
[1080] - Quote
Walter Hart White wrote:I would really like if they switch from capital to large rigs. The prices are insane, for Capital Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer II x 2 you need 0.5b with cheapest order right now, who knows how much it will be after the change... and who knows how much Capital Transverese Bulkheads II will cost... T2 Cap Cargo Rigs are ~720m ea.. that's 1.45B just to get back the cargo you sit at now. And that doesn't even begin to address the tank change.
Personally I'd rather no rig change, or for CCP to compensate us in some way. I mean this isn't a minor change. You are making everyone with a Freighter Pay MORE than the Freighter is worth in Rigs, just to get back what it is now. Not some minor change in a frigate, or a module, but a change that costs Billions.
Changing the rigs to Large would offset a lot of the cost.. I mean an Orca is a "Capital" and it also uses large rigs, so it's not unjustifiable. Or make it so all ships currently assembled, would have the Rigs already on them to keep them ~ where they are now.. That way all NEW people getting into it would be able to factor in the massive increase in cost, without punishing the existing pilots..
I donno.. There's no simple answer.. Except as mynnna mentioned, change it to low slots.. and add a Warp Speed lowslot that can only be fit to some ships.. (like Bastion and MJD's).. 20% increase in Warp, -10% cargo ? |
|
Ranamar
Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind
57
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 06:39:00 -
[1081] - Quote
Walter Hart White wrote:I would really like if they switch from capital to large rigs. The prices are insane, for Capital Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer II x 2 you need 0.5b with cheapest order right now, who knows how much it will be after the change... and who knows how much Capital Transverese Bulkheads II will cost...
Capital Hyperspatial Velocity rigs don't cost that much to build. (It's about on par with CCCCs for T1; T2 is much cheaper than a T2 CCCC.) The thing is, though, nobody actually builds them, because nobody actually buys them... so currently the cheapest T1 one in Jita is 100M ISK for some insane profit if you ever manage to sell however many you build.
Edit for clarity: There's currently no market, so people price them at whatever the **** they want. If there was actually demand, someone would force the price down to sell theirs faster than the next guy's. |
Oxide Ammar
122
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 06:43:00 -
[1082] - Quote
Aerissa Nolen wrote:I've been working on a web tool to help wrap my head around these changes. Fairly limited right now but gets some basic info across. Works in IGB as well, does not require trust. http://xyjax.com/optimizer_kronos/index.html
God Bless You, Please post this in separate thread in science and industry section in forums, so you can get the feedback regarding this wonderful tool. |
Alexander McKeon
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
65
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 06:44:00 -
[1083] - Quote
Allowing modules to be fit to freighters opens up a huge can of worms, metaphorically speaking, which is why I advocated a subsystem-based approach. It would require more design time, possibly delaying the release, but it would permit a degree of tuning not otherwise possible and not require multiple hulls for different tasks. |
ELWhappo Sanchez
5
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 06:45:00 -
[1084] - Quote
3 low slots would work out a lot better than rigs that's for sure. I sold my freighter till all this blows over. if rigs get put in and the changes posted by fozzie go through I won't be buying another one. still a big hit to cargo space as it is I would have lost 350km3 out of my 850km3 if I wanted the same tank and align time. so my orcas are a better choice for hs hauling in the future. |
Barton Breau
University of Caille Gallente Federation
35
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 06:50:00 -
[1085] - Quote
mynnna wrote:
e: Has been pointed out to me that this module would instantly obsolete the new Angel bonuses. This is somewhat problematic, but for now I'm not going to worry about it.
Well, the same way omnis obsolete the domi, one would think. Worst case you could slap 500pg requirement on it. |
M'uva Wa'eva
Black Frog Logistics Red-Frog
32
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 06:52:00 -
[1086] - Quote
Mynna's proposed solution with the use of low slots is, in principle, in a single word, brilliant. Thanks for putting some solid numbers and thought into the idea several of us have expressed already.
There remain tradeoffs between cargo and tank as with the rigs, but they are customisable and changeable rather than effectivcely permanent. They provide interesting gameplay choices for a freighter pilot every time they undock, and fully meet the risk/reward principle (more cargo, less tank; more tank, less cargo) so there is still most definitely no free lunch.
If there was a concer about subcaps gaining the warp speed rig, it could be handled like the Covert Ops Cloak for bombers, etc... with an absurdly high CPU requirement offset with a 100% reduction in CPU fitting cost for the freighter class. |
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
105
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 07:00:00 -
[1087] - Quote
M'uva Wa'eva wrote:If there was a concer about subcaps gaining the warp speed rig, it could be handled like the Covert Ops Cloak for bombers, etc... with an absurdly high CPU requirement offset with a 100% reduction in CPU fitting cost for the freighter class. They removed the CPU Requirement being the limiting factor a few updates ago.. it's now a "Can be fitted to" field.. As people found a way to make an Avatar fit it with the right Officer CPU mods lol.
But I agree..
OR, you can give it negative effects.. Max locked targets to 0, or something.. Would also be nice as you could still fit it, to quickly move a BS or something, but not viable in combat conditions. Give it a penalty to cargo so you still have to pick between space and speed.. |
M'uva Wa'eva
Black Frog Logistics Red-Frog
32
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 07:02:00 -
[1088] - Quote
Thanks for the correction, Sniper. I was going off the old behaviour - as you point out, it could be handled much more elegantly with the "Can be fitted to" field. |
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
22
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 07:09:00 -
[1089] - Quote
to hell with these changes.. thanks ccp fozzie for seriously running any remaining fun I had in this game.
now you've gimped freighters and provide no reason for someone to risk all that isk on a jump freighter.. you sir have provided more ammo to allow folks to play other games.
|
Pestario Vargas
The Conference Elite CODE.
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 07:12:00 -
[1090] - Quote
Thank you for these changes CCP. I can hardly wait. |
|
Dave Stark
5798
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 07:22:00 -
[1091] - Quote
Theng Hofses wrote:Dave Stark wrote:no, i'm telling you that you've offered no proof that it is. It is obvious to any reasonable person that does not have an ulterior motive.
really? explain how it's obvious that he's multiboxing. |
Dave Stark
5798
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 07:27:00 -
[1092] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Maldiro Selkurk wrote:Dave Stark wrote:[quote=Maldiro Selkurk]I want gank pilots to have to scan my Charon to see what defenses (or k thereof) I have on my ship. [/qu,ote] so you're willing to take a massive freighter nerf, just so gankers have to click 1 more button before they gank you? There is no nerf, if rigs AND MODS are added to freighters it just makes them like all the other ships in the game (i.e. meaningful choice at a cost). Let me ask you this, what if every ship in the game had no rigs and no mods, you got hull bonuses and that was it? Would you even be playing this game? alternatively, you could just answer the question that i put to you. There is no nerf under the plan I proposed no matter how many times I have to restate that fact it isn't going to change. You can adjust the hulls and then make rigs - mods to either put it back exactly like it is now or choose to rig + mod differently if you so choose just like all the other ships in the game. Now its my turn to ask you to respond to my question because it is relevant to the seriously restricted options currently available to freighter pilots.
OP disagrees. it's quite obvious any fitting slot is accompanied by a nerf.
get your head out of the clouds. |
Dave Stark
5798
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 07:29:00 -
[1093] - Quote
Sweet Times wrote:so ccp you say you listen to your player base and their opinion matters
so you have heard what the players think what are you going to do about it
i say fire Fozzie and get in a dev who doesnt cause players to cancel subs
i'd honestly rather see people like you quit, than see fozzie leave/get fired.
you whine like a ***** about a change people have asked for for a long time, fozzie on the other hand has merely given people what they ask for (which is something most other companies won't even consider doing).
i know i can be very critical of CCP at times, but all these calls for fozzie to leave/quit/go to riot/etc are totally unjustified and juvenile. |
Gumpy Bitterhawk
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 07:38:00 -
[1094] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote: you whine like a ***** about a change people have asked for for a long time, fozzie on the other hand has merely given people what they ask for (which is something most other companies won't even consider doing).
55 pages later and you are still shitting up the thread with your 'told you so' comments.
People asked for customization options, not a total nerf to pretty much all important stats, and then a 1.5b isk solution to unfuck one of those nerfs. That it had to come at some penalty p much everyone knew, but not a goddamn nerf across the board.
Plus, most of the people you are trolling right now with your ****** comments are actually people that never asked for anything as far as freighters and jump freighers go (running logistics is already enough of a ****** job as it stands), and got into this thread by reading about the major (!) changes they are planning to make. So tell me, is there any specefic reason you mention the 'told you so' thing in about every post you make here, other then trolling or boasting? |
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
22
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 07:47:00 -
[1095] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Sweet Times wrote:so ccp you say you listen to your player base and their opinion matters
so you have heard what the players think what are you going to do about it
i say fire Fozzie and get in a dev who doesnt cause players to cancel subs i'd honestly rather see people like you quit, than see fozzie leave/get fired. you whine like a ***** about a change people have asked for for a long time, fozzie on the other hand has merely given people what they ask for (which is something most other companies won't even consider doing). i know i can be very critical of CCP at times, but all these calls for fozzie to leave/quit/go to riot/etc are totally unjustified and juvenile.
dave I disagree, these changes he's making are way obvious he doesn't understand the full effect this will have on new players and cost.. the dude is thinking about his major alliance buddies specifically helping those folks.. and he's doing an impressive job on making matters worse for folks that's not apart of those huge alliances.. this will result in way more subs dropping.
he's giving folks reason to leave.. and your comment on "folks like you should leave" only hurts this games numbers.. I mean seriously get off your ego abit and think about if you stand for the game expanding both in content and more importantly new players joining.. or a huge bust of subs dropping and making another company rich cause that company is listening and doing what the fanbase is asking for.
keep it up and I promise eve online is going to choke on its own blood.. and fozzie will be long gone before that you wake up about it. |
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
271
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 07:47:00 -
[1096] - Quote
The stated aim in the Fanfest mention of this was greater customisation. And yet the choice was Rigs?!? The value of customisation is surely that the ship can be adjusted to suit needs which may be different today than they were yesterday and will be tomorrow (I'm going to Jita today, I'll fit for as many EHP as possible; tomorrow I'll be moving veldspar three jumps from the corp mining op to a station with a good refinery...). Rigs aren't suitable for that task, they're far too permanent.
So was the only reason for the choice how potentially tough a freighter with a DCII would have been?
Additional thought:
One of the things which drove freighter capacity very particularly was always the size of Outpost Eggs and so forth. Are all those null infrastructure operations going to required cargo rigs to make them more vulnerable? |
Anathema Device
State War Academy Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 07:51:00 -
[1097] - Quote
Lithorn wrote:I had trained for these ships (jump freighters) but now the changes being made have certainly made up my mind as to whether I will ever buy them, decidedly no. Compared to this, other capital ships with some hauling capability are a far better trade-off for most tasks, especially now after these proposed changes. Better fuel usage, better jump range, better price. Surely you must admit they would still have a role as an in-systems hauler between stations.
|
Feffri
Death By Design Did he say Jump
50
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 07:52:00 -
[1098] - Quote
Posting to agree with comments made from before these changes are horrible and not well thought out at all. Fozzie take the weekends off as you obviously don't do your best thinking on weekends. |
Steijn
Quay Industries
511
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 07:56:00 -
[1099] - Quote
I must be 1 step away from the funny farm when a Goons ideas for how to make freighters configurable, is far better than what CCP suggest..
Now you just need to get CCP to listen Myanna. |
Dave Stark
5798
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 07:59:00 -
[1100] - Quote
Milla Goodpussy wrote:keep it up and I promise eve online is going to choke on its own blood.. and fozzie will be long gone before that you wake up about it.
people like you have promised that for the last 10 years. |
|
Oxide Ammar
122
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 07:59:00 -
[1101] - Quote
If these changes are going through, I highly suggest to punish Fozzie of manually piloting freighter for 35 jumps a day for 1 week with these modified freighters... soul crushing punishment. |
Freelancer117
So you want to be a Hero
204
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 08:00:00 -
[1102] - Quote
Dear CCP Fozzie,
The number one reason for using (Jump) Freighters is hauling stuff about across space.
When you lower the base cargo capacity of all (Jump) Freighters by between 27 and 30%,
And then add the use of Rigs to compensate for the ability to haul stuff about across space,
You should lower the total ship material costs (including the extra materials pre-Kronos) by between 27 and 30%.
This reflects the base cost of the ship versus the purpose of the ship it is mainly build or bought for.
The cost to build or buy a (Jump) Freighter will be higher after Kronos because of the need to add Rigs on them,
Which are permanent ship modifications that will be destroyed if they are removed or if the ship is repackaged.
Regards, a Freelancer
Eve rule no.1: The players will make a better version of the game, then CCP initially plans.
http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg
|
Dave Stark
5798
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 08:03:00 -
[1103] - Quote
Gumpy Bitterhawk wrote:So tell me, is there any specefic reason you mention the 'told you so' thing in about every post you make here, other then trolling or boasting?
because it's still more constructive than the constant whining going on, since you know... we've already had the discussion about freighters getting rigs in several other threads over the last god knows how long.
people who wanted something for nothing obviously weren't going to get it; freighters were already balanced, if you wanted extra things it was obvious you had to give something up for it.
this is also a feedback thread; i've given my feedback. other people have simply come in here and just cried, and stomped feet, and been less constructive than me. however apparently your issue is with me. interesting.
I don't really want any of these changes, just like most other people. the difference is, i'm not whining about it. |
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
22
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 08:07:00 -
[1104] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Milla Goodpussy wrote:keep it up and I promise eve online is going to choke on its own blood.. and fozzie will be long gone before that you wake up about it. people like you have promised that for the last 10 years.
people like me haven't been playing the game for 10 yrs check that crap dude. however a player like me that does have wide experience in how mmo's are developed with irrational plans end up dying due to *****ful thinking on the other hand is a warning to those that be.. which obviously fozzie doesn't care about.. guess one can assume he's already spruced up his resume for his next job. im just saying. |
Lara Divinity
Seles Deep Space Industries Order of the Exalted
8
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 08:07:00 -
[1105] - Quote
ELWhappo Sanchez wrote:3 low slots would work out a lot better than rigs that's for sure. I sold my freighter till all this blows over. if rigs get put in and the changes posted by fozzie go through I won't be buying another one. still a big hit to cargo space as it is I would have lost 350km3 out of my 850km3 if I wanted the same tank and align time. so my orcas are a better choice for hs hauling in the future.
damm right they are a better choice cheaper tougher faster more versatile and good enuff for hsinstead of spending billions on a crappy freighter buy 4 orcas ehp on the orca is like twice the amount of a freighter when fitted right
is it an airplane ...is it a submarine oh no its a nerfed freighter from eve online goin to the trashbin |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
519
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 08:15:00 -
[1106] - Quote
Aerissa Nolen wrote:I've been working on a web tool to help wrap my head around these changes. Fairly limited right now but gets some basic info across. Works in IGB as well, does not require trust. http://xyjax.com/optimizer_kronos/index.html
That's awesome! |
Gumpy Bitterhawk
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 08:18:00 -
[1107] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Gumpy Bitterhawk wrote:So tell me, is there any specefic reason you mention the 'told you so' thing in about every post you make here, other then trolling or boasting? because it's still more constructive than the constant whining going on, since you know... we've already had the discussion about freighters getting rigs in several other threads over the last god knows how long. people who wanted something for nothing obviously weren't going to get it; freighters were already balanced, if you wanted extra things it was obvious you had to give something up for it. this is also a feedback thread; i've given my feedback. other people have simply come in here and just cried, and stomped feet, and been less constructive than me. however apparently your issue is with me. interesting. I don't really want any of these changes, just like most other people. the difference is, i'm not whining about it.
Telling random people who complain about these changes 'i told you so', indifferent if they have anything to or not to do with asking for these changes, every other post you make, isnt constructive, and is far from feedback. So again, poaching or trolling?
|
Dave Stark
5798
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 08:21:00 -
[1108] - Quote
Milla Goodpussy wrote:people like me haven't been playing the game for 10 yrs check that crap dude.
"i an quitting eve" ~ some irrelevant nobody, 2003. http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=18822
so yes, people whining and threatening to quit the game every time a change is made have been playing for 10 years. i did check that crap, dude. |
Dave Stark
5798
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 08:23:00 -
[1109] - Quote
Gumpy Bitterhawk wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Gumpy Bitterhawk wrote:So tell me, is there any specefic reason you mention the 'told you so' thing in about every post you make here, other then trolling or boasting? because it's still more constructive than the constant whining going on, since you know... we've already had the discussion about freighters getting rigs in several other threads over the last god knows how long. people who wanted something for nothing obviously weren't going to get it; freighters were already balanced, if you wanted extra things it was obvious you had to give something up for it. this is also a feedback thread; i've given my feedback. other people have simply come in here and just cried, and stomped feet, and been less constructive than me. however apparently your issue is with me. interesting. I don't really want any of these changes, just like most other people. the difference is, i'm not whining about it. Telling random people who complain about these changes 'i told you so', indifferent if they have anything to or not to do with asking for these changes, every other post you make, isnt constructive, and is far from feedback. So again, poaching or trolling?
actually, it is constructive when people keep asking "why?" which, they do.
it's rude not to answer people's questions. |
Gumpy Bitterhawk
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 08:27:00 -
[1110] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:
actually, it is constructive when people keep asking "why?" which, they do.
it's rude not to answer people's questions.
It might be rude to not answer peoples questions, but im pretty sure they would rather have no answer then a random and indifferent 'i told you so' comment from you.
People like you remind me why i stopped reading eveo forums years ago. |
|
Dave Stark
5798
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 08:29:00 -
[1111] - Quote
Gumpy Bitterhawk wrote:People like you remind me why i stopped reading eveo forums years ago.
people like you are the reason i read it daily. because all of your recent posts are just attacking me and not giving any feedback (you know, the very thing you've accused me of (falsely, i might add)). |
Kaahles
Jion Keanturi
30
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 08:29:00 -
[1112] - Quote
Maybe a bit off-topic and will probably get me a lot of hate but here it goes:
Whatever happened to "Adapt or Die"?
"back in the day" it was among the first things I learned o.O |
Lara Divinity
Seles Deep Space Industries Order of the Exalted
8
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 08:32:00 -
[1113] - Quote
Kaahles wrote:Maybe a bit off-topic and will probably get me a lot of hate but here it goes:
Whatever happened to "Adapt or Die"?
"back in the day" it was among the first things I learned o.O
it tuned to just die already adapting got nerfed |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11648
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 08:32:00 -
[1114] - Quote
Feffri wrote:Posting to agree with comments made from before these changes are horrible and not well thought out at all. Fozzie take the weekends off as you obviously don't do your best thinking on weekends.
Actually the changes are infact rather well thought out. The problem here is adding the rigs means these nerfs have to happen to keep the ships balanced and CCP are only adding the rigs because of an endless train of people asking for rigs over the last 2 years. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
King Fu Hostile
Imperial Collective Unsettled.
116
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 08:33:00 -
[1115] - Quote
It might be more sensible to keep the stats as they are, and add the rig slots. I can't see any negative effects of faster, bigger, or tankier freighters tbh.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11648
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 08:33:00 -
[1116] - Quote
Kaahles wrote:Maybe a bit off-topic and will probably get me a lot of hate but here it goes:
Whatever happened to "Adapt or Die"?
"back in the day" it was among the first things I learned o.O
I have been expecting these changes for years now, it sucks but as always I have a plan. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Dave Stark
5798
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 08:36:00 -
[1117] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:I have a plan. hauling in megathrons? |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11648
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 08:38:00 -
[1118] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:baltec1 wrote:I have a plan. hauling in megathrons?
If only...
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Moloney
Noob Mercs Monkeys with Guns.
61
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 08:46:00 -
[1119] - Quote
Get you pants off your head and stop this nerf!
Less cargo, slower, less hp pick 1 to return to normal at a cost!? WTF!!! |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11648
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 08:57:00 -
[1120] - Quote
Moloney wrote:Get you pants off your head and stop this nerf!
Less cargo, slower, less hp pick 1 to return to normal at a cost!? WTF!!!
Welcome to more choice! Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
|
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
2710
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 09:02:00 -
[1121] - Quote
I love how absolutely angry people are when they get both what they asked for and what was coming at the same time. Rifterlings pirate corporation is now recruitng members for lowsec PvP operations. Newbie friendly, free T1 frigate and dessy hangar, solo tutoring and PvP classes for new members. Join our in game channel 'weflyrifters' and speak to a recruiter today. |
Gumpy Bitterhawk
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 09:14:00 -
[1122] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Gumpy Bitterhawk wrote:People like you remind me why i stopped reading eveo forums years ago.
people like you are the reason i read it daily. because all of your recent posts are just attacking me and not giving any feedback (you know, the very thing you've accused me of (falsely, i might add)).
The reason people read this thread is because they are interested in what ccp has in store for jumpfreighters and freighters. I happen to make money from building freighters and jumpfreighters, so, beside all the hauling i do myself, these changes are going to impact me possibly more then the average logi guy.
Now, reading trough this lot with all the whining about these (really harsh) changes and sift out the good ideas/devposts is one thing, but what really pisses me off is this bunch of kids who have been trying to **** up the thread from page one with these 'told you so' comments. Really, if all you want is some backpadding because you predicted something, got trolled about it, are butthurt, and now want some revenge or something, please, go start a own thread in some offtopic section where you can go troll amonghts your 'told you so' fanclub. Adding no feedback at all is still better then whatever you are trying to do.
And as far as my feedback goes (who the f cares anyway), i gave that already somewhere of the start of this thread. I think they both could use tweaks, yes. I think they should have some level of modification, yes. But not by nerfing the ships in all their major aspects and then giving you an option (lol, nessecity) to unfuck one of those stats at a 1.5b price tag (wich is a false level of modification anyways as you cannot unfit rigs). The idea Mynna came up with is like a thousand times better thought trough then what ccp came up with. |
Lara Divinity
Seles Deep Space Industries Order of the Exalted
8
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 09:15:00 -
[1123] - Quote
Domanique Altares wrote:I love how absolutely angry people are when they get both what they asked for and what was coming at the same time.
i never asked for anything but then again im only a 9month old player without a giant alliance or corporation |
Dave Stark
5800
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 09:19:00 -
[1124] - Quote
Gumpy Bitterhawk wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Gumpy Bitterhawk wrote:People like you remind me why i stopped reading eveo forums years ago.
people like you are the reason i read it daily. because all of your recent posts are just attacking me and not giving any feedback (you know, the very thing you've accused me of (falsely, i might add)). The reason people read this thread is because they are interested in what ccp has in store for jumpfreighters and freighters. I happen to make money from building freighters and jumpfreighters, so, beside all the hauling i do myself, these changes are going to impact me possibly more then the average logi guy. Now, reading trough this lot with all the whining about these (really harsh) changes and sift out the good ideas/devposts is one thing, but what really pisses me off is this bunch of kids who have been trying to **** up the thread from page one with these 'told you so' comments. Really, if all you want is some backpadding because you predicted something, got trolled about it, are butthurt, and now want some revenge or something, please, go start a own thread in some offtopic section where you can go troll amonghts your 'told you so' fanclub. Adding no feedback at all is still better then whatever you are trying to do. And as far as my feedback goes (who the f cares anyway), i gave that already somewhere of the start of this thread. I think they both could use tweaks, yes. I think they should have some level of modification, yes. But not by nerfing the ships in all their major aspects and then giving you an option (lol, nessecity) to unfuck one of those stats at a 1.5b price tag (wich is a false level of modification anyways as you cannot unfit rigs). The idea Mynna came up with is like a thousand times better thought trough then what ccp came up with.
we've been through this; duplicate threads get locked.
you seem really mad, though. perhaps you should close the thread and go outside (no idea where you live, but it's a glorious day here. which reminds me, i need to make some room in the fridge for the cider.) |
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
2713
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 09:21:00 -
[1125] - Quote
Lara Divinity wrote:Domanique Altares wrote:I love how absolutely angry people are when they get both what they asked for and what was coming at the same time. i never asked for anything but then again im only a 9month old player without a giant alliance or corporation
It wasn't players in giant player alliances and corporations that asked for this; mostly clueless clowns in NPC corps crying that they needed to fit rigs and mods to their freighters.
Just about every voice of reason on these forums told them that CCP was not going to give freighters fittings without taking something away.
Lo and behold, that's exactly what happened. Now the needy NPC haulers are somehow surprised, after they had been warned repeatedly to beware what they were asking CCP to do. Rifterlings pirate corporation is now recruitng members for lowsec PvP operations. Newbie friendly, free T1 frigate and dessy hangar, solo tutoring and PvP classes for new members. Join our in game channel 'weflyrifters' and speak to a recruiter today. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11648
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 09:22:00 -
[1126] - Quote
Gumpy Bitterhawk wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Gumpy Bitterhawk wrote:People like you remind me why i stopped reading eveo forums years ago.
people like you are the reason i read it daily. because all of your recent posts are just attacking me and not giving any feedback (you know, the very thing you've accused me of (falsely, i might add)). The reason people read this thread is because they are interested in what ccp has in store for jumpfreighters and freighters. I happen to make money from building freighters and jumpfreighters, so, beside all the hauling i do myself, these changes are going to impact me possibly more then the average logi guy. Now, reading trough this lot with all the whining about these (really harsh) changes and sift out the good ideas/devposts is one thing, but what really pisses me off is this bunch of kids who have been trying to **** up the thread from page one with these 'told you so' comments. Really, if all you want is some backpadding because you predicted something, got trolled about it, are butthurt, and now want some revenge or something, please, go start a own thread in some offtopic section where you can go troll amonghts your 'told you so' fanclub. Adding no feedback at all is still better then whatever you are trying to do. And as far as my feedback goes (who the f cares anyway), i gave that already somewhere of the start of this thread. I think they both could use tweaks, yes. I think they should have some level of modification, yes. But not by nerfing the ships in all their major aspects and then giving you an option (lol, nessecity) to unfuck one of those stats at a 1.5b price tag (wich is a false level of modification anyways as you cannot unfit rigs). The idea Mynna came up with is like a thousand times better thought trough then what ccp came up with.
CCP have simply given what countless bears demanded. Rigs for their freighters. No matter what CCP do, if they are adding fitting options then they have to nerf the freighters to keep them balanced.
You will be unhappy with any change they make to these ships as they will all involve big nerfs. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Boomer Zedroid
Treasure Seekers Society Reverberation Project
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 09:31:00 -
[1127] - Quote
Don't be an idiot; do not deploy this change with Kronos.
If you need something in its place, lick your keyboard for 5 minutes and you will have produced a more sensible contribution to the game. |
Lara Divinity
Seles Deep Space Industries Order of the Exalted
8
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 09:32:00 -
[1128] - Quote
nerf it all fck the game up n make it free to play while ur at it |
Hashi Lebwohl
Oberon Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
42
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 09:39:00 -
[1129] - Quote
In the past, when an announcement is made that will have a requirement to get the appropriate skills there is time given between that announcement and when the change goes live.
Time to Kronos -> 15 days
Time to learn a rig skill to 5 -> 13 -16 days depending upon attributes and if jury rigging has been trained.
I think there is not enough time for a dev blog to be published on this change and for players to adapt, and for this reason this change, if it remains the same, should be delayed until the July expansion. |
Dave Stark
5800
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 09:44:00 -
[1130] - Quote
Hashi Lebwohl wrote:Time to learn a rig skill to 5 -> 13 -16 days depending upon attributes and if jury rigging has been trained. good job you only need IV for t2 rigs. which takes about 3-4 days. |
|
Oxide Ammar
122
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 10:12:00 -
[1131] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Hashi Lebwohl wrote:Time to learn a rig skill to 5 -> 13 -16 days depending upon attributes and if jury rigging has been trained. good job you only need IV for t2 rigs. which takes about 3-4 days.
The penalty is significant for capital ships, which in this case is freighters getting it to 5 is nice but if he doesn't have other thing to train. |
Dave Stark
5803
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 10:20:00 -
[1132] - Quote
Oxide Ammar wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Hashi Lebwohl wrote:Time to learn a rig skill to 5 -> 13 -16 days depending upon attributes and if jury rigging has been trained. good job you only need IV for t2 rigs. which takes about 3-4 days. The penalty is significant for capital ships, which in this case is freighters getting it to 5 is nice but if he doesn't have other thing to train.
as is the bonus, they're all % based. |
Neoxan
WALLTREIPERS The Initiative.
4
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 10:22:00 -
[1133] - Quote
Rigs are a static option, if you want to nerf freighters to the ground in exange to give them the ability to customize them then let them have 1 or 2 low slots and forget about the rig stuff, 2 cargo slots are the best option imo, for example inertias if you want to go fast, expanded cargoholds for cargo, overdrives for autopilot, damage control for tank, if you give them rigs youll need to have 3 or 4 freigthers, one for each role. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6369
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 10:25:00 -
[1134] - Quote
Domanique Altares wrote:I love how absolutely angry people are when they get both what they asked for and what was coming at the same time.
It's because they think they're special.
Same reason why they were crying for rigs in the first place, by the way. They think they're special, so "it won't happen to me" when they autopilot with 4billion in the cargo hold through the Uedama pipe.
And because they think they're special, they also thought that when they said "we just want more options/choice", they told themselves it would come with no sacrifices. They told themselves it would come as a net buff to everything.
Because they think they're special. Which is why such rage and anger, because this isn't about pixels, to them it's an attack on their very self identity.
Because they think they're special. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Narjack
CragCO
5
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 10:42:00 -
[1135] - Quote
mynnna wrote:"Why not modules instead" is a bit of a common question, so on a whim I threw together a concept for just that.
New Module: "Warp Speed Lowslot" Requires Warp Drive Operation V 50 CPU +35% Warp Speed
The most obvious issue with low slots on freighters is lack of a warp speed rig. Solve that with a warp speed low slot. At +35% you get a bit larger benefit than with three T1 warp speed rigs, though smaller than three T2 rigs, but at 50 CPU you'll be making some major choices to fit them. The high fitting cost also serves as a check against their casual use for subcaps, as they'd be a huge, huge deal for shield tanking subcaps. 50 CPU isn't necessarily a final number but I'm not sure about going lower either.
e: Has been pointed out to me that this module would instantly obsolete the new Angel bonuses. This is somewhat problematic, but for now I'm not going to worry about it.
Awesome idea! Maybe add a huge targeting penalty or some such when you use these (kind of like stabs) so they are not abused in PvP? Might actually be nice to be able to throw them onto a BS so that maybe you just need to move a distance but don't have a carrier option at the moment/jump gate etc. Throw one on your BS for faster travel/refit when you get to your destination (I'm thinking mobile depot.) All around the low slot idea makes a lot of sense.
|
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
31
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 10:54:00 -
[1136] - Quote
I hide all posts from tippia, Kaarous, Dave Start and likes of those, and voila, thread is nice again! Recommend everyone doing that. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11652
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 10:58:00 -
[1137] - Quote
Walter Hart White wrote:I hide all posts from tippia, Kaarous, Dave Start and likes of those, and voila, thread is nice again! Recommend everyone doing that.
So, you are hiding the post from the people who predicted this would happen if rigs were added in a thread on deciding the future of freighters?
Wouldn't it be a better idea to listen to them, given how they know what changes would mean. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Dave Stark
5803
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 10:59:00 -
[1138] - Quote
Walter Hart White wrote:I hide all posts from tippia, Kaarous, Dave Start and likes of those, and voila, thread is nice again! Recommend everyone doing that.
you could at least spell my name right, it's right there for you to copy. |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
31
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 11:01:00 -
[1139] - Quote
Ranamar wrote:Walter Hart White wrote:I would really like if they switch from capital to large rigs. The prices are insane, for Capital Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer II x 2 you need 0.5b with cheapest order right now, who knows how much it will be after the change... and who knows how much Capital Transverese Bulkheads II will cost... Capital Hyperspatial Velocity rigs don't cost that much to build. (It's about on par with CCCCs for T1; T2 is much cheaper than a T2 CCCC.) The thing is, though, nobody actually builds them, because nobody actually buys them... so currently the cheapest T1 one in Jita is 100M ISK for some insane profit if you ever manage to sell however many you build. Edit for clarity: There's currently no market, so people price them at whatever the **** they want. If there was actually demand, someone would force the price down to sell theirs faster than the next guy's. Eve central reports 250m for cheapest t2 one. |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
31
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 11:03:00 -
[1140] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Walter Hart White wrote:I hide all posts from tippia, Kaarous, Dave Start and likes of those, and voila, thread is nice again! Recommend everyone doing that. So, you are hiding the post from the people who predicted this would happen if rigs were added in a thread on deciding the future of freighters? Wouldn't it be a better idea to listen to them, given how they know what changes would mean. If they were saying anything useful, maybe. All they say is the same thing all over the thread. I don't need to read "told you so" * number_of_posts(tippia, any_thread) + number_of_posts(kaarous, any_thread) + number_of_posts(dave_start, any_thread);
All they do, in every single thread, if there is someone unhappy with CCP changes, they troll the **** out of them. That is all they do. They have zero usefulness in community and should be removed from it. |
|
Dave Stark
5803
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 11:08:00 -
[1141] - Quote
Walter Hart White wrote:They have zero usefulness in community and should be removed from it. we told players they'd be unhappy with rig slots on freighters. they are unhappy.
instead of having lots of unhappy people crying very hard, they could have listened to us. yes, another "i told you so post" but that's all we can do when our actual, helpful, posts went ignored anyway.
we were helpful, we told you what would happen and why it would happen. you all chose to ignore that, so we've got every right to be smug as ****.
having said that; we were wrong in one aspect. fozzie was far more benevolent than we thought he would be and raised the packaged capital volume to 1.3m instead of imposing even harsher cargo nerfs. |
probag Bear
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
41
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 11:11:00 -
[1142] - Quote
Freelancer117 wrote:You should lower the total ship material costs (including the extra materials pre-Kronos) by between 27 and 30%.
Oh hey, there's an actually good suggestion in this thread. I like this.
Walter Hart White wrote:Ranamar wrote:Walter Hart White wrote:I would really like if they switch from capital to large rigs. The prices are insane, for Capital Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer II x 2 you need 0.5b with cheapest order right now, who knows how much it will be after the change... and who knows how much Capital Transverese Bulkheads II will cost... Capital Hyperspatial Velocity rigs don't cost that much to build. (It's about on par with CCCCs for T1; T2 is much cheaper than a T2 CCCC.) The thing is, though, nobody actually builds them, because nobody actually buys them... so currently the cheapest T1 one in Jita is 100M ISK for some insane profit if you ever manage to sell however many you build. Edit for clarity: There's currently no market, so people price them at whatever the **** they want. If there was actually demand, someone would force the price down to sell theirs faster than the next guy's. Eve central reports 250m for cheapest t2 one.
I will gladly sell you 50 T2 CHVOs per day at 135m each, ad infinitum, if you guarantee that you will buy them.
As in, you're missing the entire point of the post you quoted. T2 CHVOs are cheap as dirt compared to T2 CCCs or trims. The only reason the cheapest is at 250m is because no one ever buys them. Low demand means high prices. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11653
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 11:13:00 -
[1143] - Quote
Walter Hart White wrote:baltec1 wrote:Walter Hart White wrote:I hide all posts from tippia, Kaarous, Dave Start and likes of those, and voila, thread is nice again! Recommend everyone doing that. So, you are hiding the post from the people who predicted this would happen if rigs were added in a thread on deciding the future of freighters? Wouldn't it be a better idea to listen to them, given how they know what changes would mean. If they were saying anything useful, maybe. All they say is the same thing all over the thread. I don't need to read "told you so" * number_of_posts(tippia, any_thread) + number_of_posts(kaarous, any_thread) + number_of_posts(dave_start, any_thread); All they do, in every single thread, if there is someone unhappy with CCP changes, they troll the **** out of them. That is all they do. They have zero usefulness in community and should be removed from it.
We spent two years telling people this very thing would happen if rigs were added and got nothing but abuse from these people.
In this very thread we are getting countless "why are you doing this CCP" posts and we are answering them. We are also getting a large number of other posts asking for a reduction in the nerfs but to keep the rigs or to add low and med slots. Im sorry if you think its getting repetitive but we are answering the same questions and demands over and over again. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1545
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 11:16:00 -
[1144] - Quote
King Fu Hostile wrote:It might be more sensible to keep the stats as they are, and add the rig slots. I can't see any negative effects of faster, bigger, or tankier freighters tbh.
Freighters dnt need a buff. Power creep is bad.
CCP Fozzie wrote: I do want to clarify that although it's very possible that a lot of these numbers can change, we're not going to simply give JFs a gigantic buff to their cargoholds and call it a day. The fast movement of goods across the galaxy has its advantages and also its disadvantages, and we are not going to simply let power creep get out of control in this area.
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" |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3283
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 11:17:00 -
[1145] - Quote
probag Bear wrote:Freelancer117 wrote:You should lower the total ship material costs (including the extra materials pre-Kronos) by between 27 and 30%. Oh hey, there's an actually good suggestion in this thread. I like this. Walter Hart White wrote:Ranamar wrote:Walter Hart White wrote:I would really like if they switch from capital to large rigs. The prices are insane, for Capital Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer II x 2 you need 0.5b with cheapest order right now, who knows how much it will be after the change... and who knows how much Capital Transverese Bulkheads II will cost... Capital Hyperspatial Velocity rigs don't cost that much to build. (It's about on par with CCCCs for T1; T2 is much cheaper than a T2 CCCC.) The thing is, though, nobody actually builds them, because nobody actually buys them... so currently the cheapest T1 one in Jita is 100M ISK for some insane profit if you ever manage to sell however many you build. Edit for clarity: There's currently no market, so people price them at whatever the **** they want. If there was actually demand, someone would force the price down to sell theirs faster than the next guy's. Eve central reports 250m for cheapest t2 one. I will gladly sell you 50 T2 CHVOs per day at 135m each, ad infinitum, if you guarantee that you will buy them. As in, you're missing the entire point of the post you quoted. T2 CHVOs are cheap as dirt compared to T2 CCCs or trims. The only reason the cheapest is at 250m is because no one ever buys them. Low demand means high prices.
https://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/blueprints/0/31169/-4/5/-4/5 141 million to make, around 2 million to invent.
And that's with no decryptor. A symmetry decryptor drops it to 130 million and around 1 million a shot. Process drops it to 113, and 7 million to invent.
There's a /lot/ of wiggle room on those prices.
As probag said, low market movement. tends to lead to inflated prices. Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
31
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 11:20:00 -
[1146] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:King Fu Hostile wrote:It might be more sensible to keep the stats as they are, and add the rig slots. I can't see any negative effects of faster, bigger, or tankier freighters tbh.
Freighters dnt need a buff. Power creep is bad. CCP Fozzie wrote: I do want to clarify that although it's very possible that a lot of these numbers can change, we're not going to simply give JFs a gigantic buff to their cargoholds and call it a day. The fast movement of goods across the galaxy has its advantages and also its disadvantages, and we are not going to simply let power creep get out of control in this area.
What power creep? 1.3m cargo hold? What, so more gankers can fit their wallet? Usually, the cargo >800m3 is rare and only useful for minerals if you want to keep collateral low. If you don't, well, more power to you. Please, haul 1.3m m3 of plexers for all I care. This would hardly imbalance anything at all. For 1.4b for rigs, you get 1.3m m3 space. And? You pay two times for freighter, so you should get some bonus out of it...
That is what CCP should get. Rigs are not buff. Rigs are balanced on their own. They buff and nerf at same time. No need to nerf further.... |
TianRei
Dirty jobs Inc.
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 11:20:00 -
[1147] - Quote
[spoiler]
mynnna wrote:"Why not modules instead" is a bit of a common question, so on a whim I threw together a concept for just that. New Module: "Warp Speed Lowslot" Requires Warp Drive Operation V 50 CPU +35% Warp Speed The most obvious issue with low slots on freighters is lack of a warp speed rig. Solve that with a warp speed low slot. At +35% you get a bit larger benefit than with three T1 warp speed rigs, though smaller than three T2 rigs, but at 50 CPU you'll be making some major choices to fit them. The high fitting cost also serves as a check against their casual use for subcaps, as they'd be a huge, huge deal for shield tanking subcaps. 50 CPU isn't necessarily a final number but I'm not sure about going lower either. e: Has been pointed out to me that this module would instantly obsolete the new Angel bonuses. This is somewhat problematic, but for now I'm not going to worry about it. Providence Amarr Freighter Bonus per level: +5% Cargo Capacity +5% Maximum Velocity Slot Layout: 0H, 0M, 3L Fitting: 1 PWG, 100 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull): 2500 (-2500) / 12000 (-12000) 60000 (-52500) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time / warp speed): 70 / 0.0625 / 900,000,000 / 107.22s / 1.37 Cargo Capacity: 500000 (-235000) Charon Caldari Freighter Bonus per level: +5% Cargo Capacity +5% Maximum Velocity Slot Layout: 0H, 0M, 3L Fitting: 1 PWG, 100 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull): 32500 (+26500) / 6000 (-14000) 45000 (-61250) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time / warp speed): 60 / 0.0625 / 960,000,000 / 114.37s / 1.37 Cargo Capacity: 517500 (-267500) Obelisk Gallente Freighter Bonus per level: +5% Cargo Capacity +5% Maximum Velocity Slot Layout: 0H, 0M, 3L Fitting: 1 PWG, 100 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull): 3000 (-2313) / 8000 (-14500) 62500 (-57500) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time / warp speed): 65 / 0.0625 / 940,000,000 / 111.99s / 1.37 Cargo Capacity: 500000 (-250000) Fenrir Minmatar Freighter Bonus per level: +5% Cargo Capacity +5% Maximum Velocity Slot Layout: 0H, 0M, 3L Fitting: 1 PWG, 100 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull): 30000 (+24375) / 8000 (-13250) 44000 (-56000) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time / warp speed): 80 / 0.0625 / 820,000,000 / 97.69s / 1.37 Cargo Capacity: 492500 (-227500) Still no free lunch here; you're not getting better at everything at once, unless I messed up somewhere. For the most part it hews to the same overall principles as with rigs (tighten the gap between the different classes a bit) but the upsides are bigger (though the downsides are too) and you can hit a lot of interesting combos. It also doesn't demand a fortune to swap. Use of low slots is obviously an advantage for the armor tanking freighters. To offset that, shield freighters put a great deal of their EHP into shields while armor freighters continue to focus mainly on structure. This has the following effects:
- Fully tanked (DCII+2x Bulkheads), armor freighters have the most EHP, by ~10% or so.
- When "low penalty tanked" (DC plus either two PDS II for shields or two hardeners for armor), armor has the most EHP by about the same ~10% when considering blaster damage specifically.
- With two tank mods, they're about even.
- With one tank mod, shield freighters have slightly more EHP, and more still with no tank mods.
A few fit examples for illustration; this all assumes all skills at V and Tech II mods. DC II, 2x BulkheadProvidence: 324k EHP, 495k cargo Charon: 297k EHP, 512.3k cargo Obelisk: 328k EHP, 504k cargo Fenrir: 291k EHP, 487.6k cargo DC II, 2x ExpandersProvidence: 151k EHP, 1.016m cargo Charon: 167k EHP, 1.051m cargo Obelisk: 148k EHP, 1.036m cargo Fenrir: 164.5k EHP, 1m cargo 3x ExpanderProvidence: 65k EHP, 1.295m cargo Charon: 96k EHP, 1.34m cargo Obelisk: 60k EHP, 1.32m cargo Fenrir: 94.7k EHP, 1.28m cargo DC II, Expander, BulkheadProvidence: 218.6k EHP, 709k cargo Charon: 217.7k EHP, 734k cargo Obelisk: 218.7k EHP, 723k cargo Fenrir: 214k EHP, 698k cargo "Low Penalty" tank (DCII, Thermal & Kinetic hardener for Providence/Obelisk, 2x PDS II for Charon & Fenrir)Providence: 229k EHP (omni), 253k EHP (against Caldari Navy Antimatter), 625k cargo Charon: 224k EHP (omni), 230.6k EHP (against CNAM), 646.9k cargo Obelisk: 225k EHP (omni), 241.9k EHP (against CNAM), 637.5k cargo Fenrir: 220k EHP (omni), 226k EHP (against CNAM), 615.6k cargo DC II, 2x Inertia StabilizersProvidence: 218k EHP, 625k cargo, 25.3s align Charon: 218k EHP, 646.9k cargo, 26.9s align Obelisk: 218.6k EHP, 637.5k cargo, 26.4s align Fenrir: 214k EHP, 615.6k cargo, 23s align. One warp speed low is 1.85 AU/s. Two is 2.41 AU/s. If the CPU allowed fitting three, that'd be 2.9 AU/s. Going to sleep now, if people like the idea maybe I can whip through jump freighters to illustrate them as well. [/spoiler] Excellent idea ... really really excellent CCP MAKE IT SO ... |
Belle Mallissima
Conquering Darkness
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 11:21:00 -
[1148] - Quote
Ok, looking at those figures, a freighter pilot who rigs ONLY to retain current capacity will be significantly less tanky and vastly slower.
Plus the cost of rigs is simply raising the entry bar to large scale hauling, Personally, I'd prefer that the rigs on freighters be held back and thought through again.
My thoughts on that process are as follows: 1: It should be possible to (with only T1 rigs) retain current EHP, cargo capacity and manoeuvrability. 2: It should be possible to accomplish point 1 for under 200million ISK (at current market prices) 3: That the current (and proposed ) rig selection allows the player to balance their tank/capacity and speed nicely. 4: Should cargo rigs be required to retain current capacity on a hull, that speed and agility of the hulls would require buffing in order that the changes do not make flying the ships even more painful than currently. 5: I'd rather like to see a manufacturing cost reduction to both freighters and (especially) JF to counter the increased cost of having to rig the things. |
Dave Stark
5803
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 11:24:00 -
[1149] - Quote
Walter Hart White wrote:What power creep?
the power creep that happens when you do nothing but buff ships. |
Lara Corinthian
Virtus Crusade Curatores Veritatis Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 11:26:00 -
[1150] - Quote
Fine, not gonna make a lot of difference to me.
BUT why stop at rigs, why not allow fitting of some modules? Doesn't make sense to me. Expanded cargo holds, stabs, ABs, active reps, ability to have a scram (bait freighter?) Tractor beam in high maybe? Would make them more exciting and give more game play opportunities? An orca can fit them, why not the poor freighter? |
|
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
293
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 11:26:00 -
[1151] - Quote
Walter Hart White wrote:baltec1 wrote:Walter Hart White wrote:I hide all posts from tippia, Kaarous, Dave Start and likes of those, and voila, thread is nice again! Recommend everyone doing that. So, you are hiding the post from the people who predicted this would happen if rigs were added in a thread on deciding the future of freighters? Wouldn't it be a better idea to listen to them, given how they know what changes would mean. If they were saying anything useful, maybe. All they say is the same thing all over the thread. I don't need to read "told you so" * number_of_posts(tippia, any_thread) + number_of_posts(kaarous, any_thread) + number_of_posts(dave_start, any_thread); All they do, in every single thread, if there is someone unhappy with CCP changes, they troll the **** out of them. That is all they do. They have zero usefulness in community and should be removed from it.
Except they called it and were right all along. I don't see how that makes them "have zero usefulness". |
Dave Stark
5803
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 11:28:00 -
[1152] - Quote
Lara Corinthian wrote:BUT why stop at rigs, why not allow fitting of some modules?
because that requires even bigger nerfs than the ones already proposed. |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
31
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 11:38:00 -
[1153] - Quote
Sobaan Tali wrote:Walter Hart White wrote:baltec1 wrote:Walter Hart White wrote:I hide all posts from tippia, Kaarous, Dave Start and likes of those, and voila, thread is nice again! Recommend everyone doing that. So, you are hiding the post from the people who predicted this would happen if rigs were added in a thread on deciding the future of freighters? Wouldn't it be a better idea to listen to them, given how they know what changes would mean. If they were saying anything useful, maybe. All they say is the same thing all over the thread. I don't need to read "told you so" * number_of_posts(tippia, any_thread) + number_of_posts(kaarous, any_thread) + number_of_posts(dave_start, any_thread); All they do, in every single thread, if there is someone unhappy with CCP changes, they troll the **** out of them. That is all they do. They have zero usefulness in community and should be removed from it. Except they called it and were right all along. I don't see how that makes them "have zero usefulness". It is useless right now, to post "told you so" except for masturbating your own ego. |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
31
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 11:40:00 -
[1154] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Perfect solution. This is how you do nerf. You nerf base ship with expectation of people fitting it. No one flies unfit ships, thus base stats mean nothing. Unlike with rigs, which you have to sadly fit in, forever, for huge amount of ISK. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11654
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 11:41:00 -
[1155] - Quote
Walter Hart White wrote: It is useless right now, to post "told you so" except for masturbating your own ego.
Its also useless to come here and ask why CCP are making these nerfs. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Dave Stark
5803
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 11:43:00 -
[1156] - Quote
Walter Hart White wrote:Unlike with rigs, which you have to sadly fit in, forever, for huge amount of ISK.
wrong, you can destroy and replace rigs. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1545
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 11:44:00 -
[1157] - Quote
Walter Hart White wrote: What power creep? 1.3m cargo hold? What, so more gankers can fit their wallet? Usually, the cargo >800m3 is rare and only useful for minerals if you want to keep collateral low. If you don't, well, more power to you. Please, haul 1.3m m3 of plexers for all I care. This would hardly imbalance anything at all. For 1.4b for rigs, you get 1.3m m3 space. And? You pay two times for freighter, so you should get some bonus out of it...
That is what CCP should get. Rigs are not buff. Rigs are balanced on their own. They buff and nerf at same time. No need to nerf further....
Rigs arent balanced on their own. their penalties are small, and can be further halved by skills. Some rigs dnt even have penalties.
like it or not, the ability to move things like ships is power. ability to move more things faster and safer is more power.
Daichi Yamato wrote:
so why not just allow freighters to carry 20mil m3 and make repackaged capitals 21mil m3?
Because theres a point where logistics becomes too easy and transforms competition from effort and risk taking to simply having a skillbook trained or not. With across the board increases to capacity with no trade offs, importing items becomes easier, safer and faster, and that means it becomes cheaper. Prices level across the galaxy which means the rewards are less for anyone who does any work.
its a nerf to ppl who set up shop in a certain location to build and sell certain items. its a nerf to ppl who pay attention and use escorts when they haul. its a nerf to inter-regional traders.
the real beneficiaries of making all this easier to do is ppl who dnt really pay attention to where they set up shop, cant be bothered to check regional prices and afk haul.
you want things to be harder, because u want to be rewarded for ur efforts and u want ur competition to lose out for being lazy or dying in a fire because hes bad at space ships.
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" |
Jessica Danikov
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
338
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 11:57:00 -
[1158] - Quote
If we were allow modules, is it of benefit to introduce rigs and incrementally balance against those first, or is it better to recalibrate the entire baseline at once, modules and rigs all at once?
I understand the misgivings about introducing modules, but ultimately fitting ships is central to the flying in space experience and gives variety and interesting choices to doing so and it seems wrong to me to deny this of freighters. Those problems need to be identified and dealt with rather than aborting because problems have been encountered.
The Orca is a comparable hisec brick and it does have module slots. Is the Orca unbalanced fitting ewar or tackle or having tank mods in the lows? Are there any lessons from the Orca we can take and use to avoid unbalancing freighters with mods? Equally, how would freighters with mods be differentiated from the Orca to keep the ships from filling the same niche? |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11655
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 12:10:00 -
[1159] - Quote
Jessica Danikov wrote:If we were allow modules, is it of benefit to introduce rigs and incrementally balance against those first, or is it better to recalibrate the entire baseline at once, modules and rigs all at once?
I understand the misgivings about introducing modules, but ultimately fitting ships is central to the flying in space experience and gives variety and interesting choices to doing so and it seems wrong to me to deny this of freighters. Those problems need to be identified and dealt with rather than aborting because problems have been encountered.
The Orca is a comparable hisec brick and it does have module slots. Is the Orca unbalanced fitting ewar or tackle or having tank mods in the lows? Are there any lessons from the Orca we can take and use to avoid unbalancing freighters with mods? Equally, how would freighters with mods be differentiated from the Orca to keep the ships from filling the same niche?
The orca came out with mods and rigs in mind. If you add low/med/high slots to freighters then we will see enormous nerfs to the freighter line. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1372
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 12:12:00 -
[1160] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Jessica Danikov wrote:If we were allow modules, is it of benefit to introduce rigs and incrementally balance against those first, or is it better to recalibrate the entire baseline at once, modules and rigs all at once?
I understand the misgivings about introducing modules, but ultimately fitting ships is central to the flying in space experience and gives variety and interesting choices to doing so and it seems wrong to me to deny this of freighters. Those problems need to be identified and dealt with rather than aborting because problems have been encountered.
The Orca is a comparable hisec brick and it does have module slots. Is the Orca unbalanced fitting ewar or tackle or having tank mods in the lows? Are there any lessons from the Orca we can take and use to avoid unbalancing freighters with mods? Equally, how would freighters with mods be differentiated from the Orca to keep the ships from filling the same niche? The orca came out with mods and rigs in mind. If you add low/med/high slots to freighters then we will see enormous nerfs to the freighter line.
mids not so much.. but lows.. hell yes "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |
|
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3539
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 12:19:00 -
[1161] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Jessica Danikov wrote:If we were allow modules, is it of benefit to introduce rigs and incrementally balance against those first, or is it better to recalibrate the entire baseline at once, modules and rigs all at once?
I understand the misgivings about introducing modules, but ultimately fitting ships is central to the flying in space experience and gives variety and interesting choices to doing so and it seems wrong to me to deny this of freighters. Those problems need to be identified and dealt with rather than aborting because problems have been encountered.
The Orca is a comparable hisec brick and it does have module slots. Is the Orca unbalanced fitting ewar or tackle or having tank mods in the lows? Are there any lessons from the Orca we can take and use to avoid unbalancing freighters with mods? Equally, how would freighters with mods be differentiated from the Orca to keep the ships from filling the same niche? The orca came out with mods and rigs in mind. If you add low/med/high slots to freighters then we will see enormous nerfs to the freighter line.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4611899#post4611899 Bigger upsides, but bigger downsides as well. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21997
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 12:29:00 -
[1162] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Still no free lunch here; you're not getting better at everything at once, unless I messed up somewhere. For the most part it hews to the same overall principles as with rigs (tighten the gap between the different classes a bit) but the upsides are bigger (though the downsides are too) and you can hit a lot of interesting combos. It also doesn't demand a fortune to swap. Use of low slots is obviously an advantage for the armor tanking freighters. To offset that, shield freighters put a great deal of their EHP into shields while armor freighters continue to focus mainly on structure. The only real problem I see is that, as is to be expected from modules, you can get huge effects for a very small cost. I got the impression from Fozzie that the idea was not to particularly buff them but as your numbers show, it's fairly easy to end up with something that's strictly better than what we have, which I fear puts the viability at risk. At the same time, to pull the end result back would mean making the base numbers truly horrible, and it would be easy to simply ruin the ship with bad fits (which I suppose has its own appeal).
Maybe it would be easier if it were only two slots? I'm thinking about the huge variety you can squeeze out of the Orca's lows as a point of comparison, and it just gives fewer moving parts you have to worry about.
Quote:Going to sleep now, if people like the idea maybe I can whip through jump freighters to illustrate them as well. That would be nice. 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. |
Wulfy Johnson
NorCorp Security
42
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 12:33:00 -
[1163] - Quote
mynnna wrote:"Why not modules instead" is a bit of a common question, so on a whim I threw together a concept for just that. New Module: "Warp Speed Lowslot" Requires Warp Drive Operation V 50 CPU +35% Warp Speed The most obvious issue with low slots on freighters is lack of a warp speed rig. Solve that with a warp speed low slot. At +35% you get a bit larger benefit than with three T1 warp speed rigs, though smaller than three T2 rigs, but at 50 CPU you'll be making some major choices to fit them. The high fitting cost also serves as a check against their casual use for subcaps, as they'd be a huge, huge deal for shield tanking subcaps. 50 CPU isn't necessarily a final number but I'm not sure about going lower either. e: Has been pointed out to me that this module would instantly obsolete the new Angel bonuses. This is somewhat problematic, but for now I'm not going to worry about it. Providence Amarr Freighter Bonus per level: +5% Cargo Capacity +5% Maximum Velocity Slot Layout: 0H, 0M, 3L Fitting: 1 PWG, 100 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull): 2500 (-2500) / 12000 (-12000) 60000 (-52500) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time / warp speed): 70 / 0.0625 / 900,000,000 / 107.22s / 1.37 Cargo Capacity: 500000 (-235000) Charon Caldari Freighter Bonus per level: +5% Cargo Capacity +5% Maximum Velocity Slot Layout: 0H, 0M, 3L Fitting: 1 PWG, 100 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull): 32500 (+26500) / 6000 (-14000) 45000 (-61250) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time / warp speed): 60 / 0.0625 / 960,000,000 / 114.37s / 1.37 Cargo Capacity: 517500 (-267500) Obelisk Gallente Freighter Bonus per level: +5% Cargo Capacity +5% Maximum Velocity Slot Layout: 0H, 0M, 3L Fitting: 1 PWG, 100 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull): 3000 (-2313) / 8000 (-14500) 62500 (-57500) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time / warp speed): 65 / 0.0625 / 940,000,000 / 111.99s / 1.37 Cargo Capacity: 500000 (-250000) Fenrir Minmatar Freighter Bonus per level: +5% Cargo Capacity +5% Maximum Velocity Slot Layout: 0H, 0M, 3L Fitting: 1 PWG, 100 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull): 30000 (+24375) / 8000 (-13250) 44000 (-56000) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time / warp speed): 80 / 0.0625 / 820,000,000 / 97.69s / 1.37 Cargo Capacity: 492500 (-227500) Still no free lunch here; you're not getting better at everything at once, unless I messed up somewhere. For the most part it hews to the same overall principles as with rigs (tighten the gap between the different classes a bit) but the upsides are bigger (though the downsides are too) and you can hit a lot of interesting combos. It also doesn't demand a fortune to swap. Use of low slots is obviously an advantage for the armor tanking freighters. To offset that, shield freighters put a great deal of their EHP into shields while armor freighters continue to focus mainly on structure. This has the following effects:
- Fully tanked (DCII+2x Bulkheads), armor freighters have the most EHP, by ~10% or so.
- When "low penalty tanked" (DC plus either two PDS II for shields or two hardeners for armor), armor has the most EHP by about the same ~10% when considering blaster damage specifically.
- With two tank mods, they're about even.
- With one tank mod, shield freighters have slightly more EHP, and more still with no tank mods.
A few fit examples for illustration; this all assumes all skills at V and Tech II mods. DC II, 2x BulkheadProvidence: 324k EHP, 495k cargo Charon: 297k EHP, 512.3k cargo Obelisk: 328k EHP, 504k cargo Fenrir: 291k EHP, 487.6k cargo DC II, 2x ExpandersProvidence: 151k EHP, 1.016m cargo Charon: 167k EHP, 1.051m cargo Obelisk: 148k EHP, 1.036m cargo Fenrir: 164.5k EHP, 1m cargo 3x ExpanderProvidence: 65k EHP, 1.295m cargo Charon: 96k EHP, 1.34m cargo Obelisk: 60k EHP, 1.32m cargo Fenrir: 94.7k EHP, 1.28m cargo DC II, Expander, BulkheadProvidence: 218.6k EHP, 709k cargo Charon: 217.7k EHP, 734k cargo Obelisk: 218.7k EHP, 723k cargo Fenrir: 214k EHP, 698k cargo "Low Penalty" tank (DCII, Thermal & Kinetic hardener for Providence/Obelisk, 2x PDS II for Charon & Fenrir)Providence: 229k EHP (omni), 253k EHP (against Caldari Navy Antimatter), 625k cargo Charon: 224k EHP (omni), 230.6k EHP (against CNAM), 646.9k cargo Obelisk: 225k EHP (omni), 241.9k EHP (against CNAM), 637.5k cargo Fenrir: 220k EHP (omni), 226k EHP (against CNAM), 615.6k cargo DC II, 2x Inertia StabilizersProvidence: 218k EHP, 625k cargo, 25.3s align Charon: 218k EHP, 646.9k cargo, 26.9s align Obelisk: 218.6k EHP, 637.5k cargo, 26.4s align Fenrir: 214k EHP, 615.6k cargo, 23s align. One warp speed low is 1.85 AU/s. Two is 2.41 AU/s. If the CPU allowed fitting three, that'd be 2.9 AU/s. Going to sleep now, if people like the idea maybe I can whip through jump freighters to illustrate them as well.
Something like this is way more realistic than rigs and allows for fitting towards what task you have at hand without dishing out hundreds of mill in waste to provide a "noob isksink", dough i still belive one low would serve that puropse better with less gimping of the ship.
Thanks for providing some numbers.
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1372
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 12:36:00 -
[1164] - Quote
Hashi Lebwohl wrote:In the past, when an announcement is made that will have a requirement to get the appropriate skills there is time given between that announcement and when the change goes live.
Time to Kronos -> 15 days
Time to learn a rig skill to 5 -> 13 -16 days depending upon attributes and if jury rigging has been trained.
I think there is not enough time for a dev blog to be published on this change and for players to adapt, and for this reason this change, if it remains the same, should be delayed until the July expansion.
omg because 1 single day without max cargo capability will be the end of the world. "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21997
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 12:38:00 -
[1165] - Quote
Wulfy Johnson wrote:Something like this is way more realistic than rigs and allows for fitting towards what task you have at hand without dishing out hundreds of mill in waste to provide a "noob isksink", dough i still belive one low would serve that puropse better with less gimping of the ship.
Thanks for providing some numbers.
One low creates its own (pretty significant) headache: we still have that annoying DCII that needs to be taken into account GÇö 2.5+ù the hul EHP of anything you fit it to. As long as it does what it does, hull generally has to come down in order to not be completely silly. At the same time, people will want to fit cargo expanders, but since the base hull is down from having to anticipate the DCII, you start out at almost half the current EHP, and then it gets another chunk cut out by a single expanderGǪ and suddenly you have a cargo-fitted freighter that is weaker than most mining barges.
With only one slot, the DCII kind of becomes the only viable module so you might as well just fold it into the ship and not have the lowslot at all, at which point we're right back where we started. 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. |
Dave Stark
5804
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 12:44:00 -
[1166] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Wulfy Johnson wrote:Something like this is way more realistic than rigs and allows for fitting towards what task you have at hand without dishing out hundreds of mill in waste to provide a "noob isksink", dough i still belive one low would serve that puropse better with less gimping of the ship.
Thanks for providing some numbers.
One low creates its own (pretty significant) headache: we still have that annoying DCII that needs to be taken into account GÇö 2.5+ù the hul EHP of anything you fit it to. As long as it does what it does, hull generally has to come down in order to not be completely silly. At the same time, people will want to fit cargo expanders, but since the base hull is down from having to anticipate the DCII, you start out at almost half the current EHP, and then it gets another chunk cut out by a single expanderGǪ and suddenly you have a cargo-fitted freighter that is weaker than most mining barges. With only one slot, the DCII kind of becomes the only viable module so you might as well just fold it into the ship and not have the lowslot at all, at which point we're right back where we started.
the solution is to move away from hull taking. however if we're only giving freighters low slots that means everything must armour tank. unless we also add mid slots. and everything gets very messy, very quickly, for a set of changes we don't need.
the easiest solution to this whole 'mess' is to just leave freighers as they are since they're already perfectly fine. each individual freighter has a unique aspect to it and it doesn't encroach upon any other ship's role. |
Azami Nevinyrall
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
1898
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 12:46:00 -
[1167] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote: Make smaller new freighters.
I'll say this slowly for you...
DEEP SPACE TRANSPORT SHIPS!
-OR-
ORCA I hope everyone voted in the CSM elections! Thank you to those who actually supported my campaign! Even if I don't get elected in, I hope that the CSM that do, and Devs actually use my ideas somewhere! |
Wulfy Johnson
NorCorp Security
42
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 12:47:00 -
[1168] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Wulfy Johnson wrote:Something like this is way more realistic than rigs and allows for fitting towards what task you have at hand without dishing out hundreds of mill in waste to provide a "noob isksink", dough i still belive one low would serve that puropse better with less gimping of the ship.
Thanks for providing some numbers.
One low creates its own (pretty significant) headache: we still have that annoying DCII that needs to be taken into account GÇö 2.5+ù the hul EHP of anything you fit it to. As long as it does what it does, hull generally has to come down in order to not be completely silly. At the same time, people will want to fit cargo expanders, but since the base hull is down from having to anticipate the DCII, you start out at almost half the current EHP, and then it gets another chunk cut out by a single expanderGǪ and suddenly you have a cargo-fitted freighter that is weaker than most mining barges. With only one slot, the DCII kind of becomes the only viable module so you might as well just fold it into the ship and not have the lowslot at all, at which point we're right back where we started.
Eighter way it allows for adjustments to be made and adjusted when needed. Doing this the rig way is madness. |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1084
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 12:51:00 -
[1169] - Quote
Why not change freighters to use Large rigs? Keeps the design goal of choice, doesn't hurt the little guy as much. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3540
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 12:51:00 -
[1170] - Quote
Wulfy Johnson wrote:
Something like this is way more realistic than rigs and allows for fitting towards what task you have at hand without dishing out hundreds of mill in waste to provide a "noob isksink", dough i still belive one low would serve that puropse better with less gimping of the ship.
Thanks for providing some numbers.
Three lows creates for a lot more options and makes more of a spectrum instead of huge swings. It also makes the downsides and upsides more meaningful. For example with a single low, cargo would have to drop by only about 10%, maybe even as little as 5%, to make there be a reasonably sized upside to fitting the expander instead. But if you're only giving up 5-10% of your cargo, then fitting a DC II or really anything else becomes far too much of a no-brainer - there's just no longer much of a trade-off involved. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
|
Ben Hatton
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 13:01:00 -
[1171] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Wulfy Johnson wrote:
Something like this is way more realistic than rigs and allows for fitting towards what task you have at hand without dishing out hundreds of mill in waste to provide a "noob isksink", dough i still belive one low would serve that puropse better with less gimping of the ship.
Thanks for providing some numbers.
Three lows creates for a lot more options and makes more of a spectrum instead of huge swings. It also makes the downsides and upsides more meaningful. For example with a single low, cargo would have to drop by only about 10%, maybe even as little as 5%, to make there be a reasonably sized upside to fitting the expander instead. But if you're only giving up 5-10% of your cargo, then fitting a DC II or really anything else becomes far too much of a no-brainer - there's just no longer much of a trade-off involved.
I would vote for 2 lows personally as it achieves similar objectives to the rig plan without being over the top (though I must admit I haven't done the numbers, basing this on gut feel). 2 cargo exp, 2 bulkheads, 2 nanofibers or any combination of the such. But yeah, the DCU not something that should be able to be fitted as it puts it in the too much category. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22004
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 13:07:00 -
[1172] - Quote
GǪcome to think of it, why do bulkheads require so much CPU? 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. |
Wulfy Johnson
NorCorp Security
43
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 13:09:00 -
[1173] - Quote
Well eighter way, removing more ehp off these already fragile ships, making them more common with lower ehp will result in a rabbits race for kb padding. To me that would more of an isk sink short term, and leaves a no choice in fitting long term. |
Ben Hatton
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 13:10:00 -
[1174] - Quote
Wulfy Johnson wrote:Well eighter way, removing more ehp off these already fragile ships, making them more common with lower ehp will result in a rabbits race for kb padding. To me that would more of an isk sink short term, and leaves a no choice in fitting long term.
Buying items off the market is not an isk since dude, please don't confuse this. You are giving your isk to another player in a trade. |
ArmyOfMe
Origin. Black Legion.
302
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 13:13:00 -
[1175] - Quote
Adrien Crosse wrote:Mr JewBearJr wrote:ArmyOfMe wrote:Im all for a nerf of jf's, as they make 0,0 life way to easy. I dont really see the point in nerfing normal freighters in such a way though, as you'r allready seeing them beeing popped all over empire space anyhow. This.. a million times this.. Except this change does nothing to that end. People who use JFs now are still going to use them after the change. well i said i was all for a JF nerf, not that i felt this was the correct way to go about it. If it was up to me we still wouldnt have jf's. And the ppl living at the outer ages would have a bloody hard time with their logistics (no i hate titan bridges as well), but they should be greater rewards for living in those regions (and yes, i hate jumpbridges to) QUOTE CCP Dolan and the EVE Online development team:-áThe battle was relatively even for some time with CFC and Russian forces holding moderate lead at first and only have a slight lead in Titan kills. Then came a turning point in the battle. Manfred Sideous, the initial Fleet Commander for PL/N3, handed over command to the CEO of Northern Coalition., Vince Draken |
ArmyOfMe
Origin. Black Legion.
302
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 13:15:00 -
[1176] - Quote
[quote=Allison A'vani]This is possibly one of the worst changes I have ever seen. Anyone who actually flies jump freighters a lot will tell you that this is an awful change. For my rhea to even get to where it is right now I have to dump 1.2b on rigs + buy a high grade nomad set. Thank CCP for a dumb change that makes me waste 3 - 4b. /quote]Since when was there hg nomad sets???
QUOTE CCP Dolan and the EVE Online development team:-áThe battle was relatively even for some time with CFC and Russian forces holding moderate lead at first and only have a slight lead in Titan kills. Then came a turning point in the battle. Manfred Sideous, the initial Fleet Commander for PL/N3, handed over command to the CEO of Northern Coalition., Vince Draken |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3540
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 13:15:00 -
[1177] - Quote
ArmyOfMe wrote:Adrien Crosse wrote:Mr JewBearJr wrote:ArmyOfMe wrote:Im all for a nerf of jf's, as they make 0,0 life way to easy. I dont really see the point in nerfing normal freighters in such a way though, as you'r allready seeing them beeing popped all over empire space anyhow. This.. a million times this.. Except this change does nothing to that end. People who use JFs now are still going to use them after the change. well i said i was all for a JF nerf, not that i felt this was the correct way to go about it. If it was up to me we still wouldnt have jf's. And the ppl living at the outer ages would have a bloody hard time with their logistics (no i hate titan bridges as well), but they should be greater rewards for living in those regions (and yes, i hate jumpbridges to)
If you saw the kind of "greater rewards" it'd take to make living in deep nullsec without any of that capability worthwhile, you'd probably be whining about those, too. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
Sipphakta en Gravonere
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
606
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 13:20:00 -
[1178] - Quote
Wulfy Johnson wrote:Well eighter way, removing more ehp off these already fragile ships, making them more common with lower ehp will result in a rabbits race for kb padding. To me that would more of an isk sink short term, and leaves a no choice in fitting long term.
1. Freighters aren't fragile, they take considerable effort, manpower and strategy to gank. 2. No-one cares about KB stats, except for some ~elite-pvp~ groups, which are largely unimportant and easy to deal with. 3. Every freighter killed is a giant ISK faucet, spewing several hundred million ISK into the economy. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Dave Stark
5812
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 13:22:00 -
[1179] - Quote
TIL: ships with nearly 200k ehp are fragile. |
De'Veldrin
Saint's Industries Brothers of Tangra
2078
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 13:24:00 -
[1180] - Quote
This is one of those ideas that falls firmly into the category of "Be careful what you wish for."
Everyone, and I mean everyone, (including moi, Tippia, and IIRC Mags) who actually understood what giving rigs to freighters would do to them spent (literally) years trying to shoot down the proposals to change them. It seems the ignorant masses finally got what they (thought) they wanted.
Well, at the very least Miniluv will have a good time. GÇ£SandboxGÇ¥ does not mean that you will succeed at anything you attempt; it means you can attempt anything you want to succeed at. One of the largest obstacles in the way of your success is other players. |
|
ArmyOfMe
Origin. Black Legion.
303
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 13:25:00 -
[1181] - Quote
mynnna wrote:
If you saw the kind of "greater rewards" it'd take to make living in deep nullsec without any of that capability worthwhile, you'd probably be whining about those, too.
The great thing for me is that ive played long enough to remember when ppl were living in those regions. Before jf's, before freighters even. I remember those long lasting trips through 0,0 with a bs fleet as escort. But we did it anyhow. I think you underestimate ppl's desires to live in 0,0 and make themselfs a home. QUOTE CCP Dolan and the EVE Online development team:-áThe battle was relatively even for some time with CFC and Russian forces holding moderate lead at first and only have a slight lead in Titan kills. Then came a turning point in the battle. Manfred Sideous, the initial Fleet Commander for PL/N3, handed over command to the CEO of Northern Coalition., Vince Draken |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6373
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 13:26:00 -
[1182] - Quote
So, mynnna, since you are most heavily involved in the thread, could you tell us what the CSMs thoughts are, in general, about this proposed change so far?
I know we already had core weigh in, so it would be nice to hear the general tone of things. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Valterra Craven
240
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 13:26:00 -
[1183] - Quote
I Love Boobies wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Fozzie, I know you guys see these posts, and I know you can't comment on everything, and lastly I know that introducing art assets to the game takes time. However this is my proposal and will likely be far more appeasing to all parties involved than the current changes.
Leave the current freighters as they are.
Make smaller new freighters.
Make them have half the cargo, hit points, align time and build cost and double the warp speed.
Give them 3 rig slots
Win
OR
Leave the current freighters alone
Make ONE new freighter in the ORE line with the above stats and say that ORE needed something with better agility for deep space mining or some mobo jumbo like that. Already in game... it's called an Orca.
Because an orca has 500k m3???
|
De'Veldrin
Saint's Industries Brothers of Tangra
2079
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 13:28:00 -
[1184] - Quote
Steijn wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:
Rigs don't drop.
In case people are wondering where we are, we're talking with Fozzie, and keeping an eye on the thread, to pick out good posts.
Leave freighters as they currently are. There, thats a good post imo.
I was about to post the same thing. Freighters were fine. Slow loot pinatas when flown by the incoimpetent, but fine otherwise. GÇ£SandboxGÇ¥ does not mean that you will succeed at anything you attempt; it means you can attempt anything you want to succeed at. One of the largest obstacles in the way of your success is other players. |
Dave Stark
5813
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 13:32:00 -
[1185] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:I Love Boobies wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Fozzie, I know you guys see these posts, and I know you can't comment on everything, and lastly I know that introducing art assets to the game takes time. However this is my proposal and will likely be far more appeasing to all parties involved than the current changes.
Leave the current freighters as they are.
Make smaller new freighters.
Make them have half the cargo, hit points, align time and build cost and double the warp speed.
Give them 3 rig slots
Win
OR
Leave the current freighters alone
Make ONE new freighter in the ORE line with the above stats and say that ORE needed something with better agility for deep space mining or some mobo jumbo like that. Already in game... it's called an Orca. Because an orca has 500k m3???
400k smb 50k ore bay 40k fleet hangar whatever your cargo ends up at with skills and fittings...
yeah, it does have 500k m3... technically. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
520
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 13:34:00 -
[1186] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:I Love Boobies wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Fozzie, I know you guys see these posts, and I know you can't comment on everything, and lastly I know that introducing art assets to the game takes time. However this is my proposal and will likely be far more appeasing to all parties involved than the current changes.
Leave the current freighters as they are.
Make smaller new freighters.
Make them have half the cargo, hit points, align time and build cost and double the warp speed.
Give them 3 rig slots
Win
OR
Leave the current freighters alone
Make ONE new freighter in the ORE line with the above stats and say that ORE needed something with better agility for deep space mining or some mobo jumbo like that. Already in game... it's called an Orca. Because an orca has 500k m3??? 400k smb 50k ore bay 40k fleet hangar whatever your cargo ends up at with skills and fittings... yeah, it does have 500k m3... technically.
Of which you can only use 40k to transport things that are not assembled ships or ore. Yeah, that is certainly a good ship to transport Courier Contracts or quantities of modules, minerals, etc. |
Kaerakh
Surprisingly Deep Hole
207
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 13:34:00 -
[1187] - Quote
I'd just like to take this moment to say to all those carebears that wanted Freighter customization congratulations, and now I'd like to tell them I TOLD YOU SO about the massive cargo nerf for customization. |
De'Veldrin
Saint's Industries Brothers of Tangra
2079
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 13:38:00 -
[1188] - Quote
Kaerakh wrote:I'd just like to take this moment to say to all those carebears that wanted Freighter customization congratulations, and now I'd like to tell them I TOLD YOU SO about the massive cargo nerf for customization. I told you so always feels good. GÇ£SandboxGÇ¥ does not mean that you will succeed at anything you attempt; it means you can attempt anything you want to succeed at. One of the largest obstacles in the way of your success is other players. |
Dave Stark
5813
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 13:38:00 -
[1189] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Of which you can only use 40k to transport things that are not assembled ships or ore. Yeah, that is certainly a good ship to transport Courier Contracts or quantities of modules, minerals, etc.
actually, it's more than 40k |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22009
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 13:38:00 -
[1190] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Of which you can only use 40k to transport things that are not assembled ships or ore. It's upwards of 100k, actuallyGǪ but it makes the ship a lot worse if you do.
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. |
|
Valterra Craven
240
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 13:41:00 -
[1191] - Quote
Azami Nevinyrall wrote:Valterra Craven wrote: Make smaller new freighters.
I'll say this slowly for you... DEEP SPACE TRANSPORT SHIPS! -OR- ORCA
I'll say this slowly for you... none of those ships do 500k m3. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22009
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 13:43:00 -
[1192] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:I'll say this slowly for you... none of those ships do 500k m3. If you just want a sturdier, faster ship with half the cargo, JFs pretty much do that already. Orcas do about half of what a JF does (if we ignore the ship hangar). DSTs do about half of whan an Orca does. 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. |
Valterra Craven
240
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 13:44:00 -
[1193] - Quote
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote: 3. Every freighter killed is a giant ISK faucet, spewing several hundred million ISK into the economy.
I really really dislike people that don't understand what terms mean before they use them.
At best freighter ganks are a sink as they remove things from the game.
A faucet is something that creates something from thin air. aka NPC bounties. A sink is something that removes something from the economy, aka taxes and sov fees.
|
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
520
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 13:45:00 -
[1194] - Quote
Azami Nevinyrall wrote:Valterra Craven wrote: Make smaller new freighters.
I'll say this slowly for you... DEEP SPACE TRANSPORT SHIPS! -OR- ORCA
None is suitable to transport things between 100k and 300k m-¦. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6376
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 13:46:00 -
[1195] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote: 3. Every freighter killed is a giant ISK faucet, spewing several hundred million ISK into the economy.
I really really dislike people that don't understand what terms mean before they use them. At best freighter ganks are a sink as they remove things from the game. A faucet is something that creates something from thin air. aka NPC bounties. A sink is something that removes something from the economy, aka taxes and sov fees.
Anybody want to buy this guy a clue? "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Valterra Craven
240
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 13:47:00 -
[1196] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:I'll say this slowly for you... none of those ships do 500k m3. If you just want a sturdier, faster ship with half the cargo, JFs pretty much do that already. Orcas do about half of what a JF does (if we ignore the ship hangar). DSTs do about half of whan an Orca does.
The goal here is to comprise.
People wanted riggable freighters and those of us that are sane don't want these massive across the board nerfs.
JFs cost 7-8x times as much as regular freighters.
These would cost around the same as orcas, wouldnt have the boosting of orcas and would be totally devoted to hauling.
Personally I want nothing to change here at all, but I'm trying to come up with reasonable solutions. |
Dave Stark
5814
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 13:47:00 -
[1197] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote: 3. Every freighter killed is a giant ISK faucet, spewing several hundred million ISK into the economy.
I really really dislike people that don't understand what terms mean before they use them. At best freighter ganks are a sink as they remove things from the game. A faucet is something that creates something from thin air. aka NPC bounties. A sink is something that removes something from the economy, aka taxes and sov fees.
they might be an item sink, but they aren't an isk sink. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22010
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 13:49:00 -
[1198] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote: 3. Every freighter killed is a giant ISK faucet, spewing several hundred million ISK into the economy.
I really really dislike people that don't understand what terms mean before they use them. At best freighter ganks are a sink No. You don't understand what the term means. We're talking about ISK here. No ISK is removed from the game. Every freighter loss is a giant ISK faucet since their destruction creates ISK through insurance.
Wulfy's original claim was that reducing the freighters' EHP made them into an ISK sink. Sipphakta entirely accurately corrected him by pointing out that a freigther kill is an ISK faucet.
Rivr Luzade wrote:None is suitable to transport things between 100k and 300k m-¦. Again, JFs fit that role perfectly. 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. |
Valterra Craven
240
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 13:49:00 -
[1199] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:I Love Boobies wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Fozzie, I know you guys see these posts, and I know you can't comment on everything, and lastly I know that introducing art assets to the game takes time. However this is my proposal and will likely be far more appeasing to all parties involved than the current changes.
Leave the current freighters as they are.
Make smaller new freighters.
Make them have half the cargo, hit points, align time and build cost and double the warp speed.
Give them 3 rig slots
Win
OR
Leave the current freighters alone
Make ONE new freighter in the ORE line with the above stats and say that ORE needed something with better agility for deep space mining or some mobo jumbo like that. Already in game... it's called an Orca. Because an orca has 500k m3??? 400k smb 50k ore bay 40k fleet hangar whatever your cargo ends up at with skills and fittings... yeah, it does have 500k m3... technically.
No it does not. If you could put 400k of regular general cargo in the SMB then you might have a point. but you can't. So you arent adding anything relevant to this conversation.
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1548
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 13:50:00 -
[1200] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote: 3. Every freighter killed is a giant ISK faucet, spewing several hundred million ISK into the economy.
I really really dislike people that don't understand what terms mean before they use them. At best freighter ganks are a sink as they remove things from the game. A faucet is something that creates something from thin air. aka NPC bounties. A sink is something that removes something from the economy, aka taxes and sov fees. they might be an item sink, but they aren't an isk sink.
and they ARE an isk faucet because of insurance. 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" |
|
Dave Stark
5814
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 13:51:00 -
[1201] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote: 3. Every freighter killed is a giant ISK faucet, spewing several hundred million ISK into the economy.
I really really dislike people that don't understand what terms mean before they use them. At best freighter ganks are a sink as they remove things from the game. A faucet is something that creates something from thin air. aka NPC bounties. A sink is something that removes something from the economy, aka taxes and sov fees. they might be an item sink, but they aren't an isk sink. and they ARE an isk faucet because of insurance. correct.
Valterra Craven wrote: So you arent adding anything relevant to this conversation.
neither are you, you're just whining. |
Valterra Craven
240
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 13:52:00 -
[1202] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote: 3. Every freighter killed is a giant ISK faucet, spewing several hundred million ISK into the economy.
I really really dislike people that don't understand what terms mean before they use them. At best freighter ganks are a sink No. You don't understand what the term means. We're talking about ISK here. No ISK is removed from the game. Every freighter loss is a giant ISK faucet since their destruction creates ISK through insurance. Rivr Luzade wrote:None is suitable to transport things between 100k and 300k m-¦. Again, JFs fit that role perfectly.
I like how you are correcting me by putting words in my mouth.
Sinks and faucets can apply to game items as well as isk.
Insurance applys to every ship in game so the applicability to this ship is rather limited when talking about game balance as a whole. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6376
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 13:53:00 -
[1203] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote: I like how you are correcting me by putting words in my mouth.
Sinks and faucets can apply to game items as well as isk.
Insurance applys to every ship in game so the applicability to this ship is rather limited when talking about game balance as a whole.
You are really bad at forums.
You even said "isk sink" when you were talking about freighters.
And you're wrong, because you have no freaking clue what you're talking about, because insurance is totally a thing as it turns out. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Valterra Craven
240
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 13:54:00 -
[1204] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Valterra Craven wrote: So you arent adding anything relevant to this conversation.
neither are you, you're just whining.
Well we have me proposing alternative solutions to get things to a better state than we have now, and we have you who is only filling this thread with I told you so posts... Looks to me like the whining is falling more on your side than mine. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
520
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 13:56:00 -
[1205] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:None is suitable to transport things between 100k and 300k m-¦. Again, JFs fit that role perfectly.
They absolutely don't. JF fill a completely different role. They are rather miss-used as smaller gate-to-gate freighters.
|
Valterra Craven
240
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 13:57:00 -
[1206] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Valterra Craven wrote: I like how you are correcting me by putting words in my mouth.
Sinks and faucets can apply to game items as well as isk.
Insurance applys to every ship in game so the applicability to this ship is rather limited when talking about game balance as a whole.
You are really bad at forums. You even said "isk sink" when you were talking about freighters. And you're wrong, because you have no freaking clue what you're talking about, because insurance is totally a thing as it turns out.
If I'm bad at forums you are as equally as bad at reading: This is my orginal post that is still unedited:
Valterra Craven wrote: #1193Posted: 2014.05.19 13:44 | Report Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:
3. Every freighter killed is a giant ISK faucet, spewing several hundred million ISK into the economy.
I really really dislike people that don't understand what terms mean before they use them.
At best freighter ganks are a sink as they remove things from the game.
A faucet is something that creates something from thin air. aka NPC bounties. A sink is something that removes something from the economy, aka taxes and sov fees.
NO WHERE IN MY RESPONSE DID I MENTION THE TERM ISK.
But yes insurance is a thing and it applies to all ships, not just this one. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22011
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 13:58:00 -
[1207] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:I like how you are correcting me by putting words in my mouth. You mean by cutting off your failed attempt at correcting him when he was right all along?
Quote:Sinks and faucets can apply to game items as well as isk. Yes, but we're only talking about iSK here. You started by saying that you dislike when people misuse the term faucet and sinks, as if to imply that his correct answer was a misuse of the term. You then went off on a completely irrelevant tangent.
Quote:Insurance applys to every ship in game so the applicability to this ship is rather limited when talking about game balance as a whole. We're not talking about game balance as a whole. We're talking about how reducing the EHP on freighters does not turn them into ISK sinks. So how about you stop trying to make yourself correct by putting words in other people's mouths, hmmGǪ?
Quote:NO WHERE IN MY RESPONSE DID I MENTION THE TERM ISK. In other words, your response was 100% irrelevant. 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. |
Dave Stark
5814
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 13:58:00 -
[1208] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Valterra Craven wrote: So you arent adding anything relevant to this conversation.
neither are you, you're just whining. Well we have me proposing alternative solutions to get things to a better state than we have now, and we have you who is only filling this thread with I told you so posts... Looks to me like the whining is falling more on your side than mine. considering i haven't whined once; and literally every post of yours in the last 2 pages has been whining about orcas not carrying 400k of cargo...
you might want to check the tally again, darlin'. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22011
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 14:00:00 -
[1209] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Tippia wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:None is suitable to transport things between 100k and 300k m-¦. Again, JFs fit that role perfectly. They absolutely don't. You mean aside from being highly suitable for transporting things between 100k and 300k m-¦? So what about them is it that makes them unsuitable for that task? Is it their 300k+ m-¦ cargo hold? Is it their increased EHP? Is it their faster aligning? Is it their faster warp speed? 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. |
Dave Stark
5814
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 14:00:00 -
[1210] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Tippia wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:None is suitable to transport things between 100k and 300k m-¦. Again, JFs fit that role perfectly. They absolutely don't. JF fill a completely different role. They are rather miss-used as smaller gate-to-gate freighters and from a price point are in an absolutely different league.
it absolutely does. look at it's cargo capacity. |
|
Valterra Craven
240
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 14:00:00 -
[1211] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Valterra Craven wrote: So you arent adding anything relevant to this conversation.
neither are you, you're just whining. Well we have me proposing alternative solutions to get things to a better state than we have now, and we have you who is only filling this thread with I told you so posts... Looks to me like the whining is falling more on your side than mine. considering i haven't whined once; and literally every post of yours in the last 2 pages has been whining about orcas not carrying 400k of cargo... you might want to check the tally again, darlin'.
Because stating a mater of fact when trying to offer alternative arguments to your foolishness is whining? Right. I never said anything about orcas in any of my posts. Orca balance as it stands if fine. |
Dave Stark
5814
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 14:03:00 -
[1212] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Right. I never said anything about orcas in any of my posts. might want to check your posting history.
such as here
Valterra Craven wrote:Because an orca has 500k m3???
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22011
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 14:05:00 -
[1213] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:I never said anything about orcas in any of my posts. Valterra Craven wrote:Because an orca has 500k m3??? Valterra Craven wrote:These would cost around the same as orcas, wouldnt have the boosting of orcas and would be totally devoted to hauling. SoGǪ yeah.
AlsoGǪQuote:People wanted riggable freighters and those of us that are sane don't want these massive across the board nerfs. Those of us who are sane don't want riggable freighters since that forcibly means massive nerfs across the board. 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. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6376
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 14:05:00 -
[1214] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote: NO WHERE IN MY RESPONSE DID I MENTION THE TERM ISK.
But yes insurance is a thing and it applies to all ships, not just this one.
Remember the part where I said you were bad at forums? If you let me trick you into admitting that you weren't even addressing the question you were answering, just spouting off, as easily as that... then yeah. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Lolita Troublemaker
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
63
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 14:09:00 -
[1215] - Quote
Veinnail wrote:Posting to voice dissatisfaction in these implementations. This is a chain reaction of decisions around the move to rig these hulls. The process isn't flawed, the hulls just shouldn't get rigs.
They just need 1 high slot, 1 med slot and 1 low slot, not rigs.
|
Ben Hatton
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 14:09:00 -
[1216] - Quote
Hey petty people, back on topic please....... |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22011
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 14:11:00 -
[1217] - Quote
Ben Hatton wrote:Hey petty people, back on topic please....... Ok. No, reducing EHP does not make freighters into ISK sinks, quite the opposite. It doesn't really do anything since you can just compensate for it if that's what you're after. 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. |
Ben Hatton
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 14:14:00 -
[1218] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Ben Hatton wrote:Hey petty people, back on topic please....... Ok. No, reducing EHP does not make freighters into ISK sinks, quite the opposite. It doesn't really do anything since you can just compensate for it if that's what you're after.
No im just done with the my dicks bigger than yours bickering.... |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6376
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 14:16:00 -
[1219] - Quote
Ben Hatton wrote:Tippia wrote:Ben Hatton wrote:Hey petty people, back on topic please....... Ok. No, reducing EHP does not make freighters into ISK sinks, quite the opposite. It doesn't really do anything since you can just compensate for it if that's what you're after. No im just done with the my dicks bigger than yours bickering....
Wise decision. No one's forum **** is bigger than Tippia's. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22011
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 14:17:00 -
[1220] - Quote
Ben Hatton wrote:No im just done with the my dicks bigger than yours bickering.... Make up your mind. You asked for us to get back on topic. I got back on topic. Now you're fed up with that too? 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. |
|
Dave Stark
5816
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 14:20:00 -
[1221] - Quote
Tippia wrote: Now you're fed up with that too? it has been going on for like 60 pages now, to be fair. |
Valterra Craven
240
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 14:27:00 -
[1222] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Right. I never said anything about orcas in any of my posts. might want to check your posting history. such as hereValterra Craven wrote:Because an orca has 500k m3???
Context. You offered an incorrect rebuttal to an idea post that I offered as an alternative to these changes. You were the one that brought up Orcas not me. Without your foolish post offering up the orca as a suitable alternative to my thoughts, these two pages of me stating what orca's actually do and don't do wouldn't exist.
Read the original post I made. There was no mention of Orca's or DST's or any other hauling ship.
I will say that you might have had a point way back when carrier hauling was a thing and JF's didn't exist. But that day has long come and gone. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22014
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 14:27:00 -
[1223] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Tippia wrote: Now you're fed up with that too? it has been going on for like 60 pages now, to be fair. I suppose. The faucet/sink confusion was a bit of a new angle, though. 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. |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
58
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 14:28:00 -
[1224] - Quote
We need to get back on the freighters need scan immunity...that one was going pretty good for 4-5 pages |
Ben Hatton
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 14:29:00 -
[1225] - Quote
So, basically, this change is going to happen in one way or another. To present a player backd solution to the change we dont like, do we throw our weight behind Mynnna's numbers or what? Cause we need to come up with a coherent counter proposal and move on from all this other fluff.
Like I said, this will happen, we need to band together and make it happen in a better way. |
Dave Stark
5816
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 14:31:00 -
[1226] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Right. I never said anything about orcas in any of my posts. might want to check your posting history. such as hereValterra Craven wrote:Because an orca has 500k m3???
Context. You offered an incorrect rebuttal to an idea post that I offered as an alternative to these changes. You were the one that brought up Orcas not me. Without your foolish post offering up the orca as a suitable alternative to my thoughts, these two pages of me stating what orca's actually do and don't do wouldn't exist. Read the original post I made. There was no mention of Orca's or DST's or any other hauling ship. I will say that you might have had a point way back when carrier hauling was a thing and JF's didn't exist. But that day has long come and gone.
context? you said you didn't mention the orca in any of your posts (plural), we proved that you did. |
Dave Stark
5816
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 14:33:00 -
[1227] - Quote
Ben Hatton wrote:So, basically, this change is going to happen in one way or another. To present a player backd solution to the change we dont like, do we throw our weight behind Mynnna's numbers or what? Cause we need to come up with a coherent counter proposal and move on from all this other fluff.
Like I said, this will happen, we need to band together and make it happen in a better way.
the optimal solution is for freighters to be left the hell alone, and for people to think before they ask for changes. |
Valterra Craven
240
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 14:33:00 -
[1228] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:I like how you are correcting me by putting words in my mouth. You mean by cutting off your failed attempt at correcting him when he was right all along?
You are correct. I should have quoted the whole post of both posters like so:
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:Wulfy Johnson wrote:Well eighter way, removing more ehp off these already fragile ships, making them more common with lower ehp will result in a rabbits race for kb padding. To me that would more of an isk sink short term, and leaves a no choice in fitting long term. 1. Freighters aren't fragile, they take considerable effort, manpower and strategy to gank. 2. No-one cares about KB stats, except for some ~elite-pvp~ groups, which are largely unimportant and easy to deal with. 3. Every freighter killed is a giant ISK faucet, spewing several hundred million ISK into the economy. [/quote] |
Ben Hatton
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 14:36:00 -
[1229] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Ben Hatton wrote:So, basically, this change is going to happen in one way or another. To present a player backd solution to the change we dont like, do we throw our weight behind Mynnna's numbers or what? Cause we need to come up with a coherent counter proposal and move on from all this other fluff.
Like I said, this will happen, we need to band together and make it happen in a better way. the optimal solution is for freighters to be left the hell alone, and for people to think before they ask for changes.
Agreed, but that's not going to happen so lets move onto how it should happen and come up with something better. IMO, ppl should be liking Mynnna post so it gets some love |
Valterra Craven
240
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 14:37:00 -
[1230] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Right. I never said anything about orcas in any of my posts. might want to check your posting history. such as hereValterra Craven wrote:Because an orca has 500k m3???
Context. You offered an incorrect rebuttal to an idea post that I offered as an alternative to these changes. You were the one that brought up Orcas not me. Without your foolish post offering up the orca as a suitable alternative to my thoughts, these two pages of me stating what orca's actually do and don't do wouldn't exist. Read the original post I made. There was no mention of Orca's or DST's or any other hauling ship. I will say that you might have had a point way back when carrier hauling was a thing and JF's didn't exist. But that day has long come and gone. context? you said you didn't mention the orca in any of your posts (plural), we proved that you did.
This might make things clearer: (since forgetting words is bad)
I didn't mention the orca in any of my "original" posts. I wasn't whining about what the orca could or could not do. I didn't bring up the orca. You did.
|
|
Dave Stark
5816
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 14:37:00 -
[1231] - Quote
Ben Hatton wrote:but that's not going to happen based on the fact that in their current state, freighters are fine and don't need any changes what so ever. i think it's a possibility. |
Dave Stark
5816
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 14:38:00 -
[1232] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:This might make things clearer: (since forgetting words is bad)
I didn't mention the orca in any of my "original" posts. I wasn't whining about what the orca could or could not do. I didn't bring up the orca. You did.
let's just clear things up easily; you were wrong. we proved it. |
Azami Nevinyrall
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
1898
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 14:38:00 -
[1233] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Azami Nevinyrall wrote:Valterra Craven wrote: Make smaller new freighters.
I'll say this slowly for you... DEEP SPACE TRANSPORT SHIPS! -OR- ORCA I'll say this slowly for you... none of those ships do 500k m3.
So, you want a new ship line, that is smaller/faster/hold/tanky then current ships?
I like your argument to WHY it should be in the game...
Also...Orca
36,000 Cargo + 400,000 Ship Bay + 40,000 Fleet Hangar + 50,000 Ore Hold = 526,000...!!!!!1!!!!oneone1!!
So, yes it does technically have....slightly more then 500,000 m3
Also...it has a tank! Drone bay Battle Orca capabilities ...3 reasons why I'd HAPPILY fly an Orca over a Freighter.......at a fraction of the price! I hope everyone voted in the CSM elections! Thank you to those who actually supported my campaign! Even if I don't get elected in, I hope that the CSM that do, and Devs actually use my ideas somewhere! |
Valterra Craven
241
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 14:48:00 -
[1234] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:This might make things clearer: (since forgetting words is bad)
I didn't mention the orca in any of my "original" posts. I wasn't whining about what the orca could or could not do. I didn't bring up the orca. You did.
let's just clear things up easily; you were wrong. we proved it.
You proved I was wrong about what exactly? |
Valterra Craven
241
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 14:50:00 -
[1235] - Quote
Azami Nevinyrall wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Azami Nevinyrall wrote:Valterra Craven wrote: Make smaller new freighters.
I'll say this slowly for you... DEEP SPACE TRANSPORT SHIPS! -OR- ORCA I'll say this slowly for you... none of those ships do 500k m3. So, you want a new ship line, that is smaller/faster/hold/tanky then current ships? I like your argument to WHY it should be in the game... Also...Orca 36,000 Cargo + 400,000 Ship Bay + 40,000 Fleet Hangar + 50,000 Ore Hold = 526,000...!!!!!1!!!!oneone1!! So, yes it does technically have....slightly more then 500,000 m3 Also...it has a tank! Drone bay Battle Orca capabilities ...3 reasons why I'd HAPPILY fly an Orca over a Freighter.......at a fraction of the price!
If you are going to compare apples to apples an Orca has exactly 76km3 cargo (without modifiers)
Also if you noticed in my orginal post, the goal was never to get a tankier ship or one that had combat abilities. The ship I mentioned would have half the carog and half the TANK but would allow customization. |
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS type X
157
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 14:50:00 -
[1236] - Quote
mynnna wrote: "Why not modules instead" is a bit of a common question, so on a whim I threw together a concept for just that.
This is a solution headed in the right direction, controls costs and provides flexibility (toss in a few custom freighter only mods and this is win).
p.s. obligatory.....grrr goons!
btw, Mynnna do you see any problem with possibly a 2 low, 2 mid concept or did you come to realize at some point in your thinking that the all low solution was superior? Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really. |
Dave Stark
5816
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 14:52:00 -
[1237] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:This might make things clearer: (since forgetting words is bad)
I didn't mention the orca in any of my "original" posts. I wasn't whining about what the orca could or could not do. I didn't bring up the orca. You did.
let's just clear things up easily; you were wrong. we proved it. You proved I was wrong about what exactly?
read the posts and find out. |
Valterra Craven
241
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 14:52:00 -
[1238] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:This might make things clearer: (since forgetting words is bad)
I didn't mention the orca in any of my "original" posts. I wasn't whining about what the orca could or could not do. I didn't bring up the orca. You did.
let's just clear things up easily; you were wrong. we proved it. You proved I was wrong about what exactly? read the posts and find out.
I will when you do. |
Dave Stark
5817
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 14:59:00 -
[1239] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:This might make things clearer: (since forgetting words is bad)
I didn't mention the orca in any of my "original" posts. I wasn't whining about what the orca could or could not do. I didn't bring up the orca. You did.
let's just clear things up easily; you were wrong. we proved it. You proved I was wrong about what exactly? read the posts and find out. I will when you do.
get on with it then, reading it was how i proved you wrong.
alternatively: you could just really suck at english and have no idea what's going on, i guess. |
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
11
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 14:59:00 -
[1240] - Quote
T1 rigs are easily enough to bring normal freighters above their current cargo values.[/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.
Yes, but now it will take two t2 cargo rigs required to even get to the current freighter capacities. TBH this is a pretty hefty kick in the balls to anyone with a freighter pilot. allow me to explain
I'll use a fenrir for this example since I own one and did the calculations. Because most people won't switch ammo when ganking a freighter, I took each of the 4 damage types and calculated roughly what the total EHP would be if you were using only that damage type. Below are the results. Note: these do not take the individual skill or implants into account.
Current Fenrir
Type Shield Armor Total (100,000 hp added for hull which has no resist so same for all types) em 5625 34,000 139,625 therm 6750 28,687 135,437 kinetic 7875 26,562 134,437 exp 8437 23,375 131,812
New Fenrir Type Shield Armor Total (82,500 hp added for hull which has no resist so same for all types) em 10000 44,800 137,300 therm 12000 37,800 132,300 kinetic 14000 35,000 131500 exp 15000 30,800 128,300
So as you can see the ship just received a few thousand EHP nerf to begin with. And lost 200,000m3 of space to go along with it hassah! looks like all that armor is gonna take up some of that precious storage space. This nerf gets amplified though once you start putting on any of the rigs that one would expect to be on a freighter such as astro rigs which all reduce armor. the result drops the EHP down to barely over 120K. I would expect that for someone going for max cargo with 3 cargo rigs but with calibration t2 ones won't be possible and now a pilot will be required to fit either 3 t1 rigs or 2 t2 rigs JUST to get to the current capacities of freighters.
Lets assume the best and your freighter pilot is capable of If using just the t2 rigs. You use 2 t2 cargo rigs to get JUST ABOVE what the current fenrir capacity is. We'll throw in a t2 trimark rig then to compensate for the armor loss of the first two rigs but now you're slower. So now you have a freighter that can barely hold more than the current one. has less of a tank and travels slower..... I honestly was expected there to be a slight nerf to the cargo and tank to compensate for the fact you can boost these now but this is a little much I think. I would rather have the freighters have more base cargo with a 50% reduction in the effectiveness of cargo rigs.
And before someone points out yes you could instead swap the trimark for a t2 hull hp rig to come out which would push the freighter slightly over it's current EHP however the hull rigs have already stated they would reduce cargo as a penalty so you would essentially have counter boosting rigs at that point.
|
|
Axe Coldon
Coldon Enterprises Axion Bionics
35
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 15:06:00 -
[1241] - Quote
Sniper Smith wrote:M'uva Wa'eva wrote:If there was a concer about subcaps gaining the warp speed rig, it could be handled like the Covert Ops Cloak for bombers, etc... with an absurdly high CPU requirement offset with a 100% reduction in CPU fitting cost for the freighter class. They removed the CPU Requirement being the limiting factor a few updates ago.. it's now a "Can be fitted to" field.. As people found a way to make an Avatar fit it with the right Officer CPU mods lol. But I agree.. OR, you can give it negative effects.. Max locked targets to 0, or something.. Would also be nice as you could still fit it, to quickly move a BS or something, but not viable in combat conditions. Give it a penalty to cargo so you still have to pick between space and speed..
Holy Cow that is brilliant. Fit to any ship but max locked targets is ZERO. For moving around lows (in bs) could be warp stabs and warp modules. Though for dps could still use smart bombs. they don't require a lock. but that shouldn't be much of a concern. |
Valterra Craven
241
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 15:11:00 -
[1242] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote: get on with it then, reading it was how i proved you wrong.
Here are my posts in this thread from the last few days
#1062 Posted: 2014.05.19 00:56
Fozzie, I know you guys see these posts, and I know you can't comment on everything, and lastly I know that introducing art assets to the game takes time. However this is my proposal and will likely be far more appeasing to all parties involved than the current changes.
Leave the current freighters as they are.
Make smaller new freighters.
Make them have half the cargo, hit points, align time and build cost and double the warp speed.
Give them 3 rig slots
Win
OR
Leave the current freighters alone
Make ONE new freighter in the ORE line with the above stats and say that ORE needed something with better agility for deep space mining or some mobo jumbo like that.
#1183 Posted: 2014.05.19 13:26
I Love Boobies wrote:
Already in game... it's called an Orca.
Because an orca has 500k m3???
#1191 Posted: 2014.05.19 13:41
Azami Nevinyrall wrote:
I'll say this slowly for you...
DEEP SPACE TRANSPORT SHIPS!
-OR-
ORCA
I'll say this slowly for you... none of those ships do 500k m3.
#1196 Posted: 2014.05.19 13:47
Tippia wrote:
If you just want a sturdier, faster ship with half the cargo, JFs pretty much do that already. Orcas do about half of what a JF does (if we ignore the ship hangar). DSTs do about half of whan an Orca does.
The goal here is to comprise.
People wanted riggable freighters and those of us that are sane don't want these massive across the board nerfs.
JFs cost 7-8x times as much as regular freighters.
These would cost around the same as orcas, wouldnt have the boosting of orcas and would be totally devoted to hauling.
Personally I want nothing to change here at all, but I'm trying to come up with reasonable solutions.
No where did I bring up Orca's. In each of these posts I am responding to someone else that is bring up a false equivalency argument. Orcas can not do the same job as freighters. DST and other haulers can not do the same jobs as freighters. They still wouldn't be competitive with the riggable mini freighter I'm fighting for.
What I want is for this change to not to go through and freighters be left alone. In loo of that I'm proposing that instead of nerfing a class across the board to give people what they've foolishly been asking for that instead we create an already nerfed ship that has what these people want. Case close.
|
Falkor1984
The Love Dragons
51
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 15:13:00 -
[1243] - Quote
/Me shakes his head in disbelief.
Like I mentioned dozens of times before already: slow ass ships are BORING as ****. Basically with this change you are forcing us to fly our haulers slower or more often, unless we want to sacrifice tank. All options are not very compelling to say the least.
I can't rant because the forum sensorship will step in, but let's just say you have not thought this through very well. Eve-offline tells the story how well you are doing with these changes, just saying. |
Dave Stark
5817
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 15:15:00 -
[1244] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Here are my posts in this thread from the last few days i already quoted the relevant parts. stop embarrassing yourself. |
Valterra Craven
241
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 15:17:00 -
[1245] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Here are my posts in this thread from the last few days i already quoted the relevant parts here. stop embarrassing yourself.
No what you did is quoted posts that you edited to make it seem like you had a point. Stop lying. |
Ben Hatton
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 15:20:00 -
[1246] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Here are my posts in this thread from the last few days i already quoted the relevant parts here. stop embarrassing yourself. No what you did is quoted posts that you edited to make it seem like you had a point. Stop lying.
Both of you, please shut the F up and take it elsewhere so that the devs might actually find some of the better posts here amongst your bickering ffs |
Dave Stark
5817
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 15:20:00 -
[1247] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Here are my posts in this thread from the last few days i already quoted the relevant parts here. stop embarrassing yourself. No what you did is quoted posts that you edited to make it seem like you had a point. Stop lying. i didn't edit any of the posts, i even linked the original post that you made. |
Valterra Craven
241
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 15:22:00 -
[1248] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Here are my posts in this thread from the last few days i already quoted the relevant parts here. stop embarrassing yourself. No what you did is quoted posts that you edited to make it seem like you had a point. Stop lying. i didn't edit any of the posts, i even linked the original post that you made.
If by didn't edit you mean took out the part where people brought up orcas to make it look like I was talking about something out of the blue... then sure. |
Valterra Craven
241
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 15:23:00 -
[1249] - Quote
Ben Hatton wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Here are my posts in this thread from the last few days i already quoted the relevant parts here. stop embarrassing yourself. No what you did is quoted posts that you edited to make it seem like you had a point. Stop lying. Both of you, please shut the F up and take it elsewhere so that the devs might actually find some of the better posts here amongst your bickering ffs
No. |
Tora Hamaji
Republic University Minmatar Republic
30
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 15:26:00 -
[1250] - Quote
It never ceases to amaze me how CCP manages to break every promise and botch every positive change time after time after time!
Here is the KEYNOTE about freighters/jfs
http://youtu.be/k07Uu7qUEa0?t=46m39s
I quote fozzie:
Quote:This means you'll be able to increase your cargohold BEYOND CURRENT STANDARDS with cargo rigs
And then this thread....
seriously, so dumb........ so idiotic...... so disappointing....... so typical........ |
|
Dave Stark
5822
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 15:27:00 -
[1251] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Here are my posts in this thread from the last few days i already quoted the relevant parts here. stop embarrassing yourself. No what you did is quoted posts that you edited to make it seem like you had a point. Stop lying. i didn't edit any of the posts, i even linked the original post that you made. If by didn't edit you mean took out the part where people brought up orcas to make it look like I was talking about something out of the blue... then sure.
i mean, i didn't change a single word you said. as evidenced by the fact that i lnked the post i quoted and what you said was identical. |
Dave Stark
5822
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 15:28:00 -
[1252] - Quote
Tora Hamaji wrote:It never ceases to amaze me how CCP manages to break every promise and botch every positive change time after time after time! Here is the KEYNOTE about freighters/jfs http://youtu.be/k07Uu7qUEa0?t=46m39sI quote fozzie: Quote:This means you'll be able to increase your cargohold BEYOND CURRENT STANDARDS with cargo rigs And then this thread.... seriously, so dumb........ so idiotic...... so disappointing....... so typical........
but you can increase them beyond current standards, that's why capital ships are now 1.3m when packaged. |
Ben Hatton
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 15:30:00 -
[1253] - Quote
Tora Hamaji wrote:It never ceases to amaze me how CCP manages to break every promise and botch every positive change time after time after time! Here is the KEYNOTE about freighters/jfs http://youtu.be/k07Uu7qUEa0?t=46m39sI quote fozzie: Quote:This means you'll be able to increase your cargohold BEYOND CURRENT STANDARDS with cargo rigs And then this thread.... seriously, so dumb........ so idiotic...... so disappointing....... so typical........
Yeah thread sucks, but to clear it up for you, you will indeed be able to increase the hold beyond what it is now. Check this awesome tool out... http://xyjax.com/optimizer_kronos/index.html |
Valterra Craven
241
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 15:31:00 -
[1254] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:
i mean, i didn't change a single word you said. as evidenced by the fact that i lnked the post i quoted and what you said was identical.
Just because didn't edit my words doesn't mean you edited the post.
This:
Valterra Craven wrote:I Love Boobies wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Fozzie, I know you guys see these posts, and I know you can't comment on everything, and lastly I know that introducing art assets to the game takes time. However this is my proposal and will likely be far more appeasing to all parties involved than the current changes.
Leave the current freighters as they are.
Make smaller new freighters.
Make them have half the cargo, hit points, align time and build cost and double the warp speed.
Give them 3 rig slots
Win
OR
Leave the current freighters alone
Make ONE new freighter in the ORE line with the above stats and say that ORE needed something with better agility for deep space mining or some mobo jumbo like that. Already in game... it's called an Orca. Because an orca has 500k m3???
does not equal this:
Valterra Craven wrote: Because an orca has 500k m3???
I never once brought up the orca. |
0mni Ca
Hit Squad 420 Almost Awesome.
56
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 15:31:00 -
[1255] - Quote
Tora Hamaji wrote:It never ceases to amaze me how CCP manages to break every promise and botch every positive change time after time after time! Here is the KEYNOTE about freighters/jfs http://youtu.be/k07Uu7qUEa0?t=46m39sI quote fozzie: Quote:This means you'll be able to increase your cargohold BEYOND CURRENT STANDARDS with cargo rigs And then this thread.... seriously, so dumb........ so idiotic...... so disappointing....... so typical........ They didn't lie, they just omitted the fact that you need 2x T2 Capital Cargo rigs going for 700M ISK and climbing each, and that the BEYOND CURRENT STANDARDS is a ~5% increase in current capacity with the T2 rigs, oh and that when you do this, you sacrifice speed and tank.
I know that these changes will be implemented, so I have given up on trying to fight it, gonna get 2x T1 Capital Cargo Rigs, and just bend over once again ...
Fozzie seemed so nice in person :( |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22017
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 15:32:00 -
[1256] - Quote
Tora Hamaji wrote:It never ceases to amaze me how CCP manages to break every promise and botch every positive change time after time after time! They didn't break any promises, though. You can do exactly what they said you will be able to do, and the price for being able to do so is entirely in line with what was expected. 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. |
Pasocon Otaku
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 15:32:00 -
[1257] - Quote
Here's a straightforward way to make it a cross between light nerf and small improvement -- instead of whacking stats so hard that you can't get 'back to par' even with T2 rigs ...
Overall Use capital rigs (to set appropriate resource cost)
Freighters: Drop cargo capacity 26.25%, so that it takes two T1 cargo rigs to get back to par Drop EHP such that it takes one T1 hull HP rig to get back to par ... this would mean spending ~10% of the value of your ship to keep it current. Not horrible. If you choose to go T1/T2/T2, you're spending ~100% of ship's value for modest improvement in one or two areas.
Jump Freighters It's obvious they want to nerf them more than a little; so that pilots feel they're getting something out of their beating -- Drop cargo by 15%, agility by 11.7%, and EHP by {T1 Hull HP rig} -- so you can keep two of three at par ... or spend ~15% the value of your ship and have a slight bump in two [but still the nerf in the third]. |
CivilWars
Rolled Out
28
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 15:34:00 -
[1258] - Quote
As a wormhole inhabitant I would just like to remind all of you null sec folks of what you told us a couple of weeks ago when a nerf was announced to our game play. Just because something has been one way for the last several years does not mean you are entitled to it always being that way. I don't own or fly freighters or jump freighters, but I do support these changes, and before you tell me I don't know anything about hauling since I don't do it I will remind you that I was told you guys didn't need to live in WHs to tell us how they should be run. I will admit it is much more entertaining when the shoe is on the other foot though. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6379
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 15:34:00 -
[1259] - Quote
So, if anyone is interested in seeing precisely how the numbers turned out, TMC has a pretty good article on the subject.
http://themittani.com/news/proposed-freighter-and-jump-freighter-changes-kronos
To put things in perspective, the T1 freighters are not in a terrible state. Triple T1 hull rigs allow you to give up a bit less than 50% of your cargo in exchange for an extra ~70k EHP. Notably the Charon still gets just above 500k cargo space with that.
The other side is that you can give up around ~15k EHP in exchange for between a 6% and just under 10% boost in cargo. The Charon comes out the worst in those numbers, with the Obelisk being the big winner there.
Notably however, no combination of rigs can really get you back to where you were before. With two cargo rigs and one hull rig you are looking at a slight gain in EHP, and around a 14% loss in cargo capacity. Perhaps the Providence and the Obelisk can manage it with a Trimark. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Valterra Craven
241
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 15:35:00 -
[1260] - Quote
Tippia
[quote=Valterra Craven wrote:I never once brought up the orca. That was never the question, either.[/quote]
Maybe not your's but it was his. To answer your original question. I don't want a smaller more tankier version of the freighter (which would be the JF) I wanted a smaller less tankier version than a freighter so that a ship would exist in its proper pre-nerfed form so that it could have rigs.
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22018
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 15:38:00 -
[1261] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Maybe not your's but it was his. No, not his either. You claimed that you ever said anything about orcas in any of your posts. He demonstrated that your claim was wrong.
Quote:To answer your original question. I don't want a smaller more tankier version of the freighter (which would be the JF) I wanted a smaller less tankier version than a freighter so that a ship would exist in its proper pre-nerfed form so that it could have rigs.
It wasn't really a question. It was a demonstration that what you're asking for is pretty much already in the game. We have a neat progression of an almost constant doubling of capacity between DST GåÆ Orca GåÆ JF GåÆ Freighter. There's very little room for any additional ships in that progression. 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
32
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 15:42:00 -
[1262] - Quote
Kaerakh wrote:I'd just like to take this moment to say to all those carebears that wanted Freighter customization congratulations, and now I'd like to tell them I TOLD YOU SO about the massive cargo nerf for customization. Just gtfo. |
Valterra Craven
241
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 15:45:00 -
[1263] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Maybe not your's but it was his. No, not his either. You claimed that you ever said anything about orcas in any of your posts. He demonstrated that your claim was wrong.
No, what he did was showed that the word orca existed in my post. What it didn't do was show anything else.
Quote:To answer your original question. I don't want a smaller more tankier version of the freighter (which would be the JF) I wanted a smaller less tankier version than a freighter so that a ship would exist in its proper pre-nerfed form so that it could have rigs.
It wasn't really a statement. It was a demonstration that what you're asking for is pretty much already in the game. We have a neat progression of an almost constant doubling of capacity between DST GåÆ Orca GåÆ JF GåÆ Freighter. There's very little room for any additional ships in that progression.[/quote]
And I would agree with your assessment if nothing were changing. But things change, and with change old things don't hold up anymore.
With the proposed nerfs fozzie is proposing your progression chart doesn't hold up anymore. My point was merely that if we must have change for the sake of it, it would create far less fuss to create a pre-nerfed ship than it would to nerf an existing one to give it false choices. |
Dave Stark
5841
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 15:46:00 -
[1264] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:What it didn't do was show anything else. yes it did. read the post. |
Valterra Craven
241
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 15:51:00 -
[1265] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:What it didn't do was show anything else. yes it did. read the post.
I did read it.
Your argument was that I was whining about what an orca could and could not do. My response was that you were wrong and I never mentioned the orca. My point still stands. I never did mention the orca. Someone else brought it up and I corrected them. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22026
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 15:52:00 -
[1266] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:No, what he did was showed that the word orca existed in my post. What it didn't do was show anything else. It showed that you said something about orcas in your posts, thereby proving your claim wrong. You forgot what you had said and made a boo-boo. Just live with it.
Quote:And I would agree with your assessment if nothing were changing. But things change, and with change old things don't hold up anymore. They hold up even more now since there's a lot more variation in the ships that fill out any gaps that existed before. 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. |
Dave Stark
5841
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 15:52:00 -
[1267] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:What it didn't do was show anything else. yes it did. read the post. I did read it. Your argument was that I was whining about what an orca could and could not do. My response was that you were wrong and I never mentioned the orca. My point still stands. I never did mention the orca. Someone else brought it up and I corrected them. go and read the posts, you're just embarrassing yourself with how wrong you are.
you said you didn't mention orcas; i quoted the post where you did. you were wrong; it's that simple. |
Valterra Craven
241
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 15:56:00 -
[1268] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:No, what he did was showed that the word orca existed in my post. What it didn't do was show anything else. It showed that you said something about orcas in your posts, thereby proving your claim wrong. You forgot what you had said and made a boo-boo. Just live with it. Quote:
I won't live with it because he was wrong. I never mentioned nor did I ever whine about anything.
[quote=Tippia][quote=Valterra Craven]And I would agree with your assessment if nothing were changing. But things change, and with change old things don't hold up anymore.
They hold up even more now since there's a lot more variation in the ships that fill out any gaps that existed before.
While there may be variation there is no functional way to achieve the same stats of the ship you had before. If you chose to buff one to get back to where you were you also nerf your ship in another way even more. |
Delhaven
Vicis Inter Astrum I'd Rather Be Roaming
45
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 15:57:00 -
[1269] - Quote
Aerissa Nolen wrote:I've been working on a web tool to help wrap my head around these changes. Fairly limited right now but gets some basic info across. Works in IGB as well, does not require trust. http://xyjax.com/optimizer_kronos/index.html Thank you. This has been really useful to try and figure out how to best deal with these... changes.
One upside to this: I'll be able to get my Obelisk up to 1.93 AU/sec, which reduces the worst part of freighting. Sure I lose a third of my cargo capacity, but who moves big volumes of stuff with a freighter anyway?
I can't wait to see what Black Frog will be doing with this. I feel bad for the folks there who will have to come up with the new load limits. |
Ice Dealer
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
27
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 15:57:00 -
[1270] - Quote
I wanted to reply to this thread. Thank you Fozzie for spending time on your weekend responding.
I really feel betrayed with this change. I first heard "rigs on freighters!" And my reaction was like a lot of other people "no, because you will nerf them down so they NEED rigs to be like they are now. " That is not giving us choice. That is making us spend more on rigs for no reason other then making them the same as pre nerf.
Here is an idea, your own idea actually from the Transport ship changes. Give them a "bay". Make the bay the same size as they are now, and only let skill change how big the size is. Then give us rigs.
Now rigs are not competing for cargo size, they are an added utility. Faster? Use a rig. More tank? Use a rig. Use less fuel for a JF? Maybe a rig (I posted a proposal about these rigs) All rigs already have a draw back.
Also, you won't get the dreaded power creep. We won't be able to haul more then we currently do. No need to change re packaged cap ships.
TL; DR: Keep it as simple as you can.
Unless there are more changes you are trying to accomplish. If you are trying to decrease logistical ability, please state that. |
|
Valterra Craven
241
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 15:58:00 -
[1271] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:What it didn't do was show anything else. yes it did. read the post. I did read it. Your argument was that I was whining about what an orca could and could not do. My response was that you were wrong and I never mentioned the orca. My point still stands. I never did mention the orca. Someone else brought it up and I corrected them. go and read the posts, you're just embarrassing yourself with how wrong you are. you said you didn't mention orcas; i quoted the post where you did. you were wrong; it's that simple.
And I didn't mention orcas.
Here I will make this simple
These were the people that mentioned orcas: I Love Boobies Azami Nevinyrall Tippia
I responded to their mentionings. That is not the same as what you are accusing me. |
Dave Stark
5849
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 15:59:00 -
[1272] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:And I didn't mention orcas. yes, you did. as per the quote i've linked, several times. |
Valterra Craven
241
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 16:00:00 -
[1273] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:And I didn't mention orcas. yes, you did. as per the quote i've linked, several times.
You can say this all you want, but it doesn't make it anymore true. |
Dave Stark
5849
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 16:02:00 -
[1274] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:And I didn't mention orcas. yes, you did. as per the quote i've linked, several times. You can say this all you want, but it doesn't make it anymore true. no, the fact that you said it, and i subsequently quoted it, proves it to be true. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22026
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 16:03:00 -
[1275] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:You can say this all you want, but it doesn't make it anymore true. That's true enough. It can't really be more true than true, which it is, as demonstrated by the post where you mention them.
Now, if you want to claim that you didn't mention Orcas, can you explain what you were doing when you mentioned orcas in the post in question? 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. |
Valterra Craven
241
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 16:03:00 -
[1276] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:And I didn't mention orcas. yes, you did. as per the quote i've linked, several times. You can say this all you want, but it doesn't make it anymore true. no, the fact that you said it, and i subsequently quoted it, proves it to be true.
Well had the fact that I said it actually occurred. it would have proved it. But because it didn't happen, its not true. |
Valterra Craven
241
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 16:04:00 -
[1277] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:You can say this all you want, but it doesn't make it anymore true. That's true enough. It can't really be more true than true, which it is, as demonstrated by the post where you mention them. Now, if you want to claim that you didn't mention Orcas, can you explain what you were doing when you mentioned orcas in the post in question?
I didn't mention them, you and others did as a false equivalency to what I was fighting for. I was responding to what you posted which is not the same as mentioning them. |
Dave Stark
5857
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 16:07:00 -
[1278] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:I didn't mention them. at this point i'm honestly not sure if you don't understand english, or you've got some kind of underlying detrimental condition.
because you did, and evidence has been produced to prove it. |
Valterra Craven
243
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 16:10:00 -
[1279] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:I didn't mention them. at this point i'm honestly not sure if you don't understand english, or you've got some kind of underlying detrimental condition. because you did, and evidence has been produced to prove it.
No I didn't.
Think of it like the Clinton scandal.
How do you define the word sex? His view was that oral was not "sex". IE there was no insertion into something that could make children.
I didn't mention orca because there was no need to bring them up. Someone else mentioned them and I responded to their comments. Once you mention something it can be re-mentioned. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22031
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 16:10:00 -
[1280] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Well had the fact that I said it actually occurred. it would have proved it. So it's proven then, since it is indeed a fact that you said it.
Look, you're just clogging up the thread with this idiotic refusal to accept reality. You mentioned them. It's right there in the thread. You thought you hadn't, or you made a mistake about what people were saying, but the facts are the facts. Just live with it GÇö it will all be deleted anyway. Also, look up what the word GÇ£mentionGÇ¥ mean because you seem to be a bit confused by it.
Quote:I responded to their mentionings. That is not the same as what you are accusing me. You're so far around the bend now it's getting silly. He's not accusing you of anything. He's saying that you mentioned orcas. You did. In responding to other people bringing them up, you mentioned them GÇö you rather had to unless you wanted to make a completely nonsensical answer.
Quote:I didn't mention them GǪaside from in your posts, as has been amply demonstrated. Just because others brought them up, it does not mean you didn't mention them too. You mentioned them, their capabilities, and how you didn't feel they fit your needs.
Quote:Think of it like the Clinton scandal. In other words, your'e trying to escape the inescapable fact by ignoring large portions of what a word means and only accepting a very tiny part of how it can be interpreted even though that just makes you seem dishonest and ignorant of what happened? Yes, it's a lot like that. You still mentioned Orcas, though, and no amount of screaming and kicking and wishing you didn't do it will change this proven fact. Again, live with it. 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. |
|
Dave Stark
5857
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 16:12:00 -
[1281] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:No I didn't. we've been through this; you did.
as much as it's amusing to watch you say you didn't even though the post has been quoted and linked several times, it's getting boring listening to you drowning in denial. |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
2761
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 16:12:00 -
[1282] - Quote
I can see some of these reductions are needed to compensate for the boost from rigs. But even with rigs, a freighter cannot be brought up to the same performance level it has right now. If you rig for cargo, the tank is less. If you rig for tank, the cargo is less. If you rig a bit for both, both are less. There is no combination of rigs that return a freighter to where it is right now.
Please reconsider the degree of the reductions to cargo and tank. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Dave Stark
5857
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 16:14:00 -
[1283] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:I can see some of these reductions are needed to compensate for the boost from rigs. But even with rigs, a freighter cannot be brought up to the same performance level it has right now. If you rig for cargo, the tank is less. If you rig for tank, the cargo is less. If you rig a bit for both, both are less. There is no combination of rigs that return a freighter to where it is right now.
Please reconsider the degree of the reductions to cargo and tank.
it's not meant to be "where it is right now" that's the point of the change. the idea is you pick 1 attribute, and make it better at the cost of the others.
if freighters were to be rigged to "where it is right now" it would totally defeat the point of the change. |
Barton Breau
University of Caille Gallente Federation
35
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 16:16:00 -
[1284] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Quote:To answer your original question. I don't want a smaller more tankier version of the freighter (which would be the JF) I wanted a smaller less tankier version than a freighter so that a ship would exist in its proper pre-nerfed form so that it could have rigs.
It wasn't really a question. It was a demonstration that what you're asking for is pretty much already in the game. We have a neat progression of an almost constant doubling of capacity between DST GåÆ Orca GåÆ JF GåÆ Freighter. There's very little room for any additional ships in that progression.
You forgot a titan between DST and orca...
|
Kestrel Swainson
Justified Chaos
2
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 16:16:00 -
[1285] - Quote
A freighter right now is pretty much safe if he have between 1b and 2b of goods in his cargohold. Cargohold expander decrease armor hp, does it make the freigther fragile enough to be a target even with only 1b to 2b of goods in his cargohold (assuming he have freighter at IV and rigs at IV)? |
Valterra Craven
243
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 16:17:00 -
[1286] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Well had the fact that I said it actually occurred. it would have proved it. So it's proven then, since it is indeed a fact that you said it. Look, you're just clogging up the thread with this idiotic refusal to accept reality. You mentioned them. It's right there in the thread. You thought you hadn't, or you made a mistake about what people were saying, but the facts are the facts. Just live with it GÇö it will all be deleted anyway. Also, look up what the word GÇ£mentionGÇ¥ mean because you seem to be a bit confused by it.
Well if I am guilty of clogging this thread up, then you are equally as guilty for it as well and therefore are no point of authority to lecture me on the topic.
Tippia wrote:[quote=Valterra Craven]I responded to their mentionings. That is not the same as what you are accusing me. You're so far around the bend now it's getting silly. He's not accusing you of anything. He's saying that you mentioned orcas. You did. In responding to other people bringing them up, you mentioned them GÇö you rather had to unless you wanted to make a completely nonsensical answer.
I'm not. His accusation was that my posts over a two page history were wines about the orca's capabilites. I'm arguing that I couldn't be whining about something I didn't even bring up and could care less about since they aren't getting any changes.
What I'm saying is that if you change the word "orca" with the word "they" it functionally changes nothing, the meaning stays the same, and I am still not the one that brought it up or "mentioned it".
aka: "Because orca's have 500k m3?" is the same as: "Because they have 500k m3?" because there is context there since I quoted the full posts of everyone. Just because I used the word orca doesnt mean that I'm the one that mentioned it. |
Axe Coldon
Coldon Enterprises Axion Bionics
35
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 16:18:00 -
[1287] - Quote
1st off I own multiple JF and Freighters and I never asked for any rigs or any changes at all. I only made posts where I was happy they were adding rigs..but that was before Saturdays massive nerf post. I take it all back.
I think we need to realize (and God help us agree) the JF and Freighter really have different roles.
And the JF is T2. But as many pointed out..those I think also fly them..cargo is king on them. I was trained on and owned Gal Freighters but switched to Rhea just to get a little bit extra cargo on my Jump Trips. Fuel is expensive (4 cynos 100 mil fuel cost round trip atm before changes) and every little bit helps.
So I am against any cargo nerf at all. if they want to add rigs fine..but cough cough the goons guy's idea is better. 3 low slots. but I still think a JF should get M and H because it its T2 after all. And if you keep its capacity and let the slots or rigs add to it..then it deserves its price tag. Other wise the cost to make it should be in line with the reduction in base cargo capacity. They have modified the build cost of caps before based on changes..this should be no different.
The fact is JF's were fine. More capacity is always nice..but fine. I still want 500k capacity with T2 rigs. I see no harm in that gameplay wise. God forbid I spend a few less hours hauling and a few more hours on fun stuff.
Changing normal freighters I totally like if I can get more tank and such. but again I like the slots also.
What you don't all get is that anything added to a freighter doesn't need to be balanced with a nerf. It's NOT A COMBAT SHIP. It doesn't effect game play. If I need to move 5 Mil m3's around in Null. More or less capacity wont change anything. Its station to station jumps, dock in 5 secs. Just more or less time. High sec is a whole different ball game. Believe it or not, there is no ganking in Null. Its kill or be killed. You are safe or you aren't. there is no in between. Will he kill me? Hell yes he will kill you. Ha!
High Sec's want options to offset the increased DPS of ships that has made freighters so vulnerable the last couple years. And with Isk inflation hauling 1 bil is hardly practical....well to avoid gank you would need to haul no more then the cost of a gank. If a 50% drop rate no more then 2x the cost of a gank. If that is 300mil..then 600mil. That isn't crap to a hauler. That is silly. They should cost at least as much to gank as the value of the ship. So their reward is picking one with decent cargo. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1552
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 16:19:00 -
[1288] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:I can see some of these reductions are needed to compensate for the boost from rigs. But even with rigs, a freighter cannot be brought up to the same performance level it has right now. If you rig for cargo, the tank is less. If you rig for tank, the cargo is less. If you rig a bit for both, both are less. There is no combination of rigs that return a freighter to where it is right now.
Please reconsider the degree of the reductions to cargo and tank.
if it took one of each rig to bring it back to the norm, i could fit 3x cargo rigs and get an overpowered capacity.
like in all the threads before, u have to nerf it to a point that extreme fittings arent over powered. so the nerf has to be pretty hard, and it really could have been much worse than this. But i think u can rig for speed and tank and have them both exceed previous levels, though im not 100% sure, it just comes at the expense of capacity. 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" |
Slothook
Higher Than Everest Black Legion.
7
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 16:19:00 -
[1289] - Quote
64 pages, and 61 of those from just three toons
Just a quick observation (as I note freighter prices are already falling) where highsec main freighters are involved - I plan to actually purchase a second freighter post patch. One I will trimark up, the other will be max cargo space. When its quiet and I need to move a high volume / low cost load I will use the cargo rigged freighter - when its busy or I need to move a high value load I will use the trimarked freighter.
Just mentioning it as you are not just tied to having a single freighter you know - plus those that speculate might want to watch the prices of freighters post patch as I am sure I won't be the only one who buys a couple extra to fit specific roles.
Appreciate jump freighters are a totally different ball game - think I'll be mothballing mine and concentrating on local 00 production, which I think is the intended idea |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1552
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 16:21:00 -
[1290] - Quote
Axe Coldon wrote: It's NOT A COMBAT SHIP. It doesn't effect game play. If I need to move 5 Mil m3's around in Null. More or less capacity wont change anything.
everything after the first sentence is woefully ignorant. 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" |
|
Gospadin
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
138
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 16:25:00 -
[1291] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:I can see some of these reductions are needed to compensate for the boost from rigs. But even with rigs, a freighter cannot be brought up to the same performance level it has right now. If you rig for cargo, the tank is less. If you rig for tank, the cargo is less. If you rig a bit for both, both are less. There is no combination of rigs that return a freighter to where it is right now.
Please reconsider the degree of the reductions to cargo and tank. it's not meant to be "where it is right now" that's the point of the change. the idea is you pick 1 attribute, and make it better at the cost of the others. if freighters were to be rigged to "where it is right now" it would totally defeat the point of the change.
Why shouldn't we be able to get to the same point we are now?
I don't think it's unreasonable to expect to rig the ship to hit roughly the same attributes. On a charon, there's a few options:
-50% cargo for +35% EHP (what's the point?) -15% cargo for +5% EHP (just makes cargo services more expensive all around) +6% cargo for -7% EHP (even easier to gank) +16% cargo for -7% EHP (super expensive)
Maybe if all of this came with a signficant reduction in the build costs of freighters it'd make more sense, but it feels like a nearly across-the-board nerf to me.
Basically, 600k becomes the new red frog cargo limit instead of 812k, me |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22032
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 16:25:00 -
[1292] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Well if I am guilty of clogging this thread up, then you are equally as guilty for it as well and therefore are no point of authority to lecture me on the topic. Tu quoque is a fallacy.
Quote:I'm not. His accusation was that my posts over a two page history were wines about the orca's capabilites. I'm arguing that I couldn't be whining about something I didn't even bring up and could care less about since they aren't getting any changes Doesn't matter who brought them up. You're the one who said that their capabilities aren't sufficient for you. He may have overstated the ferocity in your statement, but it's still a statement you made.
Quote:And what I'm saying is that if you change the word "orca" with the word "they" it functionally changes nothing GǪand since GÇ£mentionGÇ¥ also means GÇ£referenceGÇ¥ that's hardly a surprise. You referenced them. You even mentioned them by name. The mention is there, no matter how much you claim it isn't. You have decided that you will only accept the meaning GÇ£bring upGÇ¥, which means you have dived head first down the true scotsman well. 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. |
Gospadin
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
138
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 16:26:00 -
[1293] - Quote
meaning hisec just got 33% more expensive to pay others to haul stuff |
Dave Stark
5857
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 16:27:00 -
[1294] - Quote
Gospadin wrote:Why shouldn't we be able to get to the same point we are now? because the whole point of a change is to depart from the current situation.
not that we should depart from the current situation. |
Berluth Luthian
Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION
198
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 16:31:00 -
[1295] - Quote
What about jump drive rigs that increase range or efficiency? |
Ally Poo
Ravens' Nest Easily Excited
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 16:35:00 -
[1296] - Quote
Wow these changes are bad and I can't help but disapprove.
I guess we're all going back to webbing T1 Freighters in low and null... |
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
3453
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 16:38:00 -
[1297] - Quote
Berluth Luthian wrote:What about jump drive rigs that increase range or efficiency? You do realise that it would be a rig that increases range but decreases efficiency and/or a rig that increases efficiency but decreases range. And you'd get a general nerf to efficiency and range up front. Sovereignty and Population New Mining Mechanics |
Iski Zuki DaSen
Icarus Academy
8
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 16:39:00 -
[1298] - Quote
Pasocon Otaku wrote:Here's a straightforward way to make it a cross between light nerf and small improvement -- instead of whacking stats so hard that you can't get 'back to par' even with T2 rigs ...
Overall Use capital rigs (to set appropriate resource cost)
Freighters: Drop cargo capacity 26.25%, so that it takes two T1 cargo rigs to get back to par Drop EHP such that it takes one T1 hull HP rig to get back to par ... this would mean spending ~10% of the value of your ship to keep it current. Not horrible. If you choose to go T1/T2/T2, you're spending ~100% of ship's value for modest improvement in one or two areas.
Jump Freighters It's obvious they want to nerf them more than a little; so that pilots feel they're getting something out of their beating -- Drop cargo by 15%, agility by 11.7%, and EHP by {T1 Hull HP rig} -- so you can keep two of three at par ... or spend ~15% the value of your ship and have a slight bump in two [but still the nerf in the third].
I totaly agree with you m8 |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11668
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 16:40:00 -
[1299] - Quote
ArmyOfMe wrote:mynnna wrote:
If you saw the kind of "greater rewards" it'd take to make living in deep nullsec without any of that capability worthwhile, you'd probably be whining about those, too.
The great thing for me is that ive played long enough to remember when ppl were living in those regions. Before jf's, before freighters even. I remember those long lasting trips through 0,0 with a bs fleet as escort. But we did it anyhow. I think you underestimate ppl's desires to live in 0,0 and make themselfs a home.
We have 250 man dreadfleet that we consider disposable. Back then a 100 man BS fleet was considered a painfull loss. Convoys wont work today. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22032
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 16:44:00 -
[1300] - Quote
Abrazzar wrote:Berluth Luthian wrote:What about jump drive rigs that increase range or efficiency? You do realise that it would be a rig that increases range but decreases efficiency and/or a rig that increases efficiency but decreases range. And you'd get a general nerf to efficiency and range up front. It's also debatable how well it would fit into a general mood of trying to reduce capital ship projection. 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. |
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3940
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 16:47:00 -
[1301] - Quote
I love the idea of lowslot fitting on freighters, but I firmly believe the DCU is too potent to balance a ship with such insane amounts of structure. Remove the ability to fit a DCU on a freighter if you give it a low slot.
|
Dave Stark
5863
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 16:49:00 -
[1302] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: I love the idea of lowslot fitting on freighters, but I firmly believe the DCU is too potent to balance a ship with such insane amounts of structure. Remove the ability to fit a DCU on a freighter if you give it a low slot.
then you're forcing all freighters to armour tank. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11668
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 16:52:00 -
[1303] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: I love the idea of lowslot fitting on freighters, but I firmly believe the DCU is too potent to balance a ship with such insane amounts of structure. Remove the ability to fit a DCU on a freighter if you give it a low slot.
Best answer is the leave them as they are. No matter what fitting options they get they will never be as good as they currently are. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22033
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 16:53:00 -
[1304] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: I love the idea of lowslot fitting on freighters, but I firmly believe the DCU is too potent to balance a ship with such insane amounts of structure. Remove the ability to fit a DCU on a freighter if you give it a low slot.
then you're forcing all freighters to armour tank. They could still hull tank with bulkheads, but I still think that the best method of doing that would be to alter bulkhead fitting requirements and just make sure a DC would be out of reach for what you can get onto a freigther.
So I really wonder what the effects would be if bulkheads became free to fit. Are any ships that could currently benefit from fitting them barred from doing so? Are there any ships where it's currently impossible to do so and where making it possible to fit bulkheads would massively alter their balance? 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. |
Dave Stark
5868
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 16:56:00 -
[1305] - Quote
Tippia wrote:They could still hull tank with bulkheads, slight revision; then you're excluding freighters the option of shield tanking without that strange pseudo fitting low slot module. |
Valterra Craven
244
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 16:59:00 -
[1306] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Tu quoque is a fallacy. Quote:One that applies both ways. Tippia wrote:You're the one who said that their capabilities aren't sufficient for you. No, I said they were not a sufficient comparison given the different capabilities and roles the ships play. [quote=Tippia]And what I'm saying is that if you change the word "orca" with the word "they" it functionally changes nothing GǪand since GǣmentionGǥ also means GǣreferenceGǥ that's hardly a surprise. You referenced them. You even mentioned them by name. The mention is there, no matter how much you claim it isn't. You have decided that you will only accept the meaning Gǣbring upGǥ, which means you have dived head first down the true scotsman well, and now have trouble getting back to the surface. The fallacy does not disprove the fact of what you did.
What I did was respond to a post, nothing more. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22033
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 17:02:00 -
[1307] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Tippia wrote:They could still hull tank with bulkheads, slight revision; then you're excluding freighters the option of shield tanking without that strange pseudo fitting low slot module. To be fair, I'm excluding a lot more than that. The idea of having a ship that can only fit fitting-free modules intrigues me. The main problem, as noted above, is that some modules would have to be made free to fit to make that part of the equation work. 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. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1552
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 17:03:00 -
[1308] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: I love the idea of lowslot fitting on freighters, but I firmly believe the DCU is too potent to balance a ship with such insane amounts of structure. Remove the ability to fit a DCU on a freighter if you give it a low slot.
then you're forcing all freighters to armour tank. They could still hull tank with bulkheads, but I still think that the best method of doing that would be to alter bulkhead fitting requirements and just make sure a DC would be out of reach for what you can get onto a freigther. So I really wonder what the effects would be if bulkheads became free to fit. Are any ships that could currently benefit from fitting them barred from doing so? Are there any ships where it's currently impossible to do so and where making it possible to fit bulkheads would massively alter their balance?
i dnt actually know if they have a CPU problem but hull tanked battleships with new hull rigs might be quite powerful. Provided they dnt need cargo 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" |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
3641
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 17:03:00 -
[1309] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: I love the idea of lowslot fitting on freighters, but I firmly believe the DCU is too potent to balance a ship with such insane amounts of structure. Remove the ability to fit a DCU on a freighter if you give it a low slot.
then you're forcing all freighters to armour tank. They could still hull tank with bulkheads, but I still think that the best method of doing that would be to alter bulkhead fitting requirements and just make sure a DC would be out of reach for what you can get onto a freigther. So I really wonder what the effects would be if bulkheads became free to fit. Are any ships that could currently benefit from fitting them barred from doing so? Are there any ships where it's currently impossible to do so and where making it possible to fit bulkheads would massively alter their balance? You are aware that bulkheads will reduce cargo, right?
Cargo capacity is the raison d'+¬tre for freighters / jump freighters.
CCP Fozzie wrote:We are also going to swap the speed penalty on all reinforced bulkhead modules to an equal percentage cargo capacity penalty. The agility penalty will remain intact at this time. |
Valterra Craven
244
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 17:05:00 -
[1310] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:No I didn't. we've been through this; you did. as much as it's amusing to watch you say you didn't even though the post has been quoted and linked several times, it's getting boring listening to you drowning in denial.
People that are bored with something generally find something else to do that is entertaining. Given that you continue to respond You actions contradict your words. |
|
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 17:07:00 -
[1311] - Quote
double post |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1552
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 17:09:00 -
[1312] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:Tippia wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: I love the idea of lowslot fitting on freighters, but I firmly believe the DCU is too potent to balance a ship with such insane amounts of structure. Remove the ability to fit a DCU on a freighter if you give it a low slot.
then you're forcing all freighters to armour tank. They could still hull tank with bulkheads, but I still think that the best method of doing that would be to alter bulkhead fitting requirements and just make sure a DC would be out of reach for what you can get onto a freigther. So I really wonder what the effects would be if bulkheads became free to fit. Are any ships that could currently benefit from fitting them barred from doing so? Are there any ships where it's currently impossible to do so and where making it possible to fit bulkheads would massively alter their balance? You are aware that bulkheads will reduce cargo, right? Cargo capacity is the raison d'+¬tre for freighters / jump freighters. CCP Fozzie wrote:We are also going to swap the speed penalty on all reinforced bulkhead modules to an equal percentage cargo capacity penalty. The agility penalty will remain intact at this time.
that only makes it even more appropriate 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" |
Dave Stark
5870
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 17:11:00 -
[1313] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:being wrong still stop it
Tippia wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Tippia wrote:They could still hull tank with bulkheads, slight revision; then you're excluding freighters the option of shield tanking without that strange pseudo fitting low slot module. To be fair, I'm excluding a lot more than that. The idea of having a ship that can only fit fitting-free modules intrigues me. The main problem, as noted above, is that some modules would have to be made free to fit to make that part of the equation work. yes, a ship with fitting slots but no cpu/pg would be a unique niche. still, even if we gave that to freighters we'd have to take it out back and beat it a bit. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
699
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 17:11:00 -
[1314] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Tippia wrote:They could still hull tank with bulkheads, slight revision; then you're excluding freighters the option of shield tanking without that strange pseudo fitting low slot module.
nobody cared when they did it with barges and haulers. |
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 17:12:00 -
[1315] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:being wrong still stop it
I will stop when you admit that I wasn't whining in my responses.
|
Dave Stark
5870
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 17:13:00 -
[1316] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:Tippia wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: I love the idea of lowslot fitting on freighters, but I firmly believe the DCU is too potent to balance a ship with such insane amounts of structure. Remove the ability to fit a DCU on a freighter if you give it a low slot.
then you're forcing all freighters to armour tank. They could still hull tank with bulkheads, but I still think that the best method of doing that would be to alter bulkhead fitting requirements and just make sure a DC would be out of reach for what you can get onto a freigther. So I really wonder what the effects would be if bulkheads became free to fit. Are any ships that could currently benefit from fitting them barred from doing so? Are there any ships where it's currently impossible to do so and where making it possible to fit bulkheads would massively alter their balance? You are aware that bulkheads will reduce cargo, right? Cargo capacity is the raison d'+¬tre for freighters / jump freighters. CCP Fozzie wrote:We are also going to swap the speed penalty on all reinforced bulkhead modules to an equal percentage cargo capacity penalty. The agility penalty will remain intact at this time.
actually, moving cargo is the raison d'etre. having lots of space for it, is just a bonus.
carrying lots of stuff is useful if you can't get to your destination like some of the poor folk who don't quite make it through udema. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22035
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 17:13:00 -
[1317] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:You are aware that bulkheads will reduce cargo, right?
Cargo capacity is the raison d'+¬tre for freighters / jump freighters. Yes. That's a balance you have to strike in your fitting. I just got the idea from Mynnna's post earlier about what it would look like in numerical terms. The big problem is the DCII and what it does at both ends of the spectrum: on the one hand, how much hull would have to go down to allow them; on the other hand how much stronger that one module makes the ship.
So the idea then becomes: what if we skip over both that massive nerf and the massive swing in results by simply disallowing the module. Afaik, bulkheads and expanders don't cancel each other out completely, so fitting both means you end up with something that's better than baseline, but not with a more moderated variance and you can tailor the end result with a bit more granularity.
The crucial modules for a 0 CPU/0 grid freighter would be: cargo expanders, istabs, concevably nanos (but why fit them over istabs?), and conceivably the warp speed mod mynnna also proposed (in which case it needs class restrictions rather than massive fitting space requirements). Bulkheads need to be on that list too as the only module that offers any kind of tanking without favouring shields or armour and without creating the huge swing in stats that a suitcase does. 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. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3940
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 17:14:00 -
[1318] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: I love the idea of lowslot fitting on freighters, but I firmly believe the DCU is too potent to balance a ship with such insane amounts of structure. Remove the ability to fit a DCU on a freighter if you give it a low slot.
then you're forcing all freighters to armour tank.
As it is, a DCU is a single slot, pragmatically no drawback module that would DOUBLE the tank of a freighter. I'm sorry, but it is insane to balance agility, speed, capacity, and tank around such a powerful module.
Next, I disagree with you on the "forcing all freighters to armor tank".
Have you looked at the stats of a Charon? Shields: 7500 Armor: 25000 Structure: 130000+
A bulkhead will still add more raw EHP than an EANM. If you could et 80% resists with 4 modules, you'd still add less EHP than 4 bulkheads to that ship! The difference though, is that RR works MUCH, MUCH better on the ship with resists. So, while I agree you are forced to "armor tank" if you have logi along, that has as everything to do with the distribution of HP, and nothing to do with a DCU2.
The main issue is with DCU's, is that one DCU2 adds more EHP than 4x Bulkheads, which makes balancing the "tanking" vs capacity / agility / speed way out of whack. It basically forces balancing to assume the dcu is fit, which is another phrase for making that module mandatory. I think a more interesting balance would be achieved by taking the DCU out of the picture, and balancing along the lines of bulkheads, cargo expanders, etc.
|
Dave Stark
5871
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 17:17:00 -
[1319] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:I'm sorry, but it is insane to balance agility, speed, capacity, and tank around such a powerful module.
which is arguably why rig slots were chosen instead of low slots. in order to accommodate the potential use of a DCII the nerf to freighter EHP would have been unpleasant. |
Punctator
Billionaires Club Aureus Alae
18
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 17:17:00 -
[1320] - Quote
stupid as always CCP... it is just sad, notheing more to say |
|
coolkay
Herrscher der Zeit Test Alliance Please Ignore
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 17:23:00 -
[1321] - Quote
Ships can fiitit rigs com say http://gamersplatform.de/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/2371600-9530080022-13605.gif
ccp say ship rebalance com say http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-RtwUSRfGyzU/TfCmV69zjuI/AAAAAAAAAIY/gF_04e91C9k/s1600/fuck_u_.jpg
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6389
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 17:25:00 -
[1322] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote: If you rig a bit for both, both are less.
Not entirely true.
If you rig for both, tank goes up a bit, cargo goes down a bit. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Aerissa Nolen
XYJAX
15
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 17:26:00 -
[1323] - Quote
A few issues to clarify that I keep seeing repeated, at least in regard to T1 freighters:
- there is no nerf to T1 agility; this was a typo, it has been fixed; T1 agility/mass has not changed
- the nerf to T1 EHP is being drastically over-stated in this thread, at least as it applies to hisec ganking; I believe because people were using rigs that reduced tank to compensate for the T1 agility "nerf" that turned out to be a mistake
- the actual nerf if you want similar EHP/agility as now is a slight nerf to T1 cargo sizes and slightly increased pricing (owing to having to buy rigs)
- the slight nerf to *default* cargo size comes with the buff of added flexibility and specialization options
I'm happy with the change to T1 freighters. Cargo size was the least relevant limitation on hisec freight. You will hit unsafe ISK values LONG before you hit cargo size limitations in 90% of the cases for things you want to haul. I will happily take a small nerf to default cargo sizes in exchange for customization choices.
The indirect price increase (through rigs) is a bit more annoying, but whatever. As pointed out already, the relevant rig prices have a long way to fall once demand increases, so looking at current Jita sell values is not a good way to determine the eventual cost. It will be lower than most seem to expect.
And if you happen to be in a minority hauling bulk, low value items (Trit!) all day every day, go buy a Charon and rig it up for pure cargo and be happy with the BUFF you just got because now you can haul about 20% more and still be under normal ganking values.
Wrap your brain around Kronos freighter changes: http://xyjax.com/optimizer_kronos/ |
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 17:31:00 -
[1324] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:What I'm saying is that when you evaluate things in a chronological order there is a difference between something being mentioned and something being responded to. The difference is only in who mentioned it first. Being the second still means you mentioned it. You rather have to for your response not to be off topic and nonsensical. Would you prefer that interpretation instead? That you were just spamming irrelevant troll posts?
Well its not an interpretation, that is pretty much what I was doing. Much like a vast majority of the posts by both and you Dave. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3941
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 17:33:00 -
[1325] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:I'm sorry, but it is insane to balance agility, speed, capacity, and tank around such a powerful module.
which is arguably why rig slots were chosen instead of low slots. in order to accommodate the potential use of a DCII the nerf to freighter EHP would have been unpleasant.
Rigs are permanent upgrades, and cannot be easily swapped to fit the situation. I'm alright with simply adding rigs to freighters, I'd prefer the ability to fit modules though. Preventing the use of DCU2's shouldn't be that arduous, and would allow a nice balance spot between the modules already in the game.
|
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1083
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 17:33:00 -
[1326] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: I love the idea of lowslot fitting on freighters, but I firmly believe the DCU is too potent to balance a ship with such insane amounts of structure. Remove the ability to fit a DCU on a freighter if you give it a low slot.
then you're forcing all freighters to armour tank. As it is, a DCU is a single slot, pragmatically no drawback module that would DOUBLE the tank of a freighter. I'm sorry, but it is insane to balance agility, speed, capacity, and tank around such a powerful module. Next, I disagree with you on the "forcing all freighters to armor tank". Have you looked at the stats of a Charon? Shields: 7500 Armor: 25000 Structure: 130000+ A bulkhead will still add more raw EHP than an EANM. If you could et 80% resists with 4 modules, you'd still add less EHP than 4 bulkheads to that ship! The difference though, is that RR works MUCH, MUCH better on the ship with resists. So, while I agree you are forced to "armor tank" if you have logi along, that has as everything to do with the distribution of HP, and nothing to do with a DCU2. The main issue is with DCU's, is that one DCU2 adds more EHP than 4x Bulkheads, which makes balancing the "tanking" vs capacity / agility / speed way out of whack. It basically forces balancing to assume the dcu is fit, which is another phrase for making that module mandatory. I think a more interesting balance would be achieved by taking the DCU out of the picture, and balancing along the lines of bulkheads, cargo expanders, etc.
Low slot only allowing bulkhead, inertia stabs and cargo expander. Yes there would be tradeoff for sure but at least it would being real flexibility instead of just an illusion because people surely won't scrap rigs left and right to use that "flexibility" like they would with slots... |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3285
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 17:37:00 -
[1327] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:I'm sorry, but it is insane to balance agility, speed, capacity, and tank around such a powerful module.
which is arguably why rig slots were chosen instead of low slots. in order to accommodate the potential use of a DCII the nerf to freighter EHP would have been unpleasant. Rigs are permanent upgrades, and cannot be easily swapped to fit the situation. I'm alright with simply adding rigs to freighters, I'd prefer the ability to fit modules though. Preventing the use of DCU2's shouldn't be that arduous, and would allow a nice balance spot between the modules already in the game.
Harder than you might think.
Eve has no understanding of 'only these modules' or 'but not that class of ship' Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Dave Stark
5875
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 17:38:00 -
[1328] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:I'm sorry, but it is insane to balance agility, speed, capacity, and tank around such a powerful module.
which is arguably why rig slots were chosen instead of low slots. in order to accommodate the potential use of a DCII the nerf to freighter EHP would have been unpleasant. Rigs are permanent upgrades, and cannot be easily swapped to fit the situation. I'm alright with simply adding rigs to freighters, I'd prefer the ability to fit modules though. Preventing the use of DCU2's shouldn't be that arduous, and would allow a nice balance spot between the modules already in the game. Harder than you might think. Eve has no understanding of 'only these modules' or 'but not that class of ship'
any chance of CCP going back on this?
it's clear nobody likes the changes, and the "alternatives" are just as unlikable. freighters are already balanced anyway, it's not like this is needed in any way, shape, or form.
honestly, the best solution to this to leave freighters alone. |
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 17:40:00 -
[1329] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:I'm sorry, but it is insane to balance agility, speed, capacity, and tank around such a powerful module.
which is arguably why rig slots were chosen instead of low slots. in order to accommodate the potential use of a DCII the nerf to freighter EHP would have been unpleasant. Rigs are permanent upgrades, and cannot be easily swapped to fit the situation. I'm alright with simply adding rigs to freighters, I'd prefer the ability to fit modules though. Preventing the use of DCU2's shouldn't be that arduous, and would allow a nice balance spot between the modules already in the game. Harder than you might think. Eve has no understanding of 'only these modules' or 'but not that class of ship'
What eve are you playing?
Bastion mods, siege mods, MWJD mods, strip miners.... all have ship restrictions tied them. Would it be a hack to say that this mod could fit on every ship but a freighter? Yes. Would it be hard to do based on current code? Doesn't seem likely.
|
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
3642
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 17:41:00 -
[1330] - Quote
Aerissa Nolen wrote:A few issues to clarify that I keep seeing repeated, at least in regard to T1 freighters:
- the slight nerf to *default* cargo size comes with the buff of added flexibility and specialization options
I disagree, as I don't have a choice how I will rig.
I went with a Charon since ever m3 matters to me. My alts trained Caldari Freighter 5 for the same reason. The current proposed changes mean I must fit at least 2x T2 cargo rigs, or all that investment is lost and I'm worse off. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22039
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 17:41:00 -
[1331] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Harder than you might think.
Eve has no understanding of 'only these modules' or 'but not that class of ship' WellGǪ there is an easy way: give them 0 CPU. That rather ruins the ability to fit a DCU. I can't think of any modules that increase CPU by a fixed amount the way you can with MAPCs and grid, and any percentage-based ones would just increase 0 by some percentage of 0 (i.e. 0).
Could you gently kick some dev and make them investigate what kind of disaster zero-CPU bulkhead modules would cause? 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. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3941
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 17:45:00 -
[1332] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Harder than you might think.
Eve has no understanding of 'only these modules' or 'but not that class of ship' WellGǪ there is an easy way: give them 0 CPU. That rather ruins the ability to fit a DCU. I can't think of any modules that increase CPU by a fixed amount the way you can with MAPCs and grid, and any percentage-based ones would just increase 0 by some percentage of 0 (i.e. 0). Could you gently kick some dev and make them investigate what kind of disaster zero-CPU bulkhead modules would cause?
Hell, the freighter's bonus could include a 100% reduction in the CPU requirements of bulkheads. They've done this with cloaks in the past.
|
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 17:45:00 -
[1333] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Harder than you might think.
Eve has no understanding of 'only these modules' or 'but not that class of ship' WellGǪ there is an easy way: give them 0 CPU. That rather ruins the ability to fit a DCU. I can't think of any modules that increase CPU by a fixed amount the way you can with MAPCs and grid, and any percentage-based ones would just increase 0 by some percentage of 0 (i.e. 0). Could you gently kick some dev and make them investigate what kind of disaster zero-CPU bulkhead modules would cause?
Why should bulkheads be the exception? Armor Plates have fitting requirements... and thus so should bulkheads. |
Gospadin
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
138
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 17:46:00 -
[1334] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Gospadin wrote:Why shouldn't we be able to get to the same point we are now? because the whole point of a change is to depart from the current situation. not that we should depart from the current situation.
Exactly.
IMO, two t1 cargo and one t1 bulkhead should give the exact same stats that the ships have today
tune the base stats so that's true, and then people can decide where to go from there
more tank? go with more bulkheads more cargo? go with more cargo rich? have some of both, using t2 rigs |
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
433
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 17:46:00 -
[1335] - Quote
As long as you are changing the ship stats, why not take a look at the ship skill bonuses, too?
The JF bonuses are good, but the freighter 5% bonus per level to maximum velocity has always been something of a joke.
Perhaps this can be changed to a bonus to agility or a bonus to warp speed?
(Apologies if this has already been suggested in an earlier post) |
Nightingale Actault
Divided Unity The Night Crew Alliance
29
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 17:47:00 -
[1336] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:Aerissa Nolen wrote:A few issues to clarify that I keep seeing repeated, at least in regard to T1 freighters:
- the slight nerf to *default* cargo size comes with the buff of added flexibility and specialization options
I disagree, as I don't have a choice how I will rig. I went with a Charon since ever m3 matters to me. My alts trained Caldari Freighter 5 for the same reason. The current proposed changes mean I must fit at least 2x T2 cargo rigs, or all that investment is lost and I'm worse off.
So you are currently filling each and every freighter to max cargo for every trip? Are you above or below 1 billion isk cargo value? |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
3642
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 17:48:00 -
[1337] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Eve has no understanding of 'only these modules' or 'but not that class of ship' Erm... you sure?
* Covert cloaking device * Covert cyno * Bomb Launcher * Interdiction sphere launcher * Warp disruption field generator * Siege module * Triage module * Industrial core * Clone vat * Gang link
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1555
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 17:48:00 -
[1338] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:I'm sorry, but it is insane to balance agility, speed, capacity, and tank around such a powerful module.
which is arguably why rig slots were chosen instead of low slots. in order to accommodate the potential use of a DCII the nerf to freighter EHP would have been unpleasant. Rigs are permanent upgrades, and cannot be easily swapped to fit the situation. I'm alright with simply adding rigs to freighters, I'd prefer the ability to fit modules though. Preventing the use of DCU2's shouldn't be that arduous, and would allow a nice balance spot between the modules already in the game. Harder than you might think. Eve has no understanding of 'only these modules' or 'but not that class of ship' What eve are you playing? Bastion mods, siege mods, MWJD mods, strip miners.... all have ship restrictions tied them. Would it be a hack to say that this mod could fit on every ship but a freighter? Yes. Would it be hard to do based on current code? Doesn't seem likely.
saying a module can only fit on these types of ships appears to be different to saying a module can fit on everything but these types of ship.
perhaps u could do it the long way and say the the DC can only be fit on these (list of every ship of the game except freighters). but thats the difficult part, and something always goes wrong when u do it like that. 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" |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22039
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 17:50:00 -
[1339] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Why should bulkheads be the exception? Because they're hull upgrades. The other hull upgrades don't have any fitting requirements.
Also, because no-one seriously fits hull when armour or shield is an option, and armour and shield is what really separates the races so it doesn't particularly affect most ships. It's not really the fitting restrictions that keep people from fitting hull tanks, but the sheer lunacy of hull tanking. Well, with one exception: Orcas. And post-patch freighters. 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. |
Bagehi
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
270
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 17:51:00 -
[1340] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:Aerissa Nolen wrote:A few issues to clarify that I keep seeing repeated, at least in regard to T1 freighters:
- the slight nerf to *default* cargo size comes with the buff of added flexibility and specialization options
I disagree, as I don't have a choice how I will rig. I went with a Charon since ever m3 matters to me. My alts trained Caldari Freighter 5 for the same reason. The current proposed changes mean I must fit at least 2x T2 cargo rigs, or all that investment is lost and I'm worse off. 3 T1 cargo rigs lead to an increase (to just over 1m rather than just under 1m) cargo capacity as far as I can tell. It is a bit annoying that there will be a significant increase to the cost of owning a freighter/jf because of this change. That said, the JFs are the ones that are getting the shaft with these changes.
Release jump fuel use reduction rigs along with this change and I think people might be less grumpy. There just aren't any useful rigs for these ships besides cargo rigs and maybe some nav rigs (depending on how people haul), so this just functions as an increased barrier to entry for large volume hauling. |
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6394
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 17:52:00 -
[1341] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Eve has no understanding of 'only these modules' or 'but not that class of ship' Erm... you sure? * Covert cloaking device * Covert cyno * Bomb Launcher * Interdiction sphere launcher * Warp disruption field generator * Siege module * Triage module * Industrial core * Clone vat * Gang link
There is a difference, as you would know if you had read above.
Those modules have "Only XYZ can fit this" as opposed to "A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M,N,O,P,Q,R,S,T,U,V,W except XYZ can fit this".
So yeah, they're coded a bit differently. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22039
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 17:53:00 -
[1342] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Eve has no understanding of 'only these modules' or 'but not that class of ship' Erm... you sure? * Covert cloaking device * Covert cyno * Bomb Launcher * Interdiction sphere launcher * Warp disruption field generator * Siege module * Triage module * Industrial core * Clone vat * Gang link Again, all of those have GÇ£can only be fitted toGÇ¥ attributes. None of them have any kind of GÇ£can't be fitted toGÇ¥ attribute. The fact that they can't be fitted to some ships is just a result of a ship not being on the approved list.
If, for instance, the industrial core had a GÇ£not that class of shipGÇ¥-style restriction, it would have to list every class in the game except one, which is a really ugly way of doing things. Instead, it just lists the one it can be fitted to. 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. |
Buzz Dura
Epsilon Lyr Mordus Angels
9
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 17:57:00 -
[1343] - Quote
I did not find enough out of the box suggestion, here some :
add a med slot keep the only 1cpu/1PG
role bonus : Autopilot warp at zero Can fit Target Spectrum Breaker -100% requirement to Target Spectrum Breaker |
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 17:57:00 -
[1344] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Why should bulkheads be the exception? Because they're hull upgrades. The other hull upgrades don't have any fitting requirements. Also, because no-one seriously fits hull when armour or shield is an option, and armour and shield is what really separates the races so it doesn't particularly affect most ships. It's not really the fitting restrictions that keep people from fitting hull tanks, but the sheer lunacy of hull tanking. Well, with one exception: Orcas. And post-patch freighters.
And my point is that hull tanking upgrades aren't properly balanced and making them require 0 fitting just to fit the freighter case is horrible and only furthers their imbalance. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22041
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 17:59:00 -
[1345] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:And my point is that hull tanking upgrades aren't properly balanced and making them require 0 fitting just to fit the freighter case is horrible and only furthers their imbalance. How so? 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. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1555
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 18:01:00 -
[1346] - Quote
Buzz Dura wrote:I did not find enough out of the box suggestion, here some :
add a med slot keep the only 1cpu/1PG
role bonus : Autopilot warp at zero Can fit Target Spectrum Breaker -100% requirement to Target Spectrum Breaker
out the box and into space 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" |
XxRTEKxX
Fenrir's Dogs of War Union 0f Revolution
113
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 18:02:00 -
[1347] - Quote
This is not a good change. Idea of rigs on freighters was great, but not this massive nerf. Two thumbs down or two middle fingers up are what these changes look like. |
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 18:02:00 -
[1348] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:And my point is that hull tanking upgrades aren't properly balanced and making them require 0 fitting just to fit the freighter case is horrible and only furthers their imbalance. How so?
Well you said so earlier yourself, no one seriously fits hull upgrade tanking mods seriously except in two cases. This is not balanced. The drone rebalance thread is a perfect example of this. Two types of drones weren't getting used because they suck (and this will likely still be the case afterwards) so they got changed. Since there are three types of HP and people only tank two of them because the third isn't viable, then the third is not balanced. |
Aerissa Nolen
XYJAX
18
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 18:07:00 -
[1349] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:Aerissa Nolen wrote:A few issues to clarify that I keep seeing repeated, at least in regard to T1 freighters:
- the slight nerf to *default* cargo size comes with the buff of added flexibility and specialization options
I disagree, as I don't have a choice how I will rig. I went with a Charon since ever m3 matters to me. My alts trained Caldari Freighter 5 for the same reason. The current proposed changes mean I must fit at least 2x T2 cargo rigs, or all that investment is lost and I'm worse off.
Collectively, WE have a choice how to rig. YOUR choice is that every last m3 matters to you, so you will rig for m3. Your max skilled, optimally rigged Charon just had its cargo capacity increased by 14% at a cost of about 7% reduction in EHP.
Now, maybe you complain about cost of T2 cargo rigs? In which case, use only T1 cargo rigs and bump your cargo by ONLY 6% from current for a pittance compared to hull cost. Still at only a 7% reduction in EHP. Wrap your brain around Kronos freighter changes: http://xyjax.com/optimizer_kronos/ |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22041
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 18:07:00 -
[1350] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Well you said so earlier yourself, no one seriously fits hull upgrade tanking mods seriously except in two cases. This is not balanced. No, it just means that only two (well, three) classes are set up in such a way that they benefit from hull tanking. That in and of itself is not unbalanced.
Even if it were, that would just mean that making the hull buffer module more viable would improve the balance, not make it more imbalanced. 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. |
|
Drezen Tor
Black Omega Security Goonswarm Federation
5
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 18:28:00 -
[1351] - Quote
Buzz Dura wrote:I did not find enough out of the box suggestion, here some :
add a med slot keep the only 1cpu/1PG
role bonus : Autopilot warp at zero Can fit Target Spectrum Breaker -100% requirement to Target Spectrum Breaker
And get CONCORDed in high sec? Yeah, that sounds like a great change... |
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 18:28:00 -
[1352] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Well you said so earlier yourself, no one seriously fits hull upgrade tanking mods seriously except in two cases. This is not balanced. No, it just means that only two (well, three) classes are set up in such a way that they benefit from hull tanking. That in and of itself is not unbalanced. Even if it were, that would just mean that making the hull buffer module more viable would improve the balance, not make it more imbalanced.
But you aren't arguing to make the hull buffer module more viable. Removing the fitting requirements from the model wasn't the imbalanced aspect of them anyway and doing so would only make them fittable in this one off case in which devs have already stated they don't like doing. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22042
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 18:37:00 -
[1353] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:But you aren't arguing to make the hull buffer module more viable. Removing the fitting requirements from the model wasn't the imbalanced aspect of them anyway Then we're back to: how so? How are they imbalanced?
Quote:doing so would only make them fittable in this one off case in which devs have already stated they don't like doing. Which case would that be? 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. |
Ydnari
Estrale Frontiers Project Wildfire
331
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 18:39:00 -
[1354] - Quote
These changes are fine and should be implemented as originally posted. my teapot is ready |
MaraudR73
V0LTA Triumvirate.
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 18:47:00 -
[1355] - Quote
I paid almost 7 Billion for my Rhea and now I have to pay 1.5 Billion more to get a ship that is worse then before????
Hell no to these Jump Freighter changes!!!
I will have to pay 1.5 Billion for T2 rigs to get the same cargohold on my Rhea and then I still get the align-time nerf!
Is this CCP trying to get money out of peoples pockets?
No to this ridicilous nerf! |
Sipphakta en Gravonere
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
606
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 18:59:00 -
[1356] - Quote
MaraudR73 wrote:I will have to pay 1.5 Billion for T2 rigs to get the same cargohold on my Rhea and then I still get the align-time nerf!
Once the market settles and there is actual demand for t2 cargo rigs, the prices will be much much lower. Currently almost nobody builds them because they moved very slowly (if they sold at all) before this change was announced.
(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Resource
Closes On Wardec
4
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 19:03:00 -
[1357] - Quote
These changes are as ignorant and short sighted as your ridiculous war deck mechanics. CCP, you don't deserve new players/customers. You treat them like absolute sh!t. Your catering to the elite and to the predators of this game will be your downfall. |
MaraudR73
V0LTA Triumvirate.
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 19:03:00 -
[1358] - Quote
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:MaraudR73 wrote:I will have to pay 1.5 Billion for T2 rigs to get the same cargohold on my Rhea and then I still get the align-time nerf! Once the market settles and there is actual demand for t2 cargo rigs, the prices will be much much lower. Currently almost nobody builds them because they moved very slowly (if they sold at all) before this change was announced.
Even if they get cheaper, I still have to PAY for rigs on a ship that will still be worse AFTER you put those rigs on. |
S'No Flake
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
35
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 19:10:00 -
[1359] - Quote
MaraudR73 wrote:Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:MaraudR73 wrote:I will have to pay 1.5 Billion for T2 rigs to get the same cargohold on my Rhea and then I still get the align-time nerf! Once the market settles and there is actual demand for t2 cargo rigs, the prices will be much much lower. Currently almost nobody builds them because they moved very slowly (if they sold at all) before this change was announced. Even if they get cheaper, I still have to PAY for rigs on a ship that will still be worse AFTER you put those rigs on.
It's called nerf :) And it won't be the only ship that was nerfed in EVE... |
M0ND II
Void Associates
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 19:19:00 -
[1360] - Quote
Dumbest re-balance to date - in one hand out the other, JF punched in the face twice. Way to go Fozzie (not much to expect from yanks) |
|
Marc Rene
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 19:20:00 -
[1361] - Quote
When rigs for freighters were first announced I thought great finally a way to customize my ship somewhat, but to be honest what I am seeing makes me wonder why you are even bothering? Save yourself the work as what you are proposing currently seems counter productive.
I can understand the changes to jump freighters to a certain extent, as this is an attempt to force people to source locally and reduce the airmiles on goods in nulsec somewhat, but given the size and revenues of the old boys club this is a flawed approach as ultimately you are attempting to balance on cost, which won't hurt the incumbents so much as just build the barrier for entry for new players even higher.
I can't understand why you are removing tank from standard freighters, they are laughably easy to gank currently and if anything the pendulum has swung too far that way - when I first heard about rig slots on freighters I thought great CCP are finally giving haulers a chance to defend themselves, instead you are forcing people to spend out on capital rigs to get their tank back to what it was.
Reducing the cargo capacity seems a bit pointless, you already countered packaged capitals entering Hi by increasing their size - and it is going to make it an even bigger pain when you want to move base of operation (as the push/pull industry changes in Kronos are meant to drive you to do). You can't transport many rigged ships via courier contract in a freighter as it is now - you run out of space before you get near the current 1bn gank bait limit. |
S1euth
The Graduates RAZOR Alliance
43
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 19:22:00 -
[1362] - Quote
Does anyone actually find internet spaceship truck driving fun in this game? Why nerf something to ensure more time is spent doing something that is not enjoyable?! |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1555
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 19:22:00 -
[1363] - Quote
M0ND II wrote:racist carebaer tears that will probs get deleted
racist carebear tears. de-lish 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
32
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 19:23:00 -
[1364] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:M0ND II wrote:racist carebaer tears that will probs get deleted racist carebear tears. de-lish Americans is not a race. |
Ranamar
Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind
57
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 19:25:00 -
[1365] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:I'm sorry, but it is insane to balance agility, speed, capacity, and tank around such a powerful module.
which is arguably why rig slots were chosen instead of low slots. in order to accommodate the potential use of a DCII the nerf to freighter EHP would have been unpleasant. Rigs are permanent upgrades, and cannot be easily swapped to fit the situation. I'm alright with simply adding rigs to freighters, I'd prefer the ability to fit modules though. Preventing the use of DCU2's shouldn't be that arduous, and would allow a nice balance spot between the modules already in the game. Harder than you might think. Eve has no understanding of 'only these modules' or 'but not that class of ship'
Not a perfect solution, but... Keep the 1CPU/1PG, which locks almost everything out, while adding low slots. (This keeps DCII and most other modules off.) Possibly add a -100% fitting role bonus for bulkheads, if we want bulkheads to be fittable. Do the same for WCS if we want WCS fittable, but that seems like a trap option to me.
I can't guarantee a full list, but I think slots but no fittings leaves: Inertia Stabilizer Nanofiber Internal Structure Expanded Cargohold Overdrive a single adaptive nano plating (and then you're out of grid...)
Am I missing anything?
WCS, armor layering, and bulkheads all require some CPU. The one unfortunate lack here is the inability to improve the freighters' warp speed. |
Buzz Dura
Epsilon Lyr Mordus Angels
9
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 19:27:00 -
[1366] - Quote
Drezen Tor wrote:Buzz Dura wrote:I did not find enough out of the box suggestion, here some :
add a med slot keep the only 1cpu/1PG
role bonus : Autopilot warp at zero Can fit Target Spectrum Breaker -100% requirement to Target Spectrum Breaker And get CONCORDed in high sec? Yeah, that sounds like a great change...
that is something that can be changed too ! |
Gavin Dax
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
27
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 19:31:00 -
[1367] - Quote
Don't like these changes at all.
Modules are much better suited to this because rigs can only be removed if they are destroyed. Optimal rigs for the freighter will change for each trip the freighter makes depending on cargo/destination. So really, these don't allow any useful customization at all. You get intel that there are some potential gankers in your path? Ok refit to hull rigs! Oh wait... that will cost you 600 mil.
Everyone knows 90% of freighters will just use the cargo rigs, so this is not a very useful change.
IMO, at the very least freighters should not be allowed to fit cargo rigs. Keep the cargoholds the same as before. Jump fuel/range rigs are also a better idea IMO for the jump freighters.
I also thought one of the goals of freighter changes would be to do something to increase the variability and risk/reward involved in HS ganking (so it's not as simple as "what's the EHP? ok we need x many nados/catalysts to guarantee the kill"). But I guess that wasn't considered as part of these changes? |
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 19:31:00 -
[1368] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:But you aren't arguing to make the hull buffer module more viable. Removing the fitting requirements from the model wasn't the imbalanced aspect of them anyway Then we're back to: how so? How are they imbalanced?
I don't understand why you are being intentionally dense.
You said that no one fits hull tanking mods because they aren't viable... so if you believe they aren't viable, then please say why. When you do so I will tell you why they aren't balanced. It has nothing to do with fitting.
Tippia wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:doing so would only make them fittable in this one off case in which devs have already stated they don't like doing. Which case would that be?
Let me rephrase, changing the fitting requirements to what you are proposing would not improve their viability on any other ship while only benefiting the freighter case if you were to give it low slots and keep the CPU the same. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1555
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 19:33:00 -
[1369] - Quote
Walter Hart White wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:M0ND II wrote:racist carebaer tears that will probs get deleted racist carebear tears. de-lish Americans is not a race.
FTFY 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" |
Batolemaeus
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
163
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 19:37:00 -
[1370] - Quote
Marc Rene wrote: I can understand the changes to jump freighters to a certain extent, as this is an attempt to force people to source locally
Local production without local resources. You are a funny guy. |
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6399
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 19:40:00 -
[1371] - Quote
S1euth wrote:Does anyone actually find internet spaceship truck driving fun in this game? Why nerf something to ensure more time is spent doing something that is not enjoyable?!
This is an opportunity to make the game more fun.
I would be very interested in hearing how you propose to make hauling "more fun".
Do elaborate on that. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
|
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
3051
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 19:40:00 -
[1372] - Quote
Removed some off topic posts. ISD Dorrim Barstorlode Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
2725
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 19:49:00 -
[1373] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:S1euth wrote:Does anyone actually find internet spaceship truck driving fun in this game? Why nerf something to ensure more time is spent doing something that is not enjoyable?!
This is an opportunity to make the game more fun. I would be very interested in hearing how you propose to make hauling "more fun". Do elaborate on that.
http://i.imgur.com/V7KpPiK.jpg Rifterlings pirate corporation is now recruitng members for lowsec PvP operations. Newbie friendly, free T1 frigate and dessy hangar, solo tutoring and PvP classes for new members. Join our in game channel 'weflyrifters' and speak to a recruiter today. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22043
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 19:57:00 -
[1374] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:You said that no one fits hull tanking mods because they aren't viable. No. I said that you only very rarely fit them because hull tanking isn't a proper tanking style outside of Orcas and (now) freighters. As such, giving them no fitting requirements won't affect any other ships, which is a good thing since the point would be to give freighters, specifically, a tanking option that freed them from the problems of damage controls under the proposed scheme.
Quote:When you do so I will tell you why they aren't balanced. So you can't say why they're imbalanced.
Quote:Let me rephrase, changing the fitting requirements to what you are proposing would not improve their viability on any other ship while only benefiting the freighter case if you were to give it low slots and keep the CPU the same. And?
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. |
|
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
3051
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 20:02:00 -
[1375] - Quote
Removed a ranting post. ISD Dorrim Barstorlode Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
Dave Stark
5879
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 20:02:00 -
[1376] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:S1euth wrote:Does anyone actually find internet spaceship truck driving fun in this game? Why nerf something to ensure more time is spent doing something that is not enjoyable?!
This is an opportunity to make the game more fun. I would be very interested in hearing how you propose to make hauling "more fun". Do elaborate on that.
i propose the same idea suggested for everything else; shoehorn an irrelevant and terrible minigame in to it. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6400
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 20:04:00 -
[1377] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:S1euth wrote:Does anyone actually find internet spaceship truck driving fun in this game? Why nerf something to ensure more time is spent doing something that is not enjoyable?!
This is an opportunity to make the game more fun. I would be very interested in hearing how you propose to make hauling "more fun". Do elaborate on that. i propose the same idea suggested for everything else; shoehorn an irrelevant and terrible minigame in to it.
Since it has to do with cargo, I suggest a Tetris ripoff game. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Dave Stark
5879
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 20:04:00 -
[1378] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:S1euth wrote:Does anyone actually find internet spaceship truck driving fun in this game? Why nerf something to ensure more time is spent doing something that is not enjoyable?!
This is an opportunity to make the game more fun. I would be very interested in hearing how you propose to make hauling "more fun". Do elaborate on that. i propose the same idea suggested for everything else; shoehorn an irrelevant and terrible minigame in to it. Since it has to do with cargo, I suggest a Tetris ripoff game. i'm more a minesweeper kind of guy, personally. |
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 20:08:00 -
[1379] - Quote
Tippia wrote:
Also, because no-one seriously fits hull when armour or shield is an option, and armour and shield is what really separates the races so it doesn't particularly affect most ships. It's not really the fitting restrictions that keep people from fitting hull tanks, but the sheer lunacy of hull tanking. Well, with one exception: Orcas. And post-patch freighters.
I've bolded the important part of your words. Why is hull tanking sheer lunacy?
Tippia wrote:No. I said that you only very rarely fit them because hull tanking isn't a proper tanking style outside of Orcas and (now) freighters. As such, giving them no fitting requirements won't affect any other ships, which is a good thing since the point would be to give freighters, specifically, a tanking option that freed them from the problems of damage controls under the proposed scheme.
Saying something is lunacy and saying something isn't a proper tanking style are not the same thing. The first has connotations that the idea isn't viable, while the other has connotations that it could be viable but is not optimal.
So I will ask again, why is hull tanking not viable/lunacy?
Tippia wrote:Quote:Let me rephrase, changing the fitting requirements to what you are proposing would not improve their viability on any other ship while only benefiting the freighter case if you were to give it low slots and keep the CPU the same. And?
And balancing mods around one use case when they could be used on numerous ships is bad balancing. |
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
111
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 20:15:00 -
[1380] - Quote
Hull Tanking isn't viable, except on the Rorq and Orca, because you can't add resists beyond a DCUII and can't efficiently rep (even the best Hull rep is a joke compared to Armor or Shield).
It used to be an option, back when you COULD add hull resists and such, but isn't anymore. It's a joke, people that do it, do it for novelty, cause in every case outside the Orca and Rorq, tanking Armor or Shield would yield better results. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22043
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 20:16:00 -
[1381] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:I've bolded the important part of your words. Why is hull tanking sheer lunacy? Because of the low EHP and non-existing rep rates you get out of it compared to the intended tanking style of the ship.
Quote:So I will ask again, why is hull tanking not viable/lunacey? It's entirely viable. You're just confusing two completely unrelated words.
Quote:And balancing mods around one use case when they are used on numerous ships is bad balancing. What other ships are those? How is it bad balancing to balance around the ships that use a given module? And how are bulkheads imbalanced? How would making them take up no fitting space make them more imbalanced? You're not making any sense here. 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. |
Batolemaeus
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
164
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 20:17:00 -
[1382] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:S1euth wrote:Does anyone actually find internet spaceship truck driving fun in this game? Why nerf something to ensure more time is spent doing something that is not enjoyable?!
This is an opportunity to make the game more fun. I would be very interested in hearing how you propose to make hauling "more fun". Do elaborate on that.
You make hauling more fun by making it take less time. This is a zero sum game. Less time spent hauling is more time spent actually having fun in the game.
How about supplying a small roaming gang worth of people shouldn't take up my entire evening so that I can't even fly with them.
A quick jita supply run takes me about 4 hours in total. This nerf makes it take even longer. Supplying people has taken over so much of my play time that I've long burnt out and I haven't found much willpower to still fleet up. One thing will have to go. Judging by the atrocious attrition rate for logistics people, most people just quit entirely...
Logistics needs a boost. It should be easier to supply people. I don't care what has to be changed to do this, but giving line members in 0.0 the ability to source resources locally would be a nice step. Local productions jobs are much easier to go through if I could just set and forget buyorders for everything I need. I can stomach regular redeployments, but the current state of the empire umbilical cord is terrible. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1556
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 20:22:00 -
[1383] - Quote
Batolemaeus wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:S1euth wrote:Does anyone actually find internet spaceship truck driving fun in this game? Why nerf something to ensure more time is spent doing something that is not enjoyable?!
This is an opportunity to make the game more fun. I would be very interested in hearing how you propose to make hauling "more fun". Do elaborate on that. You make hauling more fun by making it take less time. This is a zero sum game. Less time spent hauling is more time spent actually having fun in the game.
this is true.
missions also take too long and are boring. let me run missions faster but make the same amount of money per mission. what could go wrong.
Mining too falls into this scenario. increase my yield and lower cycle rate. i is good a economics :3 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" |
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 20:27:00 -
[1384] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Because of the low EHP and non-existing rep rates you get out of it compared to the intended tanking style of the ship.
It's entirely viable.
Hull tanking is not viable on any ship currently with two exceptions as stated above. And the ONLY reason its viable on those two ships is because they have massive Hull HP with meager shield and armor HP. If those two ships had been balanced properly when they first came out, they would be balanced around capital ship armor or shield tanks since that's what those two ships are. Its been awhile since those ships were released, but given CCP's history I don't think that those two ships being the only one in game that can fit viable hull tanks was done intentionally. If it was, that, much like these changes were a bad idea.
Tippia wrote:Valterra wrote:And balancing mods around one use case when they are used on numerous ships is bad balancing. What other ships are those? How is it bad balancing to balance around the ships that use a given module? And how are bulkheads imbalanced? How would making them take up no fitting space make them more imbalanced? You're not making any sense here.
Well, according to this statement: "It's entirely viable." You yourself made the argument that Hull tanking was viable for all other ships. So if that's the case, then balancing around the freighter is a bad way to balance. So which is it? Is hull tanking viable on all ships? I'm not the one thats making no sense here. |
NickSuccorso
Arcana Imperii Ltd. Black Flag Society
41
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 20:30:00 -
[1385] - Quote
CCP Fozzie, this change is a great start!
Every freighter pilot here needs to understand that this "re-balance" isn't intended to help freighters in their current role. It is clearly intended to reverse the damage that freighters and jump freighters have done to Eve game play.
Eve needs local production, regional economies, and a reason for people to move into low-sec.
Eve was so much more fun before the introduction of jump bridges and jump freighters. People had to mine and build things locally. That meant there were players in the asteroid belts, hauling things through gates, out in space!
The only major problem with this change is that it isn't enough. CCP Fozzie, it is very important that jump bridges be dealt with as well during this re-balance.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22043
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 20:32:00 -
[1386] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Hull tanking is not viable on any ship currently with two exceptions as stated above. In other words, it's viable. Oh, and it's only one proper exception has been mentioned GÇö the Rorqual is better of shield tanking.
Quote:If those two ships had been balanced properly when they first came out, they would be balanced around capital ship armor or shield tanks since that's what those two ships are. No, one is a capital and is balanced around capital shield tanking; the other is a hybrid and balanced around hull tanking GÇö being a ship that is allowed in highsec, it can't even begin to have anything to do with capital-scale tanking.
Quote:You yourself made the argument that Hull tanking was viable for all other ships. Nope. That's just some nonsensical strawman you've made up.
You also keep failing to answer the question: how is it bad balancing to balance around the ships that use a given module? And how are bulkheads imbalanced? How would making them take up no fitting space make them more imbalanced?
Or are you just trolling again? 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. |
Batolemaeus
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
165
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 20:38:00 -
[1387] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:this is true.
missions also take too long and are boring. let me run missions faster but make the same amount of money per mission. what could go wrong.
Mining too falls into this scenario. increase my yield and lower cycle rate. i is good a economics :3
These are not equivalent. |
Batolemaeus
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
165
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 20:44:00 -
[1388] - Quote
NickSuccorso wrote: Eve was so much more fun before the introduction of jump bridges and jump freighters. People had to mine and build things locally. That meant there were players in the asteroid belts, hauling things through gates, out in space!
It wasn't.
Freighter convoys were such a crappy experience that people rushed to get their cargorevs in place. I lost so many hours to that boring tripe, and I don't want it back ever again. As soon as titan bridges were in game, people rushed to get them to ease logistics and reduce attrition rates on their people.
Also, this isn't 2006 anymore. The standard to be competitive is t2, because CCP made t2 that much more powerful than t1. That means you either have t2 or you perish. Pandora's Box has been opened many years ago, you aren't going to reverse it now. T2 means importing. Always. If you don't, you die. |
Jack Earthfire
Everse Defense Initiative
14
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 20:49:00 -
[1389] - Quote
NickSuccorso wrote:CCP Fozzie, this change is a great start!
Every freighter pilot here needs to understand that this "re-balance" isn't intended to help freighters in their current role. It is clearly intended to reverse the damage that freighters and jump freighters have done to Eve game play.
Eve needs local production, regional economies, and a reason for people to move into low-sec.
Eve was so much more fun before the introduction of jump bridges and jump freighters. People had to mine and build things locally. That meant there were players in the asteroid belts, hauling things through gates, out in space!
The only major problem with this change is that it isn't enough. CCP Fozzie, it is very important that jump bridges be dealt with as well during this re-balance.
Three Thumbs up!.. have only two, but who cares: Three Thumbs up! |
Axe Coldon
Coldon Enterprises Axion Bionics
38
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 20:51:00 -
[1390] - Quote
NickSuccorso wrote:CCP Fozzie, this change is a great start!
Every freighter pilot here needs to understand that this "re-balance" isn't intended to help freighters in their current role. It is clearly intended to reverse the damage that freighters and jump freighters have done to Eve game play.
Eve needs local production, regional economies, and a reason for people to move into low-sec.
Eve was so much more fun before the introduction of jump bridges and jump freighters. People had to mine and build things locally. That meant there were players in the asteroid belts, hauling things through gates, out in space!
The only major problem with this change is that it isn't enough. CCP Fozzie, it is very important that jump bridges be dealt with as well during this re-balance.
Gee I hope you are being sarcastic.
Unless they remove Jump Freighters stuff will still go back and forth.
The problem with trying to explain industry in null is it is not within the confines of a forum. It would be long and bore everyone. And anyways this is supposed to be a sandbox. We import because we want too. Plain and simple.
After the industry changes (compression and such) I do plan to make as much as i can in null and only send the excess to high. But there will be excesses to send. And they will go with or without the nerf. Main reason is the higher refine rate in null. That alone will encourage us to make as much as we can out there. And its possible to establish a regional hub within coalitions. Well that is and has been true for a long time.
Oddly enough..I import because why send the jf back empty. Null has more rare ore then high. well High has none. ha. So you export and import goods you do not want to make yourself on the return trip. So as long as goods move to high..goods will move back to null. and anyways ccp has said they like that. They purposely make it so not everything is in one location.
Forcing actions hurts the little guys more. I think the future is the little guy. The cool thing about eve is who will be the next super power? (not me, I don't care) IF we make it hard on the little guys then its harder for them to rise to power.
Honestly I think we are just repeating ourselves over and over. Now we just have to see if CCP will tweak the changes or leave as is or delay or what. |
|
Cor'len
Remnant of an Empire Psychosomatic.
2
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 20:55:00 -
[1391] - Quote
Dearest CCP,
Please stop f*cking up this game. Is it completely utterly out of the realm of possibility for you to actually do something nice for players, for once? Like making logistics less annoying?
Obviously not, because you keep doing these things.
Here's a heartfelt wish from my heap of alts to all you game designers (nerf artists): Go home. Get some sleep. Find a different line of work - I suppose demolition work might suit you, because it's all about breaking down things, and sometimes even breaking down the hopes and dreams of other people?
Just don't f*ck up the game any more than it already is. Thanks!
-Cor |
Markus45
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
9
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 20:56:00 -
[1392] - Quote
How is this a nerf exactly?
Freighters: - You are given the option to fit more EHP at the cost of cargohold - You are given the option to fit more cargohold at the cost of a small amount EHP - You are given more shield/armor thereby increasing the viability of RR support
Jump Freighters: - You are given the option to fit more EHP, to the point of having absurd EHP, at the cost of cargohold - You are given the option to fit more cargohold at the cost of a small amount of EHP - You are given substantially more shield/armor and T2 resists thereby making RR support very viable.
Nerf? What? |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6402
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 20:58:00 -
[1393] - Quote
Markus45 wrote:How is this a nerf exactly? Freighters: - You are given the option to fit more EHP at the cost of cargohold - You are given the option to fit more cargohold at the cost of a small amount EHP - You are given more shield/armor thereby increasing the viability of RR support Jump Freighters: - You are given the option to fit more EHP, to the point of having absurd EHP, at the cost of cargohold - You are given the option to fit more cargohold at the cost of a small amount of EHP - You are given substantially more shield/armor and T2 resists thereby making RR support very viable. Nerf? What? Look at the charts http://themittani.com/news/proposed-freighter-and-jump-freighter-changes-kronos
Not getting an across the board buff counts as a nerf now, didn't you know? "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
111
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 21:01:00 -
[1394] - Quote
Markus45 wrote:How is this a nerf exactly? Freighters: - You are given the option to fit more EHP at the cost of cargohold - You are given the option to fit more cargohold at the cost of a small amount EHP - You are given more shield/armor thereby increasing the viability of RR support Jump Freighters: - You are given the option to fit more EHP, to the point of having absurd EHP, at the cost of cargohold - You are given the option to fit more cargohold at the cost of a small amount of EHP - You are given substantially more shield/armor and T2 resists thereby making RR support very viable. Nerf? What? Look at the charts http://themittani.com/news/proposed-freighter-and-jump-freighter-changes-kronos And maybe tomorrow all your PVP ships should require a new mod to keep doing what they are doing, a module which costs as much or more than your ship+fit as it stands now.
If CCP made a chance where each PVP ship needed to fit a mod(s) to stay where it's at, then you'd go postal too.
This isn't like a change to just the Mega or something, this is a change to ALL ships that can do the job. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6402
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 21:06:00 -
[1395] - Quote
Sniper Smith wrote:Markus45 wrote:How is this a nerf exactly? Freighters: - You are given the option to fit more EHP at the cost of cargohold - You are given the option to fit more cargohold at the cost of a small amount EHP - You are given more shield/armor thereby increasing the viability of RR support Jump Freighters: - You are given the option to fit more EHP, to the point of having absurd EHP, at the cost of cargohold - You are given the option to fit more cargohold at the cost of a small amount of EHP - You are given substantially more shield/armor and T2 resists thereby making RR support very viable. Nerf? What? Look at the charts http://themittani.com/news/proposed-freighter-and-jump-freighter-changes-kronos And maybe tomorrow all your PVP ships should require a new mod to keep doing what they are doing, a module which costs as much or more than your ship+fit as it stands now. If CCP made a chance where each PVP ship needed to fit a mod(s) to stay where it's at, then you'd go postal too. This isn't like a change to just the Mega or something, this is a change to ALL ships that can do the job.
The difference being that people asked, ad nauseum, for freighters to get rigs.
So quit trying to make this about PvP ships vs. PvE ships. This is about buyer's remorse from fools who thought they could have their cake and eat it too. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
B Plague
Remnant of an Empire Psychosomatic.
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 21:11:00 -
[1396] - Quote
YES! GREAT IDEA *sarcasm*. Anyone that can afford a freighter should have to drop another bill in rigs to make proper and equivalent use of it; and seeing as high sec suicide ganks are already super common, let us lower its defence to continue the policy of running off industry people! I feel that to balance the subtractions being made, as well as the added cost we have to invest for the rigs, that the base cost needs to be reduced to match. When you wield your nerf bat can't you at least be fair about it? |
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
111
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 21:12:00 -
[1397] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:lol wat? u mean like a hurricane where u have to buy an entire faction ship, not just T2 mods, to get it to do what it used to? Now if that was more than just one ship, but ALL Cruisers/BS's you'd have a proper analogy. It's not like there are a dozen lines of Freighters and they are only changing one..
Also, I wasn't one of the people asking for the change.. I knew it was gonna be a disaster the moment he said it at Fanfest. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6402
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 21:14:00 -
[1398] - Quote
B Plague wrote: and seeing as high sec suicide ganks are already super common
Highsec suicide ganks on freighters are exceedingly rare. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
522
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 21:15:00 -
[1399] - Quote
NickSuccorso wrote:CCP Fozzie, this change is a great start!
Every freighter pilot here needs to understand that this "re-balance" isn't intended to help freighters in their current role. It is clearly intended to reverse the damage that freighters and jump freighters have done to Eve game play.
Eve needs local production, regional economies, and a reason for people to move into low-sec.
Eve was so much more fun before the introduction of jump bridges and jump freighters. People had to mine and build things locally. That meant there were players in the asteroid belts, hauling things through gates, out in space!
The only major problem with this change is that it isn't enough. CCP Fozzie, it is very important that jump bridges be dealt with as well during this re-balance.
This is noble goals, but what do freighters in High sec have to do with that?
As for the 00 sec and Low sec part, I completely understand and support that kind of development. 00 sec is just as stagnant because players are lazy and feel way to entitled to an easy life, especially in Sov 00. This easy mode should stop. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22044
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 21:18:00 -
[1400] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:See the words you stated in literally the same post: "in other words, it's viable". See how they don't include the strawman bit you added?
Quote:Is hull tanking viable for one ship, or all ships? Mu.
Quote:So I'm trolling when I say I think your idea is bad and try to offer reasons why. Since you offer no reasons why, yes.
I'll ask again. Last chance this time GÇö any further evasions or general failure to respond will be interpreted as you trolling; as their not being imbalanced; and as their being no appreciable effect on balance from giving them zero fitting requirements as far as you can tell.
Here goes: how is it bad balancing to balance around the ships that use a given module? And how are bulkheads imbalanced? How would making them take up no fitting space make them more imbalanced? 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. |
|
Platinum Playa
Black Hole Weaponry
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 21:19:00 -
[1401] - Quote
"Game Balance" and "Choices" would mean that you could put a certain configuration of rigs and get a ship with the same stats as the previous stats. This would then allow people to sacrifice some stat to gain some other stat by swapping out the "standard config of rigs". Anything else is a nerf! So, unless they change the numbers to match this strategy, lets just call a spade a spade and accept this as what it is... a huge nerf to the hauling industry!
There is no argument that anyone can make to define this any other way that is not just a euphemism for nerf. Its obvious that they wish to drastically increase the cost of transportation in order to put economic pressure to use their new industrial changes and produce locally, use only jump freighters of the race for the fuel in your operating area, and isolate from economic interaction areas of space (except where HUGE price differentials put counter economic pressure).
Many people who say prices will not change and "I will still undercut all" are the ones without good spreadsheets and are not taking into account all the expenses and time. These are the stupid industrialists who waste all their game time to make squat/hour. |
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 21:23:00 -
[1402] - Quote
Markus45 wrote:How is this a nerf exactly? Freighters: - You are given the option to fit more EHP at the cost of cargohold - You are given the option to fit more cargohold at the cost of a small amount EHP - You are given more shield/armor thereby increasing the viability of RR support Jump Freighters: - You are given the option to fit more EHP, to the point of having absurd EHP, at the cost of cargohold - You are given the option to fit more cargohold at the cost of a small amount of EHP - You are given substantially more shield/armor and T2 resists thereby making RR support very viable. Nerf? What? Look at the charts http://themittani.com/news/proposed-freighter-and-jump-freighter-changes-kronos
I have looked at the charts... and I still think this is an across the board nerf.
You are given the option to fit more EHP at the cost of cargohold. Right, so I gain around 40% HP to loose 50% cargo and at best it costs half of the value of the ship to do so. Nerf I also
- You are given the option to fit more cargohold at the cost of a small amount EHP Right, so I gain around 10% more cargo to loose 10% HP and at best it costs half of the value of the ship to do so. Nerf
Any of the rest of your examples suffer the same problem. Little gain for massive cost.
|
Wulfy Johnson
NorCorp Security
43
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 21:24:00 -
[1403] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:B Plague wrote: and seeing as high sec suicide ganks are already super common Highsec suicide ganks on freighters are exceedingly rare.
oh, they will return soon tm. war is over, people gets bored, hisec gets it.. circle of live.. |
Jattila Vrek
Green Visstick High
10
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 21:28:00 -
[1404] - Quote
I'm not unhappy with this. I was unhappy with the warp changes, now I can undo that at the cost of some EHP and a third of my cargo space. And some isk. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
522
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 21:33:00 -
[1405] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:B Plague wrote: and seeing as high sec suicide ganks are already super common Highsec suicide ganks on freighters are exceedingly rare.
Can't remember when I laughed as hard the last time.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22045
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 21:37:00 -
[1406] - Quote
5GÇô15 kills per day, many of which aren't even suicide ganks since they happen outside of highsec? Yeah, that's laughably rare. 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. |
Mag's
the united
17277
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 21:39:00 -
[1407] - Quote
This link is meant to prove what exactly?
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
522
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 21:46:00 -
[1408] - Quote
Mag's wrote:This link is meant to prove what exactly?
That freighter ganks in High sec are not "exceedingly rare". |
Mag's
the united
17277
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 21:49:00 -
[1409] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Mag's wrote:This link is meant to prove what exactly? That freighter ganks in High sec are not " exceedingly rare". Oh. So as it didn't, why post it?
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 21:50:00 -
[1410] - Quote
Tippia wrote: .See how they don't include the strawman bit you added?
You mean how they exactly include evasion and confusion and state that hull tanking is viable because its viable on just one ship?
Tippia wrote:Mu./quote] Figures you can't answer a simple question. Tippia wrote:Since you offer no reasons why, yes. You mean I didn't offer reasons that you agreed with. The balancing convention to date is that mods that modify attributes that modify your HP in any way have fitting requirements. This is true for plates and this is true for extenders and it should be true for bulkheads. Balancing bulkheads just so they could fit your one off idea is bad because as stated the hole field of hull tanking should be balanced for all ships to make them viable(and this is something that's been asked for ad nausem just as much as rigs for freighters has) [quote=Tippia] I'll ask again. Last chance this time GÇö any further evasions or general failure to respond will be interpreted as you trolling; as their not being imbalanced; and as their being no appreciable effect on balance from giving them zero fitting requirements as far as you can tell. Here goes: how is it bad balancing to balance around the ships that use a given module? And how are bulkheads imbalanced? How would making them take up no fitting space make them more imbalanced?
Right, I'm the one evading when you provide nonsensical answers like this: "Mu". As to your opinion on what my posts are or not is irrelevant.
Its not bad to balance around ships that use a given module. Its bad to balance around ships that use a given module when the module should be just as viable on other ships in the game. Because they are tanking mods and tanking mods require fitting tradeoffs. You shouldn't get something for nothing.
|
|
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
1231
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 21:51:00 -
[1411] - Quote
Mag's wrote:This link is meant to prove what exactly?
I believe it's meant to prove that freighters are entirely safe in 0.7 sec and higher. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22046
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 21:52:00 -
[1412] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:That freighter ganks in High sec are not " exceedingly rare". If the number of them killed on an average day can be counted on the fingers of one hand, that qualifies pretty well as rare to an extreme degree. Come back when you're at least well into the double digits. 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. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
522
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 21:53:00 -
[1413] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Oh. So as it didn't, why post it?
We seem to have different standards on the word "exceedingly". I for one rather follow the dictionary's definition in this case.
|
Enthes goldhart
The Generic Pirate Corporation Shadow Cartel
15
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 21:53:00 -
[1414] - Quote
I like the changes!
But it would be nice to have a low slot. |
Mag's
the united
17277
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 21:53:00 -
[1415] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Mag's wrote:This link is meant to prove what exactly? I believe it's meant to prove that freighters are entirely safe in 0.7 sec and higher. That may be it and he was a little confused.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Mag's
the united
17278
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 21:56:00 -
[1416] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Mag's wrote:Oh. So as it didn't, why post it? We seem to have different standards on the word "exceedingly". I for one rather follow the dictionary's definition in this case. Standards against what definition exactly? Do you have knowledge on the amount of suicide ganks of freighters, compared with the amount of freighters runs per day? (In high sec and outside of war decs of course.)
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
524
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 21:58:00 -
[1417] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:That freighter ganks in High sec are not " exceedingly rare". If the number of them killed on an average day can be counted on the fingers of one hand, that qualifies pretty well as rare to an extreme degree. Come back when you're at least well into the double digits.
I am back. :> |
Mag's
the united
17278
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 22:01:00 -
[1418] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Tippia wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:That freighter ganks in High sec are not " exceedingly rare". If the number of them killed on an average day can be counted on the fingers of one hand, that qualifies pretty well as rare to an extreme degree. Come back when you're at least well into the double digits. I am back. :> With yet another link that doesn't help your cause. You are a strange fellow.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22048
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 22:03:00 -
[1419] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:We seem to have different standards on the word "exceedingly". I for one rather follow the dictionary's definition in this case. Somewhere around a dozen of them are lost on a daily basis. Only maybe half of those are from suicide ganks.
Let's compare that to the daily losses in one of the least flown ship types in the game. Oh myGǪ many times more. For something that doesn't really ever see the light of day. Yeah, GǣexceedinglyGǥ seems quite accurate for the rarity of freighter kills, and even more so for suicide ganks when you consider how commonly they are flown and how rarely they are lost.
Valterra Craven wrote:Right, I'm the one evading when you provide nonsensical answers like this: "Mu". Just because you don't understand the answer does not mean it's nonsensical. Look up the term (or just ask) if you don't know what it means.
Quote:Its not bad to balance around ships that use a given module. Its bad to balance around ships that use a given module when the module should be just as viable on other ships in the game. Because they are tanking mods and tanking mods require fitting tradeoffs. You shouldn't get something for nothing. They do require trade-offs, especially in the proposed scenario. And the module is just as viable on other ships in the game.
You still failed to answer the main question: how are bulkheads imbalanced? How does reducing their fitting requirements to nothing make them more imbalanced?
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. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
524
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 22:03:00 -
[1420] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:Tippia wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:That freighter ganks in High sec are not " exceedingly rare". If the number of them killed on an average day can be counted on the fingers of one hand, that qualifies pretty well as rare to an extreme degree. Come back when you're at least well into the double digits. I am back. :> With yet another link that doesn't help your cause. You are a strange fellow.
She just asked me to come back when I have freighter kills per day in the double digits realm. At this late hour I cannot be bothered to search killboards for the exact numbers on that extended weekend. |
|
Kosh Seere
Space Exploitation Inc Get Off My Lawn
24
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 22:06:00 -
[1421] - Quote
Ray Kyonhe wrote:Querns wrote:Jump freighter usage is all about cargo, cargo, cargo. Increasing your cargo reduces the number of trips you have to make, period, which serves to both reduce the amount of fuel you consume and the amount of time you spend running cargo. You know, you can easly reduce number of jumps other way: by reducing amounts of goods you are really have to transfer. Like, by creating some industry infrastructure and fill the market right on the spot. And I think this is what devs want to tell us by this change (and I hope there will be others like that in future). Plese enlighten me on why CCP shouild railroad my playing in such an open sandbox as EVE? Skill yourself! |
Arthur Aihaken
Erebus Solia
3596
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 22:07:00 -
[1422] - Quote
Should we start equating "rebalance" with "nerf"? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1559
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 22:07:00 -
[1423] - Quote
now burn jita is an exceedingly rare event 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" |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
10278
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 22:07:00 -
[1424] - Quote
Good evening everyone. Just wanted to let you guys know that we haven't forgotten about you. I'm discussing a few improvements to the design with the CSM now, and we'll be able to start getting your feedback on them soon.
Have a good night! Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Mag's
the united
17278
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 22:09:00 -
[1425] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:now burn jita is an exceedingly rare event And not even remotely an average day. But it was an active link, so that part was good.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22048
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 22:12:00 -
[1426] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:now burn jita is an exceedingly rare event Once a year? Not very common and definitely not average. It's also exceedingly easy not to lose a freighter to it. 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. |
Alundil
Rolled Out
509
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 22:12:00 -
[1427] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Good evening everyone. Just wanted to let you guys know that we haven't forgotten about you. I'm discussing a few improvements to the design with the CSM now, and we'll be able to start getting your feedback on them soon.
Have a good night! Perhaps we just didn't meet the magic page number threshold to get "improvements to the design".
Well played CCP
|
Napoleon Aldent
Rolled Out
19
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 22:15:00 -
[1428] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Good evening everyone. Just wanted to let you guys know that we haven't forgotten about you. I'm discussing a few improvements to the design with the CSM now, and we'll be able to start getting your feedback on them soon.
Have a good night!
Don't worry guys. When Foxfour said they were going to discuss removal of NPC kills in WH systems from the API, they took the time to listen to player feedback and come to the correct conclusion.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4583223#post4583223
CCP FoxFour wrote:Hello again,
I hope you all had a wonderful weekend. I said that the game design department would have another review of this proposal here on Monday, and that meeting has come and gone.
The conclusions of the meeting, and having talked to the CSM9, is that we WILL be removing WHs from the kills endpoint. This means that NPC, pod, and ship kill counts for WH systems will no longer be available from the EVE API.
So, I would take this message from Fozzie as indication that by the end of the week, freighters will have about 200m3 of cargo space and Jump Freighters will have their jump range cut in half. You guys have nothing to worry about. Our angle is that we care about objective game balance, regardless of who it benefits or hurts.-á -Goonswarm 2014 |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
525
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 22:23:00 -
[1429] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:now burn jita is an exceedingly rare event Once a year? Not very common and definitely not average. It's also exceedingly easy not to lose a freighter to it.
You would think... |
Keeper of TheLost
Empty Skulls
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 22:37:00 -
[1430] - Quote
Why didn't you just come out and say hey were nurfing jump freighters but if you T2 rig them you can either get back your align time, cargo space, or more ehp. Now Fozzie wouldn't that be simpler. I can see needing T1 rigs to be equal to what they were before but T2 you really lost your marbles didn't you. |
|
Kosh Seere
Space Exploitation Inc Get Off My Lawn
24
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 22:40:00 -
[1431] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Commander A9 wrote:It's already easy enough to take down a freighter through the use of multi-client software I seriously doubt this has happened more than maybe once or twice ever. It's certainly not common. Freighter ganking isn't easy even as a group effort among individual players. That's not true at all. Check out this guy from my previous corp http://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=25398 Skill yourself! |
Potions Master
GearBunny Redrum Fleet
5
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 22:41:00 -
[1432] - Quote
Since you're reducing capacity of freighters and jump freighters, are you also considering reducing the size of very large objects that are freighter carryable only (Such as Infrastructure Hubs, Station Platforms, I-Hub upgrades, Etc...?) |
Kraschyn Thek'athor
Die..Brut
31
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 22:43:00 -
[1433] - Quote
This Nerf is Fuckshit! Normally I'am polite. But this lacks a lot of dedication and thoughts and in some way embarrasing.
You can fit other ships to a real lot of functions with Modules. Freighters and JumpfFreighter are One-Trick Ponies. They carry stuff!
So... how will this end.... Jumpfreighter build for Cargo jump into Empire. Player changes ship to a normal Freighters build for Tank/Agility take over the cargo and bring it to the Trade hubs... This is a one time investment of arround 2 billions to get where we started.
Fix Capital Cargo rigs with the tag "Not fittable on Freighters and Jumpfreighters". Keep all stuff like it is. So we can deceide with rigs, more agility, more tank, more warp speed...
Even nicer would be a system resembling the T3 system with specialisation for different Cargo Types, special gadgets. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates RAZOR Alliance
445
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 22:44:00 -
[1434] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Good evening everyone. Just wanted to let you guys know that we haven't forgotten about you. I'm discussing a few improvements to the design with the CSM now, and we'll be able to start getting your feedback on them soon.
Have a good night!
This is good PR. Thank you for treating us with some basic decency and respect. We owe you the same. This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |
Azami Nevinyrall
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
1898
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 23:00:00 -
[1435] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Good evening everyone. Just wanted to let you guys know that we haven't forgotten about you. I'm discussing a few improvements to the design with the CSM now, and we'll be able to start getting your feedback on them soon.
Have a good night! I hope you leave the stats of these ships alone...for the mostpart.
Change Cargoholds so with T2 Rigs you cannot smuggle Capitals into Highsec! I can understand a slight poke here and there with the base stats, but nothing to radical as they currently are!
Otherwise I'll be asking alot of "Why exactly are these changes necessary outside of something to do." Which would promptly be ignored in a orderly fashion. I hope everyone voted in the CSM elections! Thank you to those who actually supported my campaign! Even if I don't get elected in, I hope that the CSM that do, and Devs actually use my ideas somewhere! |
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
24
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 23:05:00 -
[1436] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Good evening everyone. Just wanted to let you guys know that we haven't forgotten about you. I'm discussing a few improvements to the design with the CSM now, and we'll be able to start getting your feedback on them soon.
Have a good night!
if the csm is about anything really I hope they ripped you a new one to the point you'll need a spreadsheet to figure out how to take a dump on a toilet.
this was a bad job done by you fozzie.. when you write your goodbye letter.. trust I will not be sad one bit. |
XxRTEKxX
Fenrir's Dogs of War Union 0f Revolution
116
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 23:08:00 -
[1437] - Quote
When CCP announced the good news at Fan Fest of their plans for adding rig slots to freighters, did they say they were also going to massively nerf freighters and JF's? |
Arthur Aihaken
Erebus Solia
3597
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 23:11:00 -
[1438] - Quote
Why not keep the proposed changes and give both freighters and jump freighters a single mid, two lows and enough grid and CPU so that they can recoup the lost cargo with expanded cargoholds, a damage control, nanofibers, inertia controls and a 100MN microwarpdrive? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Kethry Avenger
We Build Stuff Inc.
122
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 23:13:00 -
[1439] - Quote
In my opinion this seems like to much of a nerf to everything.
I'm not sure I understand why the need for EHP, align time and cargo needing to be reduced. It does make sense to me to reduce cargo so that with the addition of rigs they don't balloon out of proportion. But I've never really thought they needed slower align time or less EHP. Actually I've often thought the opposite.
I support Mynna's idea of lowslots instead of rigs.
I would also support lowslots and rigs. Would require adjustment to cargo. But I don't think there is a strong need to reduce align time or EHP.
I believe lowslots or lowslots and rigs is a much better option that the current plan do to not being a large isk burden on the up and coming professional hauler. Where a decent size group or null sec bloc can fit out a JF with an extra billion worth of rigs or have 3 different rigged freighters that is much harder for the first time freighter pilot.
Though if I personally was going to rebalance Freighters and make them more interesting. I would give them 2 highslots, one turret or launcher. 6 slots in the mids and lows, and about half the CPU and grid of a dread. I would also move away from having most of their EHP in Hull and give them more racial flavored tanks. With a boost to EHP of 10-25% when fit for full tank from now. If this needed to be delay the release of the change I would be ok with this. |
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 23:16:00 -
[1440] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Right, I'm the one evading when you provide nonsensical answers like this: "Mu". Just because you don't understand the answer does not mean it's nonsensical. Look up the term (or just ask) if you don't know what it means.
Uh huh. So the phrase "not nothing" when asked a point blank simple question isn't evasive and nonsensical. Good to know that I'm not the troll after all. At least I answered your posts. |
|
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 23:18:00 -
[1441] - Quote
Tippia wrote:5GÇô15 kills per day, many of which aren't even suicide ganks since they happen outside of highsec and/or during wardecs? Yeah, that's laughably rare.
Hey looks its Mu! |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22052
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 23:22:00 -
[1442] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Uh huh. So the phrase "not nothing" when asked a point blank simple question isn't evasive and nonsensical. Nope. It is, in fact, the only sensible answer to your false dichotomy.
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. |
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 23:22:00 -
[1443] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Valterra Craven wrote: So I will ask you point blank:
Is hull tanking viable for one ship, or all ships?
Neither, and you are really bad at false dichotomies.
So if I'm so bad at false dichotomies, what other options are there for hull tanking if not "viable" or "not viable" aren't the only two options? |
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 23:24:00 -
[1444] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Uh huh. So the phrase "not nothing" when asked a point blank simple question isn't evasive and nonsensical. Nope. It is, in fact, the only sensible answer to your false dichotomy.
So the answer to the post is not "Mu". The answer to the post is "these are not the only two options, here are some other examples."
That's how to not be an evasive non nonsensical troll. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22052
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 23:25:00 -
[1445] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:So the answer to the post is not "Mu". Yes it is.
Quote:So if I'm so bad at false dichotomies, what other options are there for hull tanking if "viable" or "not viable" aren't the only two options? But that wasn't the question, now was it?
Oh, and: how are bulkheads imbalanced? How would making them take up no fitting space make them more imbalanced? 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. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6405
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 23:29:00 -
[1446] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Valterra Craven wrote: So I will ask you point blank:
Is hull tanking viable for one ship, or all ships?
Neither, and you are really bad at false dichotomies. So if I'm so bad at false dichotomies, what other options are there for hull tanking if "viable" or "not viable" aren't the only two options?
That is not what you wrote.
Hull tanking is not viable for just one ship, nor is it viable for all ships.
The possibility of it being somewhere in between those two extremes seems to have escaped you. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 23:30:00 -
[1447] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:So the answer to the post is not "Mu". Yes it is.
If your a troll it is.
Tippia wrote:Oh, and: how are bulkheads imbalanced? How would making them take up no fitting space make them more imbalanced?
See post #1375 for my stated answer that states exactly this. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6405
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 23:31:00 -
[1448] - Quote
Oh, and I see Rivr Luzade has no idea what the difference is between a suicide gank and any time a freighter dies, ever.
You should really look up on it. And if in fact you are not that shockingly ignorant, then that's a pretty poor attempt at trolling even for you. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 23:32:00 -
[1449] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Valterra Craven wrote: So I will ask you point blank:
Is hull tanking viable for one ship, or all ships?
Neither, and you are really bad at false dichotomies. So if I'm so bad at false dichotomies, what other options are there for hull tanking if "viable" or "not viable" aren't the only two options? That is not what you wrote. Hull tanking is not viable for just one ship, nor is it viable for all ships. The possibility of it being somewhere in between those two extremes seems to have escaped you.
No, it hasn't escaped me. I'm saying that I have seen no other provable examples to counter your point that what I've said isn't true. In fact, if what you are saying is true, the statement "Hull tanking is only currently viable for one ship" would be easily demonstrated as false by ONE example. So, let me ask you point blank. How many ships is hull tanking viable on? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22052
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 23:33:00 -
[1450] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:If your a troll it is. I don't own any trolls, be they of an GÇ£aGÇ¥ type or otherwise.
Quote:See post #1375 for my stated answer that states exactly this. GÇ£Its not bad to balance around ships that use a given module. Its bad to balance around ships that use a given module when the module should be just as viable on other ships in the game. Because they are tanking mods and tanking mods require fitting tradeoffs. You shouldn't get something for nothing.GÇ¥
Nothing about how they are imbalanced. Nothing about how giving them fitting space would make them more imbalanced. So GÇ£exactly thisGÇ¥ is referring to something completely different than I'm asking for.
What I'm asking is: how are bulkheads imbalanced? How would making them take up no fitting space make them more imbalanced? 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. |
|
Semidurr
The North Capsuleers The North is Coming
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 23:38:00 -
[1451] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Let's compare that to the daily losses in one of the least flown ship types in the game. Oh myGǪ many times more. For something that doesn't really ever see the light of day. Yeah, GǣexceedinglyGǥ seems quite accurate for the rarity of freighter kills, and even more so for suicide ganks when you consider how commonly they are flown and how rarely they are lost.
Let's not compare daily losses of the >PVP-ONLY< hulls worth 25m each with 1b+ freighters that got nothing to do with pvp.
Making such comparisons is simply stupid. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6405
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 23:40:00 -
[1452] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote: No, it hasn't escaped me.
In which case, like I said, you are really bad at false dichotomies. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22054
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 23:40:00 -
[1453] - Quote
Semidurr wrote:Let's not compare daily losses of the >PVP-ONLY< hulls worth 25m each with 1b+ freighters that got nothing to do with pvp. Making such comparisons is simply stupid. Not particularly. We have to establish how common it is that a ship is lost. Using one of the least used ship types in the game gives us a kind of worst-case baseline for rarity of loss. Freighters, it turns out, does not even reach that baseline GÇö that's how rare freighter losses are.
Oh, and one is a ship that can easily avoid situations that gets it killed; the other is one that is very commonly flown into hostile territory and which, if caught, needs some fancy flying to get out of there. The former still gets killed tons more. Claiming that freighters have nothing to do with PvP essentially just says that they're pretty much never killed. 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. |
Preto Black
Solar Clipper Trading Company
14
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 23:44:00 -
[1454] - Quote
I know it is now hopefully obvious, but this change is so bad that I have to add to the numerous posts here.
This change is badly thought out - nerfing several attributes because you can now get rigs to improve 1 or 2 of them is not sensible - EHP and agility nerfs are just not needed - even if some rigs can improve them. From a game point of view is even nerfing cargo space could be argued is not that much of an issue - there is the gank attraction penalty of having too much cargo
this change is poorly communicated - to use this method to say this change is part of balancing when it has the potential to completely change the way people play the game, seems to show either a lack of understanding of the way the game is played or a care factor of zero (or less)
|
Arthur Aihaken
Erebus Solia
3598
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 23:49:00 -
[1455] - Quote
Maybe they should get a single high slot for a Covert Ops cloak. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 23:54:00 -
[1456] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Valterra Craven wrote: No, it hasn't escaped me.
In which case, like I said, you are really bad at false dichotomies.
Either way, you still can't/haven't shown even one more example besides the Orca where hull tanking is viable. I'm sure neither of us is going to take the time to fit every ship in game with a hull tank to find out if even one more example exists. So again, your point is irrelevant. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22054
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 23:57:00 -
[1457] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:... because pointing out simple grammar mistakes ins't trollish apparently. Not particularly if it's in response to just more ad hominem fallacies.
Quote:Well for one, their relative benefits don't make sense to their fitting costs now. It's entirely in line with the other hull upgrades. vOv But yes, you're right. Their benefits should be vastly higher for the kind of fitting cost they have GÇö the low bonus they provide doesn't make much sense with that kind of CPU requirement.
Quote:In order to balance them currently they would need to have straight HP values like current shield and armor mods do. Yeah, seeGǪ the entire mistake you're making here is that you think that balance involves behaving like other modules. What other modules do is irrelevant. What you have to ask is what the effects are on a ship for fitting this module and how it stacks up to other options available.
As it happens, the percentage-based bonus from bulkheads is generally a smaller increase than the fixed amount added by shield and armour buffers, unless we're talking about a ship where those tanking types are not particularly effective. The percentage-based bonus also gets around the problem of having different-sized moduels and having to balance them against all kinds of ships you can fit them to. It's a niche module for a niche usage on a niche selection of ships, and the bonus it provides is entirely reasonable for the result you get out.
It's a few percentages more hull EHP, compared to the massive increase you'd get from, say, a suitcase. So to balance the module, the 40tf increase needs to be slashed by a massive amount to compare favourably to the 25tf of a DCI or 30tf of a DCII.
Quote:Giving them no fitting reqs would only further to make matters worse and make them more imbalanced when compared to other mods. Just one problem: they're not imbalanced. They are, in fact, very low-performing for their cost. A DCII gives 10+ù as much for -+ the cost, so a balanced fitting cost of a T2 bulkhead would be somewhere around 3 tf. We might as well round that down to 0. So, in fact, giving them no fitting reqs would make them more balanced than they currently are GÇö that way, they can be used as slot-wasteful but more granular versions of DCUs, and would allow for a 0/0-capability slotbased freighter solution that still had a sane tanking option.
Furthermore, since they offer so little advantage to most ships (again, some niches exist for a few other ships), using it as essentially a filler module for any left-over lowslots you might have just gives it a bit more usage, and a bit more choice for the ships, which is always nice. 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. |
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 00:00:00 -
[1458] - Quote
Holder |
Azami Nevinyrall
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
1898
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 00:09:00 -
[1459] - Quote
Preto Black wrote:this change is poorly communicated - to use this method to say this change is part of balancing when it has the potential to completely change the way people play the game, seems to show either a lack of understanding of the way the game is played or a care factor of zero (or less)
I hope everyone voted in the CSM elections! Thank you to those who actually supported my campaign! Even if I don't get elected in, I hope that the CSM that do, and Devs actually use my ideas somewhere! |
Semidurr
The North Capsuleers The North is Coming
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 00:10:00 -
[1460] - Quote
Tippia wrote: Not particularly. We have to establish how common it is that a ship is lost. Using one of the least used ship types in the game gives us a kind of worst-case baseline for rarity of loss. Freighters, it turns out, does not even reach that baseline GÇö that's how rare freighter losses are.
Apples and oranges. Do you got any hard data on how often ewar frigs are used? Why dont compare freighters to dst which are fulfilling similiar role in similiar environment? There were 7 dst and 16 freighters destroyed on may 18. Does it mean that dst are superior hauling ships?
Or is it just meaningless statistic one can use to make a point? |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22054
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 00:14:00 -
[1461] - Quote
Semidurr wrote:Apples and oranges. Do you got any hard data on how often ewar frigs are used? CCP occasionally publishes stats on these things. Ewar frigates consistently end up at the very bottom of the list. The GÇ£commonly gankedGÇ¥ ships tend to end up at the top. And yet, the (far) more rarely used ships are being killed in far higher numbers than the much more commonly used gank targets.
Quote:Why dont compare freighters to dst which are fulfilling similiar role in similiar environment? There were 7 dst and 16 freighters destroyed on may 18. Does it mean that dst are superior hauling ships? No, it means that freighters are destroyed more often. It tells us nothing about their other qualities. As it happens, though, what we were interested in is how common it is for a ship to be destroyed GÇö specifically in a suicide gank. 16 in a day (of which at most half even qualify as suicide ganks) is a pathetically low number compared to how common the ships in question are. 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. |
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 00:14:00 -
[1462] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Not particularly if it's in response to just more ad hominem fallacies. Shame IGÇÖm not using ad hominem fallacies.
Quote: It's entirely in line with the other hull upgrades. vOv . Which are also not balanced relative to other tanking mods.
Quote: Yeah, seeGǪ the entire mistake you're making here is that you think that balance involves behaving like other modules. What other modules do is irrelevant. What you have to ask is what the effects are on a ship for fitting this module and how it stacks up to other options available.
ItGÇÖs not a mistake. LetGÇÖs look at the phoenix for simplicities sake (all lvl 5 skills). It has 5 lows. If we give it 5x t2 bulkheads, that adds roughly 480k effective HP for a measly 100 cpu and 5 grid If we give it 5x t2 large shield extenders, that adds roughly 22k effective HP for 230cpu and 630 gridGǪ And thatGÇÖs balance to you?
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6408
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 00:17:00 -
[1463] - Quote
Semidurr wrote:Tippia wrote: Not particularly. We have to establish how common it is that a ship is lost. Using one of the least used ship types in the game gives us a kind of worst-case baseline for rarity of loss. Freighters, it turns out, does not even reach that baseline GÇö that's how rare freighter losses are.
Apples and oranges. Do you got any hard data on how often ewar frigs are used? Why dont compare freighters to dst which are fulfilling similiar role in similiar environment? There were 7 dst and 16 freighters destroyed on may 18. Does it mean that dst are superior hauling ships? Or is it just meaningless statistic one can use to make a point?
He said "least used ship types", not "functionally nonexistent".
I have never once, in all the time I have played this game seen a deep space transport in open space. Pretty sure the Ishukone Scorpion sees more flight time than that entire class of ships. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6408
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 00:19:00 -
[1464] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote: ItGÇÖs not a mistake. LetGÇÖs look at the phoenix for simplicities sake (all lvl 5 skills). It has 5 lows. If we give it 5x t2 bulkheads, that adds roughly 480k effective HP for a measly 100 cpu and 5 grid If we give it 5x t2 large shield extenders, that adds roughly 22k effective HP for 230cpu and 630 gridGǪ And thatGÇÖs balance to you?
So I guess more ship types than just the Orca can be hull tanked.
Are you running around in circles contradicting yourself on purpose, or is this accidental? It's equally hilarious regardless, so you may as well tell the truth. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11679
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 00:21:00 -
[1465] - Quote
Semidurr wrote:Tippia wrote: Not particularly. We have to establish how common it is that a ship is lost. Using one of the least used ship types in the game gives us a kind of worst-case baseline for rarity of loss. Freighters, it turns out, does not even reach that baseline GÇö that's how rare freighter losses are.
Apples and oranges. Do you got any hard data on how often ewar frigs are used? Why dont compare freighters to dst which are fulfilling similiar role in similiar environment? There were 7 dst and 16 freighters destroyed on may 18. Does it mean that dst are superior hauling ships? Or is it just meaningless statistic one can use to make a point?
Given that DST are flying bricks of armour it shouldnt be all that shocking they dont get killed much.
Simple fact is that freighter ganking is a very rare event and even the rarely used e-war frigs see more losses. Anyone who says freighters are getting killed in great numbers is simply lying. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 00:22:00 -
[1466] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Valterra Craven wrote: ItGÇÖs not a mistake. LetGÇÖs look at the phoenix for simplicities sake (all lvl 5 skills). It has 5 lows. If we give it 5x t2 bulkheads, that adds roughly 480k effective HP for a measly 100 cpu and 5 grid If we give it 5x t2 large shield extenders, that adds roughly 22k effective HP for 230cpu and 630 gridGǪ And thatGÇÖs balance to you?
So I guess more ship types than just the Orca can be hull tanked. Are you running around in circles contradicting yourself on purpose, or is this accidental? It's equally hilarious regardless, so you may as well tell the truth.
The mistake you are making is that this post doesn't prove that that hull tanking is viable on this ship. For that to happen you would have to prove that a proper setup with a cap hull repair would equate to the same amount of damage as its shield tank... which you know is not possible. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22057
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 00:27:00 -
[1467] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Shame IGÇÖm not using ad hominem fallacies. Incorrect.
Quote:Which are also not balanced relative to other tanking mods. They're not tanking mods so why would you make that comparison?
Quote:ItGÇÖs not a mistake. Yes it is, because you're confusing method with result.
Let's look at the Phoenix for simplicity's sake. If we give it 5+ù RB2, it gains 480k EHP. That's obviously a pathetically small increase at an insanely wasteful cost. If we instead give it 1+ù DCII, it gains 448k GÇö almost as much GÇö for a fraction of that cost. If we try to give a proper buffer tank (a couple of Invulns and a suitcase), we've doubled the tank for less than the bulkheads' cost (and this is before we even taken things like repping and siege mode into consideration).
We, intelligently enough, don't use buffer modules because none exist on an XL-size level. I mean, yes, your basic answer is correct: the bulkhead isn't balanced in the sense that they don't stack up well to the other modules on this ship. The intent of your answer is wrong: the bulkheads are vastly underpowered compared to the other tanking options available.
Giving the bulkheads a 0/0 fitting cost would make them far more balanced (but still a horribly bad option for this 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. |
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 00:33:00 -
[1468] - Quote
Then lets so some examples.
Tippia wrote:They're not tanking mods so why would you make that comparison? /quote]Since when are repair modules not tanking mods? Tippia wrote: I mean, yes, your basic answer is correct: the bulkhead isn't balanced in the sense that they don't stack up well to the other modules on this ship.
And given the topic of what we are talking about (capital ships) My argument works for the freighter too. [quote=Tippia]The intent of your answer is wrong: the bulkheads are vastly underpowered compared to the other tanking options available.
The problem here is that you think I'm arguing bulkheads are underpowered. The example I used was to prove that they are overpowered. They will be more so with no fitting costs.
|
Silvetica Dian
Manson Family Advent of Fate
1039
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 00:35:00 -
[1469] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:B Plague wrote: and seeing as high sec suicide ganks are already super common Highsec suicide ganks on freighters are exceedingly rare.
This is true. I assume my freighter won't die in high sec. It long ago payed back the cost of purchase. With the new rigs i will add cargo and warp speed. One day it will get ganked and i will buy a new one. We were warned by people in this thread that rigs would mean a nerf. I listened and believed them. I will eat the nerf and make it work for me by lowering the time i spend hauling. I will continue to listen to the people that called this nerf as they clearly know what thay are talking about. Money at its root is a form of rationing. When the richest 85 people have as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion (50% of humanity) it is clear where the source of poverty is. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/20/trickle-down-economics-broken-promise-richest-85 |
Miss Everest
Elysium Accord
4
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 00:37:00 -
[1470] - Quote
Azami Nevinyrall wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Good evening everyone. Just wanted to let you guys know that we haven't forgotten about you. I'm discussing a few improvements to the design with the CSM now, and we'll be able to start getting your feedback on them soon.
Have a good night! I hope you leave the stats of these ships alone...for the mostpart. Change Cargoholds so with T2 Rigs you cannot smuggle Capitals into Highsec! I can understand a slight poke here and there with the base stats, but nothing to radical as they currently are! Otherwise I'll be asking alot of "Why exactly are these changes necessary outside of something to do." Which would promptly be ignored in a orderly fashion.
Seriously why not just make capitals a prohibited item in HS. That would solve that problem. |
|
Kazanir
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
490
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 00:46:00 -
[1471] - Quote
I haven't really seen Fozzie post about why their initial implementation of these changes was as bad of a nerf as it is. It seems like they:
1. Decided to add rigs to JFs because they are removing special cases 2. Decided to balance so that with 2 T2 rigs, JFs would only be able to just slightly beat their current stats 3. Failed to notice that this was a fairly large nerf -- either a significant nerf to align time or cargo, as well as a large up-front cost increase 4. Justified that nerf after the fact by saying to themselves, "well, JFs are really good right now, they could use a little bit of a nerf anyway"
If the design team actually wants to nerf JFs -- which it is not my sense that they set out to do with these changes -- they should do it in the right way. I'm an expert on the subject! I can provide some suggestions that would be real nerfs without making an unfun part of the game even shittier -- as the align time change in particular does. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22057
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 00:46:00 -
[1472] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Then lets see some examples. See the post that started it, perhaps? And the one that followed. Of course, you'll just claim that you didn't say what you said like last timeGǪ
Quote:Since when are repair modules not tanking mods? Oh myGǪ you don't even know what hull upgrades are. We're not talking about repair modules here.
Quote:And given the topic of what we are talking about (capital ships) My argument works for the freighter too. More accurately, your argument doesn't work for freighters either, since expanders are not part of the tanking arsenal, and in the end, it turns out that bulkheads are actually underpowered compared to all the other options. Since their fitting requirements have no effect on that particular characteristic, lowering them to 0/0 makes no difference for that balance.
Quote:The problem here is that you think I'm arguing bulkheads are underpowered. No, I don't. I know you're trying (and failing) to do the opposite. The example you used proved that you have no idea how capships are fitted. What you actually and accidentally proved was that bulkheads are underpowered; that if there is a balance problem, it's in the opposite of the direction you're thinking; and that reducing their fitting requirements to be in line with the other hull upgrades won't create or inflate any kind of imbalance. 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. |
KIller Wabbit
The Scope Gallente Federation
576
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 00:47:00 -
[1473] - Quote
Confirms two more accounts that are going to die.
CCP Punkturis-á "I want to get in on the goodposter circle jerk!"
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11682
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 00:48:00 -
[1474] - Quote
Miss Everest wrote:Azami Nevinyrall wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Good evening everyone. Just wanted to let you guys know that we haven't forgotten about you. I'm discussing a few improvements to the design with the CSM now, and we'll be able to start getting your feedback on them soon.
Have a good night! I hope you leave the stats of these ships alone...for the mostpart. Change Cargoholds so with T2 Rigs you cannot smuggle Capitals into Highsec! I can understand a slight poke here and there with the base stats, but nothing to radical as they currently are! Otherwise I'll be asking alot of "Why exactly are these changes necessary outside of something to do." Which would promptly be ignored in a orderly fashion. Seriously why not just make capitals a prohibited item in HS. That would solve that problem.
Then we still have the issue of freighter simply hauling far too much stuff in one go. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6410
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 00:51:00 -
[1475] - Quote
KIller Wabbit wrote:
Confirms two more accounts that are going to die.
Can I have your stuff? "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
KIller Wabbit
The Scope Gallente Federation
576
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 01:00:00 -
[1476] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:KIller Wabbit wrote:
Confirms two more accounts that are going to die.
Can I have your stuff?
Obviously not - you didn't earn it. Go beg somewhere else. CCP Punkturis-á "I want to get in on the goodposter circle jerk!"
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6410
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 01:02:00 -
[1477] - Quote
KIller Wabbit wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:KIller Wabbit wrote:
Confirms two more accounts that are going to die.
Can I have your stuff? Obviously not - you didn't earn it. Go beg somewhere else.
Not a beg, more of an inquiry.
I mean, if your conviction against the freighter changes is that strong, nothing less than biomassing your characters after cancelling your subscription will do.
So why let those assets go to waste? "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11684
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 01:02:00 -
[1478] - Quote
KIller Wabbit wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:KIller Wabbit wrote:
Confirms two more accounts that are going to die.
Can I have your stuff? Obviously not - you didn't earn it. Go beg somewhere else.
I'll take your freighters off your hands. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Huang Mo
Tianxia Inc
100
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 01:04:00 -
[1479] - Quote
Red Frog Freight have just announced they will lower their cargo limit from 860.000m3 to 715.000m3: https://sites.google.com/site/rffguidelines/rff-service-changes
This s*cks. |
Scarlett LaBlanc
Midnight Savran Industries
96
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 01:11:00 -
[1480] - Quote
Well, There had to be some nerf to cargo capacity. Too many fools would simply cram in T2 cargo hold rigs.
I looked forward to the ability of adding a low-friction nozzle and warp speed rig. Perhaps a hull rig for grins and moving on with faster hauling in exchange for smaller cargo hold. Frankly I rarely ran full anyway.....
Now I read the proposed numbers, and well, wow.
I'll need that hull rig now, and still be thinner skinned then before. And that cargo space, well I never needed it all. I may not even miss it that much. It does seem like a high price to pay for ability to pay more ISK to be a little faster. Take the cargo OR take the EHP. Taking both seems excessive. |
|
Alexis Nightwish
State War Academy Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 01:12:00 -
[1481] - Quote
Jump freighters are OP. They are OP because of jump/cyno mechanics, not because of tank, agility, cargo, or whatever other attribute you want to haphazardly whack around with the nerf bat.
You want to make it more appealing to do industry in null, and within smaller areas? This isn't the way to do it. Instead, make jumps cost fuel relative to the distance jumped (possibly going up exponentially with distance?), and don't allow cynos to be lit within 1AU of any celestials. Suddenly JFs aren't invulnerable, and we get a nice power projection nerf at the same time. Win-win.
The T1 freighter nerfs are way too harsh. It's basically like this:
CCP: We're all about "player choice", so we're going to take a slightly UP ship class that has no alternatives to its use and nerf the **** out of it. But to make it okay we'll make sure you can get approximately the pre-nerf value in ONE area by using incredibly expensive rigs.
Freighter Pilot: So what you're saying is that you're going to kick me in the balls, and tell me it's okay because now I can buy Aspirin?
CCP: You got it! ^^
FP: So basically a nerf is totally justified so long as one nerfed aspect can be restored with all your rig slots? What a load of bull****!
Carrier Pilot: Something something Nyx... |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
56
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 01:12:00 -
[1482] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Good evening everyone. Just wanted to let you guys know that we haven't forgotten about you. I'm discussing a few improvements to the design with the CSM now, and we'll be able to start getting your feedback on them soon.
Have a good night!
Fozzie - hopefully the CSM is giving you good feedback, but do us all a favor and ask yourself this:
If I was introducing freighters today, what would they look like?
You guys have put in a lot of work and done a great job with rebalancing and tiericide. How about we avoid making a half-arsed change now and either leave freighters alone or devote the same kind of time to doing it right. |
Delhaven
Vicis Inter Astrum I'd Rather Be Roaming
45
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 01:31:00 -
[1483] - Quote
Delhaven wrote:I can't wait to see what Black Frog will be doing with this. I feel bad for the folks there who will have to come up with the new load limits. Interesting. Does that mean they're requiring all of their pilots to spend 140M ISK on a pair of Cargohold Optimization Rigs to reach that volume?
I'd have guessed that they'd have dropped it to 500K m3 to accommodate all of the various rigging options. |
Robert Parr
Iron Tiger T3 Industries
9
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 01:44:00 -
[1484] - Quote
Steijn wrote:sorry, but that is nothing more than a massive nerf.
Oh that's precious....And you were expecting what from CFCFozzie.....that guy hasn't met a ship he couldn't frack up with a nerf bat....he does not care how much effort or how many years you've spent training......ooopppss better stop...somebody might get angry or call me a care bear or something |
Scarlett LaBlanc
Midnight Savran Industries
96
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 01:51:00 -
[1485] - Quote
Delhaven wrote:Delhaven wrote:I can't wait to see what Black Frog will be doing with this. I feel bad for the folks there who will have to come up with the new load limits. Interesting. Does that mean they're requiring all of their pilots to spend 140M ISK on a pair of Cargohold Optimization Rigs to reach that volume? I'd have guessed that they'd have dropped it to 500K m3 to accommodate all of the various rigging options.
I don't think you have to be able to haul the max to fly for them. Clearly your choice of contracts will be smaller if you can't though.
Either way that is a 17% increase in the cost of hauling raw materials. That will get passed on in the finished product price to the consumer. Not a huge issue on its own, but in July when we pass on the job install costs that might get "interesting".
I'm curious how many other unintneded consequences will cascade from this?
|
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
2522
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 01:57:00 -
[1486] - Quote
Remove jump freighters from the game, turn them all into regular freighters, refund the skill points on the pilots in question.
Thanks
Wren Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
|
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 02:05:00 -
[1487] - Quote
Tippia wrote:See the post that started it, perhaps? And the one that followed. Of course, you'll just claim that you didn't say what you said like last timeGǪ
You mean the one where you accused me of trolling or the one where you accused me of spamming? See the thing is you know that you started this BS in the first place. So I'm not sure how you have the right to argue such points when I've done no such thing but respond to your posts showing the hypocrisy of your words.
Tippia wrote:Oh myGǪ you don't even know what hull upgrades are. We're not talking about repair modules here.
Correct, I misunderstood what you were implying. I thought you were trying to that because you don't believe bulkheads are unbalanced that hull tanking is viable and thus were bringing repair mods into the discussion. That aside, I also know that just because a mod rests in a certain spot in the market list doesn't mean that that is how the modules are balanced. The other hull upgrades ARENT tanking modules and are thus not balanced like they are. Bulkheads are a tank module and as such rightly have fitting requirements even though in the current meta their benefit is woefully overpowered to their fitting cost.
Tippia wrote:More accurately, your argument doesn't work for freighters either, since expanders are not part of the tanking arsenal, and in the end, it turns out that bulkheads are actually underpowered compared to all the other options. Since their fitting requirements have no effect on that particular characteristic, lowering them to 0/0 makes no difference for that balance.
I have no idea what you trying to say here. But at least we agree one one thing: Expanders are not tanking modules and bulkheads are.
Tippia wrote: The example you used proved that you have no idea how capships are fitted. What you actually and accidentally proved was that bulkheads are underpowered; that if there is a balance problem, it's in the opposite of the direction you're thinking; and that reducing their fitting requirements to be in line with the other hull upgrades won't create or inflate any kind of imbalance.
The problem is that we are arguing at two ends of the spectrum. I'm arguing that hull tanking isn't viable on more than one ship due to the meta. You are arguing that bulkheads aren't overpowered when their benefits are applied to the cap ship class.
So on point: *Sigh* Right, do you really think someone thats been in game since 2005 would actually fit a capship that way? What I actually proved was that in terms of their fitting costs that they give orders of magnitudes more effective HP than comparable modules.
But as usual you have to keep moving the goal posts even though you are only argueing that bulkheads aren't overpowered and DCU's are not bulkheads. So lets look at another comparable example. If you were to make a similar fit comparison and did just invuls and extenders and then did a DCU and bulkheads, the outcome is still the same. Orders of magnitudes better buffs than comparable.
1 DCU t2 4 bulkheads t2 1.3mil effective hp boost
1 t2 invul 4 t2 large extenders 164k effective hp boost
But lets keep going... even at the best case of 5 t2 invuls thats still only half a mil effective HP boost.
My point is merely this: bulkheads percentage based boosts for cap ships are overpowered given the huge amount of hull they all have. The ONLY reason people don't hull tank cap ships is because there are no cap ship hull repair mods that use a comparable amount of cap to armor or shield repair mods.
|
Huang Mo
Tianxia Inc
101
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 02:12:00 -
[1488] - Quote
Scarlett LaBlanc wrote:Either way that is a 17% increase in the cost of hauling raw materials Actually, it is a 20% increase in hauling cost per m3. But otherwise you're right: It will eventually filter down to miners and consumers. Solo players, medium corps, and small alliances will be hurt. Big rich alliances will just shrug it off. |
KIller Wabbit
The Scope Gallente Federation
576
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 02:39:00 -
[1489] - Quote
Is someone taking a dump before heading off to LoL land?
CCP Punkturis-á "I want to get in on the goodposter circle jerk!"
|
Ben Hatton
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
9
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 02:44:00 -
[1490] - Quote
Delhaven wrote:Delhaven wrote:I can't wait to see what Black Frog will be doing with this. I feel bad for the folks there who will have to come up with the new load limits. Interesting. Does that mean they're requiring all of their pilots to spend 80M ISK on a Cargohold Optimization Rig to reach that volume? I'd have guessed that they'd have dropped it to 500K m3 to accommodate all of the various rigging options.
Its not an unreasonable request, as when joining any corp you have your doctrine fits. |
|
Tora Hamaji
Republic University Minmatar Republic
31
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 02:56:00 -
[1491] - Quote
your stupidity is beyond belief!
you take a fine class of ships and f*** it in every way possible. now it's
less cargo
less EHP
fuckton more expensive.
whatever you think you're doing, you've got **** for brains. |
stoicfaux
4837
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 02:59:00 -
[1492] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Remove jump freighters from the game, turn them all into regular freighters, refund the skill points on the pilots in question.
Thanks
Wren Nah. Better idea. Turn all freighters into ship haulers. Put your cargo into industrials, load/attach/dock the industrials to your freighter, and *presto* instant container ship.
WASABI: Warp Acceleration System Ancillary Boost Injected(Gäó)
|
Huang Mo
Tianxia Inc
101
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 03:02:00 -
[1493] - Quote
Delhaven wrote:Interesting. Does that mean [Red Frog Freight are] requiring all of their pilots to spend 80M ISK on a Cargohold Optimization Rig to reach that volume? As I understand it, they require their pilots to have one rig. |
stoicfaux
4837
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 03:02:00 -
[1494] - Quote
Robert Parr wrote:Steijn wrote:sorry, but that is nothing more than a massive nerf. Oh that's precious....And you were expecting what from CFCFozzie.....that guy hasn't met a ship he couldn't frack up with a nerf bat....he does not care how much effort or how many years you've spent training......ooopppss better stop...somebody might get angry or call me a care bear or something Well, to be fair, people have been calling for a medium freighter for quite some time now... Shame on use for assuming we would get a new hull. =/
WASABI: Warp Acceleration System Ancillary Boost Injected(Gäó)
|
Xavier Thorm
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
143
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 03:02:00 -
[1495] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:Remove jump freighters from the game, turn them all into regular freighters, refund the skill points on the pilots in question.
Thanks
Wren Nah. Better idea. Turn all freighters into ship haulers. Put your cargo into industrials, load/attach/dock the industrials to your freighter, and *presto* instant container ship.
I'm not sure if you're joking, but I actually really like this idea. I can't really imagine it happening though, too much butthurt. |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
128
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 03:06:00 -
[1496] - Quote
Xavier Thorm wrote:stoicfaux wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:Remove jump freighters from the game, turn them all into regular freighters, refund the skill points on the pilots in question.
Thanks
Wren Nah. Better idea. Turn all freighters into ship haulers. Put your cargo into industrials, load/attach/dock the industrials to your freighter, and *presto* instant container ship. I'm not sure if you're joking, but I actually really like this idea. I can't really imagine it happening though, too much butthurt.
Lol its a pretty obvious troll. Though, if hypothetically JF were removed from the game, t2 prices would skyrocket overnight. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
59
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 03:11:00 -
[1497] - Quote
Huang Mo wrote:Scarlett LaBlanc wrote:Either way that is a 17% increase in the cost of hauling raw materials Actually, it is a 20% increase in hauling cost per m3. But otherwise you're right: It will eventually filter down to miners and consumers. Solo players, medium corps, and small alliances will be hurt. Big rich alliances will just shrug it off.
This kind of logic still continues to baffle me. Do you think the big alliances and coalitions move all our personal things? Sure they may pay for fuel to move our combat-related gear, but when it comes to our personal stuff, or output related to industry, or loot that needs to be sold, that's on us. Now some of us may be personally better off than others, but I'm pretty sure the average pilot in a big nullsec alliance has the same issues as anyone else. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
59
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 03:14:00 -
[1498] - Quote
Allison A'vani wrote:Xavier Thorm wrote:stoicfaux wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:Remove jump freighters from the game, turn them all into regular freighters, refund the skill points on the pilots in question.
Thanks
Wren Nah. Better idea. Turn all freighters into ship haulers. Put your cargo into industrials, load/attach/dock the industrials to your freighter, and *presto* instant container ship. I'm not sure if you're joking, but I actually really like this idea. I can't really imagine it happening though, too much butthurt. Lol its a pretty obvious troll. Though, if hypothetically JF were removed from the game, t2 prices would skyrocket overnight.
I'm pretty sure that if JFs were eliminated altogether that PL would immediately form a titan bridging freighter service we could all use. |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
128
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 03:15:00 -
[1499] - Quote
Alexis Nightwish wrote:Jump freighters are OP. They are OP because of jump/cyno mechanics, not because of tank, agility, cargo, or whatever other attribute you want to haphazardly whack around with the nerf bat.
You want to make it more appealing to do industry in null, and within smaller areas? This isn't the way to do it. Instead, make jumps cost fuel relative to the distance jumped (possibly going up exponentially with distance?), and don't allow cynos to be lit within 1AU of any celestials. Suddenly JFs aren't invulnerable, and we get a nice power projection nerf at the same time. Win-win.
The T1 freighter nerfs are way too harsh. It's basically like this:
CCP: We're all about "player choice", so we're going to take a slightly UP ship class that has no alternatives to its use and nerf the **** out of it. But to make it okay we'll make sure you can get approximately the pre-nerf value in ONE area by using incredibly expensive rigs.
Freighter Pilot: So what you're saying is that you're going to kick me in the balls, and tell me it's okay because now I can buy Aspirin?
CCP: You got it! ^^
FP: So basically a nerf is totally justified so long as one nerfed aspect can be restored with all your rig slots? What a load of bull****!
Carrier Pilot: Something something Nyx...
You obviously are not part of any decently sized alliance and do not play the same game as anyone else if you really think any of that. That is possibly the stupidest post so far in this entire thread. Every major alliance in the game would no longer have any logistical back bone if that were the case. This is ofc besides the fact that Ice and Moon Minerals are region based, so to make any T2 items, or to fuel POSes that are not the same race as the ice in the region that you are based in, you have to go to a trade hub anyway.
|
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
128
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 03:16:00 -
[1500] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:Allison A'vani wrote:Xavier Thorm wrote:stoicfaux wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:Remove jump freighters from the game, turn them all into regular freighters, refund the skill points on the pilots in question.
Thanks
Wren Nah. Better idea. Turn all freighters into ship haulers. Put your cargo into industrials, load/attach/dock the industrials to your freighter, and *presto* instant container ship. I'm not sure if you're joking, but I actually really like this idea. I can't really imagine it happening though, too much butthurt. Lol its a pretty obvious troll. Though, if hypothetically JF were removed from the game, t2 prices would skyrocket overnight. I'm pretty sure that if JFs were eliminated altogether that PL would immediately form a titan bridging freighter service we could all use.
Welcome to how every major alliance in the game gets their solv upgrades to their space. |
|
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
113
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 03:27:00 -
[1501] - Quote
Delhaven wrote:Delhaven wrote:I can't wait to see what Black Frog will be doing with this. I feel bad for the folks there who will have to come up with the new load limits. Interesting. Does that mean they're requiring all of their pilots to spend 80M ISK on a Cargohold Optimization Rig to reach that volume? I'd have guessed that they'd have dropped it to 500K m3 to accommodate all of the various rigging options. Naa.. Most contracts made to them are far from the max.. They only need a handful that will hold a lot.
I'd expect most of RF's fleet to get Warpspeed rigs, to sleep up hauling..
That is, unless Fozzie has some good news for us tomorrow.. Little baffled that RF would update now and not wait a day to see what comes from Fozzie and the CSM. |
Marlin Kusoni
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 03:33:00 -
[1502] - Quote
I'll just leave it here, for you, Fozzie. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWbLkXhGEmo |
Ben Hatton
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
9
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 03:38:00 -
[1503] - Quote
. |
KIller Wabbit
The Scope Gallente Federation
576
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 03:43:00 -
[1504] - Quote
At least the CSM will get an early understanding of just how powerless they really are...
CCP Punkturis-á "I want to get in on the goodposter circle jerk!"
|
Urziel99
Multiplex Gaming Li3 Federation
48
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 05:25:00 -
[1505] - Quote
KIller Wabbit wrote:At least the CSM will get an early understanding of just how powerless they really are...
You assume they disapprove of it.
As for Fozzie. Please stop hanging around Grayscale, you are acquiring his ability to ruin whatever he touches.
PS. After this disgrace don't even think about touching the Orca or Rorqual, lest you break them too. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
2523
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 05:56:00 -
[1506] - Quote
Urziel99 wrote:KIller Wabbit wrote:At least the CSM will get an early understanding of just how powerless they really are...
You assume they disapprove of it. As for Fozzie. Please stop hanging around Grayscale, you are acquiring his ability to ruin whatever he touches. PS. After this disgrace don't even think about touching the Orca or Rorqual, lest you break them too.
Your eyebrows are weirding me out
Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
|
Adrien Crosse
Black Frog Logistics Red-Frog
5
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 07:31:00 -
[1507] - Quote
Sniper Smith wrote:Little baffled that RF would update now and not wait a day to see what comes from Fozzie and the CSM.
We're announcing it a week before we're implementing it, and we're implementing it a week before the changes go live.
Who knows when they'll come up with their new good ideas, but when they do we can still shift our numbers around if necessary.
|
Dave Stark
5887
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 07:35:00 -
[1508] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Good evening everyone. Just wanted to let you guys know that we haven't forgotten about you. I'm discussing a few improvements to the design with the CSM now, and we'll be able to start getting your feedback on them soon.
Have a good night! consider the following; freighters are fine, nobody likes these changes, and the solution is to not waste your time trying to rebalance something that's already in very good shape? |
Dave Stark
5887
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 07:39:00 -
[1509] - Quote
Urziel99 wrote:KIller Wabbit wrote:At least the CSM will get an early understanding of just how powerless they really are...
You assume they disapprove of it. As for Fozzie. Please stop hanging around Grayscale, you are acquiring his ability to ruin whatever he touches. PS. After this disgrace don't even think about touching the Orca or Rorqual, lest you break them too.
crucial difference; nobody has asked for dumb changes to the orca. on the other hand, people have regularly asked for fozzie to do this. |
Strata Maslav
Born-2-Kill Exodus.
94
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 08:03:00 -
[1510] - Quote
The EVE player base are a passionate bunch, and so inevitably asking them for an objective discussion without the 'do not nerf my ship' coming into effect is nigh impossible.
These changes added fitting diversity to ships which were lacking and helps to encouraging the development of local industry/economy.
The fuel costs will have a greater effect on my own play style but I can understand the importance of regulating the mobility (system to system) of commodities and of power (projection of militaristic assets).
I do predict that the logistical aspects of EVE will increase in cost as a result of these freighter changes and the increase in fuel costs. This should allow locally produced commodities to compete with those produced more efficiently but not locally, therefor lowing the barrier to entry and enabling local economies to develop. |
|
Oxide Ammar
123
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 08:30:00 -
[1511] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Urziel99 wrote:KIller Wabbit wrote:At least the CSM will get an early understanding of just how powerless they really are...
You assume they disapprove of it. As for Fozzie. Please stop hanging around Grayscale, you are acquiring his ability to ruin whatever he touches. PS. After this disgrace don't even think about touching the Orca or Rorqual, lest you break them too. crucial difference; nobody has asked for dumb changes to the orca. on the other hand, people have regularly asked for fozzie to do this.
Regarding ORCA, the vocal request is to increase the ore bay capacity since they got over shadowed by exhumers buffs, nothing else I read before requesting something different. |
Vigilanta
S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS.
37
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 08:34:00 -
[1512] - Quote
Strata Maslav wrote:The EVE player base are a passionate bunch, and so inevitably asking them for an objective discussion without the 'do not nerf my ship' coming into effect is nigh impossible.
These changes added fitting diversity to ships which were lacking and helps to encouraging the development of local industry/economy.
The fuel costs will have a greater effect on my own play style but I can understand the importance of regulating the mobility (system to system) of commodities and of power (projection of militaristic assets).
I do predict that the logistical aspects of EVE will increase in cost as a result of these freighter changes and the increase in fuel costs. This should allow locally produced commodities to compete with those produced more efficiently but not locally, therefor lowing the barrier to entry and enabling local economies to develop.
Local production in null/low isn't really encouraged by the freighter changes, if anything it creates a reason not to locally produce in null as its harder to move stuff to appropriate markets. The slot changes and scaling costs however are great in that aspect, they create some clear advantage to lowsec and null sec production in the from of extreme costs savings, just as the refining changes create advantages to null = greater local mineral availability, which in the lowends is a big issue in null and always has been. As someone who has dabbled in null production we were often able to buy all of our highends in null without issue and with cost savings trit and pyerite were shipped in via torpedo's though.
Will be interesting to see what adjustments are made to the changes. As i said earlier in the thread, i fully expected some nerfing because of rig introduction, fozzie just went way over the top. |
Oxide Ammar
123
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 08:34:00 -
[1513] - Quote
Adrien Crosse wrote:Sniper Smith wrote:Little baffled that RF would update now and not wait a day to see what comes from Fozzie and the CSM. We're announcing it a week before we're implementing it, and we're implementing it a week before the changes go live. Who knows when they'll come up with their new good ideas, but once they do we can still shift our numbers around if necessary.
They already are on tight schedule since half of the features they announced for have been shifted to Cirus(?), I won't be surprised that freighters and JF changes will be postponed also. |
Darkblad
Hilfe is like Free Entertainment
234
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 08:35:00 -
[1514] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Mag's wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:Tippia wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:That freighter ganks in High sec are not " exceedingly rare". If the number of them killed on an average day can be counted on the fingers of one hand, that qualifies pretty well as rare to an extreme degree. Come back when you're at least well into the double digits. I am back. :> With yet another link that doesn't help your cause. You are a strange fellow. She just asked me to come back when I have freighter kills per day in the double digits realm. At this late hour I cannot be bothered to search killboards for the exact numbers on that extended weekend. Use this And keep in mind that this is not limited to suicide Ganks alone. EVE Infolinks -+-áOld and new-áPortraits |
Dave Stark
5887
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 08:35:00 -
[1515] - Quote
Oxide Ammar wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Urziel99 wrote:KIller Wabbit wrote:At least the CSM will get an early understanding of just how powerless they really are...
You assume they disapprove of it. As for Fozzie. Please stop hanging around Grayscale, you are acquiring his ability to ruin whatever he touches. PS. After this disgrace don't even think about touching the Orca or Rorqual, lest you break them too. crucial difference; nobody has asked for dumb changes to the orca. on the other hand, people have regularly asked for fozzie to do this. Regarding ORCA, the vocal request is to increase the ore bay capacity since they got over shadowed by exhumers buffs, nothing else I read before requesting something different.
yeah but that's not a dumb change, that's fairly sensible. it's niche was being able to carry large volumes of ore in order to assist mining operations. between the erm... nereus? and the mackinaw that niche no longer exists, compounded by freighters being able to scoop things from space (and DSTs soon obtaining a fleet hangar). even something as simple as swapping the 5% cargo bay to 5% ore bay would be a nice change. |
Aria Jimbojohnson
University of Caille Gallente Federation
36
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 08:42:00 -
[1516] - Quote
Here's to hoping Fozzie takes that job at Riot. Then again, he probably wasn't offered one
Obviously, these changes are terrible. With all of the changes over the years, the cost threshold to gank freighters is ridiculously low. If anything, they need a rather large buff, and this is nothing but a straight nerf, no matter how you look at it. |
Dareth Astrar
Astrar Logistics and Engineering
6
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 08:44:00 -
[1517] - Quote
It concerns me that to address a few points, you have made such massive structural changes to the hauling backbone that keeps this game running.
I was concerned with the coming industrial changes, but willing to see them in practice on SiSi for a while before making final comments.
We may be a small corporation, but we had already adopted an approach of attempting to perform industry outside of a major hub. The problem has always been hauling the massive quantities of materials around to actually make it possible.
One of our regular builds used to comprise of the following:
Tritanium1,464,196,468 Pyerite 291,120,685 Mexallon81,465,340 Isogen 15,966,498 Nocxium3,588,315 Zydrine 912,678 Megacyte460,246
1,857,710,230 total units. 18,577,102.3 m3 volume. Charon's Maxed Pilots (which we needed): 981,250 m3 Total Loads: 18.93, so 19 round trips to collect minerals
New Charon Max Load before rigs: 687,500 m3 Total Loads: 27.02, so 28 round trips. (47.37% increase in runs!!!!)
I disagree with those that say just rig it up and shut-up. Industry isn't as profitable as people seem to think, a point I may discuss greater later.
Realistically you have to make the profit to pay for the costs you are incurring. Nothing new, just the basics of any business, so realistically it's only 3xT1 Capital rigs that will be afforded regularly. So what is that impact:
New Charon Max Load with 3xT1 Capital rigs: 1,045,602 m3 Total Loads: 17.76, so 18 rounded up. Already much slower to move then 6 months ago with the warp speed and travel changes!
So with all these changes, with additional cost per ship used, we save 1 round trip. I'm sorry, but the practicality of the claimed benefit is being somewhat over claimed here, as everyone is only looking at the T2 rigged max end results only.
After many years of performing our building on a fortnightly basis, we long ago realized the time and effort, lack of fun and lacking of reliable profitability (by the time big items and build batches came out, market depreciation and peoples inability to do basic maths by consistently just undercut the lowest on market in Jita already, often negated the profit to barely average out to 1-5% after sales costs) actually had most people migrate to running Incursions or anything else to make a living AND try to get enjoyment from, what is after all a Game, and not to have it be like work which they were trying to escape!
It strikes me that there were a few things with these changes that CCP focused on, and really forgot the cause-effect of all others.
* EHP were high. Fine, so they obviously wanted to increase ganking of freighters in high sec. Not something I think is sensible given they are the backbone supporting the economy, but fine. * Didn't want certain things to fit into freighters after the changes. Fine, the simple option is increase the volume of those things so that they don't. * Give freighters an ability to customize a load-outs. This could have been done more easily with module slots, and at a far reduced cost to the pilots of those ships. The reason I think they did this with rigs is they realize they've created a massive array of Capital Rig BPO's that are never ever used! There are reasons for that, examine those before assuming this is a sensible option for customization.
So why did people keep asking for rigs? I'm not going to lie, we would have liked to have seen bigger cargo holds, but with the profits being made it also has to factor in the additional costs of any change affecting the business.
Practical terms that were regular reasons: * Size of ships packages were high. Some stupidly so, for example you could only fit 1 Orca in a charon, as they were 500k m3. Personally I would have preferred to have seen reductions in silly sizes before reductions in hauling sizes. * CCP keep missing/ignoring the industrial points: Ore compression is one thing, but actually what is needed is Mineral compression, so that much more can be moved in smaller number of trips. This is still lacking, and the means by which players did this with modules is now less viable, and post the industrial patch not at all viable considering the reprocessing of modules and items given the massive losses. * Hauling is painfully slow now, and exceptionally boring for a game, nearly as boring as mining!
Sadly, all things considered it just strikes me that over the past year all the changes CCP keep making are to increase player time trying to make money, reduce the quantity they can make, and increase the cost of everything else so having fun in PvP is much greater end cost to the economy.
I know I joined for the PvP and found Industry to be an interesting mental pursuit, but with competition coming from other games in the coming year or so, I think CCP may be wise to remember this is a game for entertainment and enjoyment, not yet another form of personal work.
I've already stopped playing as much in PvP, currently not going to waste my time on industrial elements that aren't worth the time invested in terms of results and performance in isk growth, and sadly looking at these changes highly doubtful I'll bother wasting time with the new industrial changes, which will also likely be bringing additional material consumption with it.
No, I'm really not interested in taking longer to haul what we used to (given recent travel duration changes) and doing it more times just to get to the same starting point for the industrial effort to begin.
As in our own development at my place of work:
Always Stop, think first: * Incentive/reason for the change (always requires a business benefit) * What is the benefit to the customer paying * Cost and time factors for us, are they reasonable for the desired feature requested. Is it a wise use of resources? * Always keep it simple. If it's getting away, rethink. |
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
2965
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 08:55:00 -
[1518] - Quote
Carebear industrialists have been demanding more tank and speed in their big spacetrucks for god knows how long - now that they're giving the option of that (but with a tradeoff, of course) they poop their spacepants and rage and rage and rage.
Good changes, and delicious tears. Great job Fozzie, more of this sort of thing. |
Dareth Astrar
Astrar Logistics and Engineering
6
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 08:55:00 -
[1519] - Quote
Perhaps, considering you are trying to encourage people to spread out with the new industrial changes, it would be wiser first to see their impact on the distribution of industrial effort, the amount that materials might increase in flow around the game, before you change the tools used the most to haul vast quantities of items.
Just a suggestion, as it seems crazy to me that you're going to make a change like this just before making much greater changes to the basic way industry operates. |
Mar Drakar
LDK Sorry We're In Your Space Eh
69
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 09:23:00 -
[1520] - Quote
Kids how about you stop crying and deal with it.
back the day there weren't even carriers to jump around, and we dealt with it. Then carriers came and it became much easier then JFs came and it became "whatever"
imo this nerf isn't going far enough, and the very concept of multiple consecutive jump drive activations should be nerfed by logarithmic scale.
CCP, please MAKE NEW EDEN BIG AGAIN .
This step is a step in good direction. |
|
Azami Nevinyrall
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
1898
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 09:35:00 -
[1521] - Quote
KIller Wabbit wrote:Is someone taking a dump before heading off to LoL land?
It's already been hinted!
With ships baing almost done balancing and contracts ending, wouldn't be surprised! I hope everyone voted in the CSM elections! Thank you to those who actually supported my campaign! Even if I don't get elected in, I hope that the CSM that do, and Devs actually use my ideas somewhere! |
Charlie Firpol
Noob Mercs Monkeys with Guns.
196
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 09:35:00 -
[1522] - Quote
Mar Drakar wrote:Kids how about you stop crying and deal with it.
back the day there weren't even carriers to jump around, and we dealt with it. Then carriers came and it became much easier then JFs came and it became "whatever"
imo this nerf isn't going far enough, and the very concept of multiple consecutive jump drive activations should be nerfed by logarithmic scale.
CCP, please MAKE NEW EDEN BIG AGAIN .
This step is a step in good direction.
Exactly. Jumpfreighter, just like supercapitals, should-¦ve never been added to the game. Cynos and jump capable ships should-¦ve been reserved for very small ships, not the biggest ones. Make EVE big again!
|
carbomb
Super Team Munkey
14
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 09:37:00 -
[1523] - Quote
bored with nothing better to fix? Ridiculous!!! |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
1231
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 09:43:00 -
[1524] - Quote
TheGunslinger42 wrote:Carebear industrialists have been demanding more tank and speed in their big spacetrucks for god knows how long - now that they're giving the option of that (but with a tradeoff, of course) they poop their spacepants and rage and rage and rage.
Good changes, and delicious tears. Great job Fozzie, more of this sort of thing.
The weird thing is that they're too blind to see that the things they always want - safer, quicker hauling of greater volumes - are directly damaging to their own profession.
The main result of highsec freighters is to allow people to congregate together in fewer, bigger hubs, bringing more and more industrialists into competition with each other, damaging their own profit margins.
Ban freighters from highsec entirely. Let Jita die. Let new minor hubs based on local industry spring up. Let reduced competition increase profit margins and open niches for new industrialists. |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
33
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 09:48:00 -
[1525] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:TheGunslinger42 wrote:Carebear industrialists have been demanding more tank and speed in their big spacetrucks for god knows how long - now that they're giving the option of that (but with a tradeoff, of course) they poop their spacepants and rage and rage and rage.
Good changes, and delicious tears. Great job Fozzie, more of this sort of thing. The weird thing is that they're too blind to see that the things they always want - safer, quicker hauling of greater volumes - are directly damaging to their own profession. The main result of highsec freighters is to allow people to congregate together in fewer, bigger hubs, bringing more and more industrialists into competition with each other, damaging their own profit margins. Ban freighters from highsec entirely. Let Jita die. Let new minor hubs based on local industry spring up. Let reduced competition increase profit margins and open niches for new industrialists. How about we ban you from the game, hm? |
Dave Stark
5887
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 09:56:00 -
[1526] - Quote
Walter Hart White wrote:How about we ban you from the game, hm? i'd rather we ban you. all you do is whine about people's posts. |
Daegara Odenson
Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 10:14:00 -
[1527] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Good evening everyone. Just wanted to let you guys know that we haven't forgotten about you. I'm discussing a few improvements to the design with the CSM now, and we'll be able to start getting your feedback on them soon.
Have a good night! This is good PR. Thank you for treating us with some basic decency and respect. We owe you the same.
Glad to see somebody mentioned this. For all the ****-posting on these forums its worth remembering to show some respect, devs are people too! Fozzie like the other devs have a job to do and if you want to make good use of the opportunity to help shape that work be positive and offer useful alternatives instead of rage-posting like spoilt children.
I for one am still worried by the current status quo with regards to the changes, but I have every confidence that given the wealth of responses some further changes will be made. Its my hope that these, even if still an overall nerf to JFs in particular at least provide more choices and fitting options overall, as currently IMO the changes proposed are to harsh, broad in scope and lacking in effective options for players to explore to mitigate them whilst still keeping the core function of the vessels viable.
Little respect goes along way :) |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6414
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 10:16:00 -
[1528] - Quote
Walter Hart White wrote:Gypsio III wrote:TheGunslinger42 wrote:Carebear industrialists have been demanding more tank and speed in their big spacetrucks for god knows how long - now that they're giving the option of that (but with a tradeoff, of course) they poop their spacepants and rage and rage and rage.
Good changes, and delicious tears. Great job Fozzie, more of this sort of thing. The weird thing is that they're too blind to see that the things they always want - safer, quicker hauling of greater volumes - are directly damaging to their own profession. The main result of highsec freighters is to allow people to congregate together in fewer, bigger hubs, bringing more and more industrialists into competition with each other, damaging their own profit margins. Ban freighters from highsec entirely. Let Jita die. Let new minor hubs based on local industry spring up. Let reduced competition increase profit margins and open niches for new industrialists. How about we ban you from the game, hm?
Lol, now this is what butthurt looks like ladies and gentlemen. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Dave Stark
5891
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 10:18:00 -
[1529] - Quote
Daegara Odenson wrote:Little respect goes along way :)
this, so much.
i think it's quite unfair how much abuse fozzie is getting for proposing something that people have asked for. |
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
27
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 10:41:00 -
[1530] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Daegara Odenson wrote:Little respect goes along way :) this, so much. i think it's quite unfair how much abuse fozzie is getting for proposing something that people have asked for.
he wanted feedback he's getting it. tough cookie if his feelings are getting hurt.. I don't care, not like I can expect him to stick around for the next 10 yrs working on eve.. fact is I honestly think he's screwing up the game even more before he departs. it has been done plenty of times before by dev's.
he reminds me of a sith right now. I don't trust him.. period.. now that's my opinion and I don't care if it makes you burst a blood vessel.
|
|
Darkblad
Hilfe is like Free Entertainment
234
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 10:50:00 -
[1531] - Quote
Milla Goodpussy wrote:he wanted feedback Those are Greyscale's words, but that might match Fozzie's stance on varying kinds of feedback. Or anyone who plans changes that some individuals disagree with. EVE Infolinks -+-áOld and new-áPortraits |
Galphii
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
229
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 10:51:00 -
[1532] - Quote
Here's a thought - Make the nerfs to the freighters recoverable by 1 rig. So if you put on hull, cargo and agility rigs, it is basically the same as they are at present. The difference here is that you can have two of those rigs to boost the ships above their current level, so you can have them be more exceptional than now instead of simply bringing them back up to what was lost. Oh and increase the m3 of packaged capitals as needed of course. X |
Dave Stark
5891
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 10:55:00 -
[1533] - Quote
Milla Goodpussy wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Daegara Odenson wrote:Little respect goes along way :) this, so much. i think it's quite unfair how much abuse fozzie is getting for proposing something that people have asked for. he wanted feedback he's getting it. tough cookie if his feelings are getting hurt.. I don't care, not like I can expect him to stick around for the next 10 yrs working on eve.. fact is I honestly think he's screwing up the game even more before he departs. it has been done plenty of times before by dev's. he reminds me of a sith right now. I don't trust him.. period.. now that's my opinion and I don't care if it makes you burst a blood vessel.
telling him his idea sucks, that might pass as feedback but people telling him to quit and go to riot etc isn't feedback. that's just flat out rude and abusive. |
Carniflex
StarHunt Mordus Angels
209
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 10:58:00 -
[1534] - Quote
So .. on top of 50% increase in fuel cost the jump freighter gets also 50% nerf to the carrying capacity, significant nerf to the agility and reduction in ehp?
Like really? You have deep null sec regions overpopulated or what is the issue? Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... *THWONK!* GOT the bastard. |
Lei Merdeau
Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering
15
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 11:10:00 -
[1535] - Quote
The cargo rigs have twice the calibration need 100(T1) 150(T2) as all the useful armour and shield rigs 50(T1), 75(T2). The (hyperspacial) warp speed rigs are also 50/75.
Giving a themed role bonus of 50% need for the cargo rigs would make them all the same. Then a 175 calibration total for freighters would allow 2 T2 rigs or 1 T2 and 2 T1s. Lots of tradeoff possibilities. Then Fozzie wouldn't need to reduce the values as much to keep the highs within limits. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22064
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 11:13:00 -
[1536] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:You mean the one where you accused me of trolling or the one where you accused me of spamming? No, I mean the one where you flat out said that I was trolling. I only asked if you were because you've already admitted that you're doing it once, and I only said you were spamming because you were spamming.
Quote:Correct, I misunderstood what you were implying. I thought you were trying to that because you don't believe bulkheads are unbalanced that hull tanking is viable and thus were bringing repair mods into the discussion. Maybe you should pay more attention to what I'm actually writing and less to the confused mess that's going on inside your head. That's how all your fallacies are created.
Bulkheads are hull upgrades. Their benefits are much the same as all other hull upgrades. As demonstrated, they're very weak compared to all other attempts at tanking a ship, and as such there's nothing that's in the way of making them fit like the other hull upgrades GÇö it's not suddenly going to make them overpowered since their tanking stats won't change a bit.
That aside, I also know that just because a mod rests in a certain spot in the market list doesn't mean that that is how the modules are balanced. The other hull upgrades ARENT tanking modules and are thus not balanced like they are. Bulkheads are a tank module and as such rightly have fitting requirements even though in the current meta their benefit is woefully overpowered to their fitting cost.
Quote:I have no idea what you trying to say here. But at least we agree one one thing: Expanders are not tanking modules and bulkheads are. I'm saying that your illustration only proves that the modules that expand your HP buffer are not part of the tanking arsenal on cap ships. Your argument doesn't work for dreadnoughts because you're not fitting it like a dreadnought; for the same reason, your argument doesn't work for freigthers since they would follow the same fitting philosophy. You haven't demonstrated any kind of balance problem; you've demonstrated that fitting a ship incorrectly yields poor results. If we instead use the proper arsenal for tanking a capship, we quickly see how woefully underpowered bulkheads are compared to the alternative options.
Quote:So on point: *Sigh* Right, do you really think someone thats been in game since 2005 would actually fit a capship that way? What I actually proved was that in terms of their fitting costs that they give orders of magnitudes more effective HP than comparable modules. So you argument is a strawman fallacy. If no-one fits a capship that way, you think there might be a reason for it? Do you also think there might be a reason why they don't fit your supposedly GÇ£overpoweredGÇ¥ bulkheads either?
No, you didn't prove that because you didn't use comparable modules. By picking a capship, you disqualified any kind of raw buffer expansion from being part of the discussion, be it armour plates or shield extenders. If you want to compare against those, use a ship and fit that actually makes use of those modules like, say, a BC or a BS.
If you're going to use a capship as your testing bench, you'll notice that all modules on it are percentage based. You'll also quickly notice that bulkheads give pitiful percentages compared to the other modules. Finally, you'll notice that bulkheads have massively inflated fitting costs compared to many of those modules, especially once you factor in the percentage bonuses they give.
Quote:So lets look at another comparable example. If you were to make a similar fit comparison and did just invuls and extenders and then did a DCU and bulkheads, the outcome is still the same. Orders of magnitudes better buffs than comparable.
1 DCU t2 4 bulkheads t2 1.3mil effective hp boost
1 t2 invul 4 t2 large extenders 164k effective hp boost That's not a comparable example. That's you making a nonsensical comparison between a pretty stupid fit and a completely idiotic fit. Let's provide an actual point of comparison instead.
1 DCU II 3 Invuln II 1.72mil EHP. Far more tank for far less fitting space and far fewer wasted slots.
The point is this: bulkheads' percentage-based boost is the norm for cap ships, and is in fact far lower than what you get from conventional tanking methods. This actually holds true for subcaps as well, where relative buffer size, higher resists, and higher value on other low-slot modules makes the small increase in hull HP a mere afterthought GÇö something you might squeeze in if you have nothing better to do. It certainly isn't overpowered GÇö the fact that you have to use a failfit to even begin to give the appearance of bulkheads being better shows this with utmost clarity.
We don't even have to use fits to see this. Simple maths will do. GÇó Bulkhead GÇö +20% hull EHP, infers penalties on the ship, 40/1 fitting cost. GÇó DCII GÇö +150% hull EHP, +18% armour EHP, +14% shield EHP, +¦ cap draw, 30/1 fitting cost. GÇó Invuln II GÇö +43% shield EHP, decent cap draw, 44/1 fitting cost. GÇó EANM II GÇö +33% armour EHP, no cap draw, 36/1 fitting cost.
Well look at thatGǪ lowest bonus, second highest fitting cost, significant penalties. Yes, that combination just screams overpowered.
So: since every sensible option on a capship yields better tank for fitting space anyway (and fitting space is not something they lack so differences there are minute); since all other hull upgrades cost 0/0; since subcaps only ever fit bulkheads because they have a slot and some CPU left over; since subcaps also yield far better tank using other modules in their fewer lowslots; there is nothing that becomes imbalanced by removing the fitting costs for bulkheads as well. 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. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
527
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 11:18:00 -
[1537] - Quote
Darkblad wrote:Use thisAnd keep in mind that this is not limited to suicide Ganks alone. The total number of (Jump) Freighter kills in Highsec from 23.04.2013 to 24.04.2014 (therefore excluding Burn Jita) is 2,385. A daily average of 6,5. But this one doesn't count.
Thank you and what the hell is that kill? -10 sec status pilot? |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
33
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 11:27:00 -
[1538] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Darkblad wrote:Use thisAnd keep in mind that this is not limited to suicide Ganks alone. The total number of (Jump) Freighter kills in Highsec from 23.04.2013 to 24.04.2014 (therefore excluding Burn Jita) is 2,385. A daily average of 6,5. But this one doesn't count. Thank you and what the hell is that kill? -10 sec status pilot? Either or under criminal timer. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11685
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 11:30:00 -
[1539] - Quote
Impressive. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Sipphakta en Gravonere
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
607
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 11:32:00 -
[1540] - Quote
Walter Hart White wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:Darkblad wrote:Use thisAnd keep in mind that this is not limited to suicide Ganks alone. The total number of (Jump) Freighter kills in Highsec from 23.04.2013 to 24.04.2014 (therefore excluding Burn Jita) is 2,385. A daily average of 6,5. But this one doesn't count. Thank you and what the hell is that kill? -10 sec status pilot? Either or under criminal timer.
It can only be under a criminal timer, CONCORD doesn't care about/shoot at pilots just because they have -10 sec status. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22065
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 11:32:00 -
[1541] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Thank you and what the hell is that kill? -10 sec status pilot? CONCORD doesn't care about sec status, only about recent criminal acts. It was either a timer or a ship swap that went wrong. 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. |
Lord'Eirik
The Brimstone Society
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 11:33:00 -
[1542] - Quote
This is a nice little gift to the freighter gankers, i bet the gankers will be extatic when they see the first killmail on the freighter kill with t2 cargo rigs to 725mill isk each that even helped them by reducing armor 5%+ armor each rig!
1 lowslot on freighters (reducing cargo by 27.5%) would have been good for freighter pilots, this rig idea is only a nerf and a kick in the face to those players that keep the game running and a gift to those only logging on to get a few easy kills before they log off to play other games!
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11685
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 11:34:00 -
[1543] - Quote
Lord'Eirik wrote:This is a nice little gift to the freighter gankers, i bet the gankers will be extatic when they see the first killmail on the freighter kill with t2 cargo rigs to 725mill isk each that even helped them by reducing armor 5%+ armor each rig!
1 lowslot on freighters (reducing cargo by 27.5%) would have been good for freighter pilots, this rig idea is only a nerf and a kick in the face to those players that keep the game running and a gift to those only logging on to get a few easy kills before they log off to play other games!
You do know that low slot would mean a huge nerf to freighter hp right? Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
stoicfaux
4840
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 11:45:00 -
[1544] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Lord'Eirik wrote:This is a nice little gift to the freighter gankers, i bet the gankers will be extatic when they see the first killmail on the freighter kill with t2 cargo rigs to 725mill isk each that even helped them by reducing armor 5%+ armor each rig!
1 lowslot on freighters (reducing cargo by 27.5%) would have been good for freighter pilots, this rig idea is only a nerf and a kick in the face to those players that keep the game running and a gift to those only logging on to get a few easy kills before they log off to play other games!
You do know that low slot would mean a huge nerf to freighter hp right? Worse. It would mean a "mandatory" DCU II module that you would have to click after each stargate jump. It's worse than mining, in that strip miners have a fixed cycle time, whereas warping and jumping don't.
WASABI: Warp Acceleration System Ancillary Boost Injected(Gäó)
|
Carniflex
StarHunt Mordus Angels
210
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 11:45:00 -
[1545] - Quote
Taking a quick look at numbers. Taking your average route (~30 ly, say eurgrana to C6 in dronelands) currently JF max skills will burn 25k fuel, after fuel consumption increase it will be approx 37.5k meaning price increase from 30mil to 45 mil (1200 per isotope) one way trip (twice that for there and back). With 2x T2 rigs (~2 bil atm) this would mean ~120 isk/m3 for one way trip. With roqual the price is atm 102 isk/m3 but if the Roqual fuel consumption is increased as well it will be 153 isk/m3 (but do note that ore compression arrays will be present in empire POS'es as well and Roqual has 250k ore bay). Anyway these changes suck - all they mean is a 2 bil expenditure for all JF owners as cargo expander rigs are the only ones that make any sense on a JF. In a nutshell nothing changes other than slower align speed for JF's plus a mandatory 2 bil expenditure. Not a lot of choice in here - is it. Roqual will not be far behind or will be slightly better than JF per m3 (do not remeber if Roqual fuel consumption was increased as well, but probably was so it would be approx 20..25% worse isk/m3 if ore bay is empty, however industrials loaded with ammo might make some sense in its ship maint bay).
Roqual is far more survivable though (cloak + overloaded mwd trick, for example, some ECM drones, etc) and also somewhat cheaper ship. If it's also economical will depends on if ORE bay will be used but it might be new FOTM for supercap mineral hauling with JF only used for doing the last hisec -> low sec jump to avoid the gate. Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... *THWONK!* GOT the bastard. |
KIller Wabbit
The Scope Gallente Federation
578
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 11:54:00 -
[1546] - Quote
TheGunslinger42 wrote:Carebear industrialists have been demanding more tank and speed in their big spacetrucks for god knows how long - now that they're giving the option of that (but with a tradeoff, of course) they poop their spacepants and rage and rage and rage.
Good changes, and delicious tears. Great job Fozzie, more of this sort of thing.
I have no problems with trade offs, but how about we ask him to give you a 40% nerf of your guns and see what you say? CCP Punkturis-á "I want to get in on the goodposter circle jerk!"
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22065
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 11:56:00 -
[1547] - Quote
KIller Wabbit wrote:I have no problems with trade offs, but how about we ask him to give you a 40% nerf of your guns and see what you say? In exchange for what? 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. |
Dave Stark
5891
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 12:09:00 -
[1548] - Quote
Tippia wrote:KIller Wabbit wrote:I have no problems with trade offs, but how about we ask him to give you a 40% nerf of your guns and see what you say? In exchange for what? yeah, what are we getting for a 40% nerf? |
Carniflex
StarHunt Mordus Angels
210
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 12:15:00 -
[1549] - Quote
Tippia wrote:KIller Wabbit wrote:I have no problems with trade offs, but how about we ask him to give you a 40% nerf of your guns and see what you say? In exchange for what?
I would presume for ability to fit full rack of T2 rigs for getting that 40% back. And ofc a minor agility reduction as a "tradeoff" Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... *THWONK!* GOT the bastard. |
Dave Stark
5891
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 12:15:00 -
[1550] - Quote
Carniflex wrote:Tippia wrote:KIller Wabbit wrote:I have no problems with trade offs, but how about we ask him to give you a 40% nerf of your guns and see what you say? In exchange for what? I would presume for ability to fit full rack of T2 rigs for getting that 40% back. And ofc a minor agility reduction as a "tradeoff"
except we already have that.
so again, what are we getting for a 40% gun nerf? |
|
Carniflex
StarHunt Mordus Angels
210
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 12:19:00 -
[1551] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Carniflex wrote:Tippia wrote:KIller Wabbit wrote:I have no problems with trade offs, but how about we ask him to give you a 40% nerf of your guns and see what you say? In exchange for what? I would presume for ability to fit full rack of T2 rigs for getting that 40% back. And ofc a minor agility reduction as a "tradeoff" except we already have that. so again, what are we getting for a 40% gun nerf?
The same warm feeling a JF pilot is getting from fitting these nice T2 rigs for getting back where it was. Like the fuel consumption increase would not have been enough to poke the smaller entities in the eye. Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... *THWONK!* GOT the bastard. |
Dave Stark
5891
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 12:21:00 -
[1552] - Quote
Carniflex wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Carniflex wrote:Tippia wrote:KIller Wabbit wrote:I have no problems with trade offs, but how about we ask him to give you a 40% nerf of your guns and see what you say? In exchange for what? I would presume for ability to fit full rack of T2 rigs for getting that 40% back. And ofc a minor agility reduction as a "tradeoff" except we already have that. so again, what are we getting for a 40% gun nerf? The same warm feeling a JF pilot is getting from fitting these nice T2 rigs for getting back where it was. Like the fuel consumption increase would not have been enough to poke the smaller entities in the eye.
you haven't answered the question.
if you're going to nerf guns by 40%, what is being given to players? |
Purpleshadez
Mercurialis Inc.
13
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 12:24:00 -
[1553] - Quote
6bil for the hull, 1.2bil for 2 T2 cargo rigs on a JF JUST to give it a max of 4% cargo hold bonus but around 10k less EHP and 5sec slower aline speed???
why??
i thought this expansion was to boost the industry not to nerf it, so why change the freighters at all???
Too Proud to Beg, Too Stubon to Try-á |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11685
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 12:53:00 -
[1554] - Quote
Purpleshadez wrote:6bil for the hull, 1.2bil for 2 T2 cargo rigs on a JF JUST to give it a max of 4% cargo hold bonus but around 10k less EHP and 5sec slower aline speed???
why??
i thought this expansion was to boost the industry not to nerf it, so why change the freighters at all???
People demanded rigs. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
129
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 12:53:00 -
[1555] - Quote
Mar Drakar wrote:Kids how about you stop crying and deal with it.
back the day there weren't even carriers to jump around, and we dealt with it. Then carriers came and it became much easier then JFs came and it became "whatever"
imo this nerf isn't going far enough, and the very concept of multiple consecutive jump drive activations should be nerfed by logarithmic scale.
CCP, please MAKE NEW EDEN BIG AGAIN .
This step is a step in good direction.
"Back in the day," you didn't have to worry about region locked moon goo. Back in the day T2 prices were ridiculously high. Thanks to invention and the proliferation of JF, you can use t2 ships and modules with out paying an obscene amount for them. You are welcome btw.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11685
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 12:55:00 -
[1556] - Quote
Carniflex wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Carniflex wrote: The same warm feeling a JF pilot is getting from fitting these nice T2 rigs for getting back where it was. Like the fuel consumption increase would not have been enough to poke the smaller entities in the eye.
you haven't answered the question. if you're going to nerf guns by 40%, what is being given to players? That was the answer. The "warm feeling". The same thing the JF pilots are getting :)
Thats not the answer to the question asked.
Freighters will be able to beat the current freighter in cargo capacity or tank or warp speed ect. There are getting something out of these nerfs.
So what would we get for a 40% nerf in guns? Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Big Dallocort
The Killer Kangaroos
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 13:00:00 -
[1557] - Quote
Losing 200,000 from my obelisk, not happy |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
418
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 13:06:00 -
[1558] - Quote
Below is the type of person that I and many others think that Fozzie will listen to:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:Carebear industrialists have been demanding more tank and speed in their big spacetrucks for god knows how long - now that they're giving the option of that (but with a tradeoff, of course) they poop their spacepants and rage and rage and rage.
Good changes, and delicious tears. Great job Fozzie, more of this sort of thing.
Here is the sort of person that he should instead listen to:
Dareth Astrar wrote:It concerns me that to address a few points, you have made such massive structural changes to the hauling backbone that keeps this game running.
I was concerned with the coming industrial changes, but willing to see them in practice on SiSi for a while before making final comments.
We may be a small corporation, but we had already adopted an approach of attempting to perform industry outside of a major hub. The problem has always been hauling the massive quantities of materials around to actually make it possible.
One of our regular builds used to comprise of the following:
Tritanium1,464,196,468 Pyerite 291,120,685 Mexallon81,465,340 Isogen 15,966,498 Nocxium3,588,315 Zydrine 912,678 Megacyte460,246
1,857,710,230 total units. 18,577,102.3 m3 volume. Charon's Maxed Pilots (which we needed): 981,250 m3 Total Loads: 18.93, so 19 round trips to collect minerals
New Charon Max Load before rigs: 687,500 m3 Total Loads: 27.02, so 28 round trips. (47.37% increase in runs!!!!)
I disagree with those that say just rig it up and shut-up. Industry isn't as profitable as people seem to think, a point I may discuss greater later.
Realistically you have to make the profit to pay for the costs you are incurring. Nothing new, just the basics of any business, so realistically it's only 3xT1 Capital rigs that will be afforded regularly. So what is that impact:
New Charon Max Load with 3xT1 Capital rigs: 1,045,602 m3 Total Loads: 17.76, so 18 rounded up. Already much slower to move then 6 months ago with the warp speed and travel changes!
So with all these changes, with additional cost per ship used, we save 1 round trip. I'm sorry, but the practicality of the claimed benefit is being somewhat over claimed here, as everyone is only looking at the T2 rigged max end results only.
After many years of performing our building on a fortnightly basis, we long ago realized the time and effort, lack of fun and lacking of reliable profitability (by the time big items and build batches came out, market depreciation and peoples inability to do basic maths by consistently just undercut the lowest on market in Jita already, often negated the profit to barely average out to 1-5% after sales costs) actually had most people migrate to running Incursions or anything else to make a living AND try to get enjoyment from, what is after all a Game, and not to have it be like work which they were trying to escape!
It strikes me that there were a few things with these changes that CCP focused on, and really forgot the cause-effect of all others.
* EHP were high. Fine, so they obviously wanted to increase ganking of freighters in high sec. Not something I think is sensible given they are the backbone supporting the economy, but fine. * Didn't want certain things to fit into freighters after the changes. Fine, the simple option is increase the volume of those things so that they don't. * Give freighters an ability to customize a load-outs. This could have been done more easily with module slots, and at a far reduced cost to the pilots of those ships. The reason I think they did this with rigs is they realize they've created a massive array of Capital Rig BPO's that are never ever used! There are reasons for that, examine those before assuming this is a sensible option for customization.
So why did people keep asking for rigs? I'm not going to lie, we would have liked to have seen bigger cargo holds, but with the profits being made it also has to factor in the additional costs of any change affecting the business.
Practical terms that were regular reasons: * Size of ships packages were high. Some stupidly so, for example you could only fit 1 Orca in a charon, as they were 500k m3. Personally I would have preferred to have seen reductions in silly sizes before reductions in hauling sizes. * CCP keep missing/ignoring the industrial points: Ore compression is one thing, but actually what is needed is Mineral compression, so that much more can be moved in smaller number of trips. This is still lacking, and the means by which players did this with modules is now less viable, and post the industrial patch not at all viable considering the reprocessing of modules and items given the massive losses. * Hauling is painfully slow now, and exceptionally boring for a game, nearly as boring as mining!
Sadly, all things considered it just strikes me that over the past year all the changes CCP keep making are to increase player time trying to make money, reduce the quantity they can make, and increase the cost of everything else so having fun in PvP is much greater end cost to the economy.
I know I joined for the PvP and found Industry to be an interesting mental pursuit, but with competition coming from other games in the coming year or so, I think CCP may be wise to remember this is a game for entertainment and enjoyment, not yet another form of personal work.
I've already stopped playing as much in PvP, currently not going to waste my time on industrial elements that aren't worth the time invested in terms of results and performance in isk growth, and sadly looking at these changes highly doubtful I'll bother wasting time with the new industrial changes, which will also likely be bringing additional material consumption with it....
Don't be a turd and follow the herd Instead be a Hero at Hub Zero |
Mag's
the united
17280
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 13:15:00 -
[1559] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Below is the type of person that I and many others think that Fozzie will listen to: TheGunslinger42 wrote:Carebear industrialists have been demanding more tank and speed in their big spacetrucks for god knows how long - now that they're giving the option of that (but with a tradeoff, of course) they poop their spacepants and rage and rage and rage.
Good changes, and delicious tears. Great job Fozzie, more of this sort of thing. Here is the sort of person that he should instead listen to: Dareth Astrar wrote:It concerns me ....snip... Funny thing is, Gunslinger was also a part of the group that informed those asking for fitting changes, what would happen. So your idea on who you think was/is listened to, is way off.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
12
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 13:23:00 -
[1560] - Quote
Dracvlad
Very well put. I'm curious when CCP is going to realize that you can only force so much PVP action on industrialist and increased mineral costs before they just say screw this and throw in the towel. I already gave a break down how this is clearly a nerf to freighters (despite what others may say) in my earlier article.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4613601#post4613601
If anything I had hoped than this change would justify the freighter capacities as you could fill the damn thing and put enough tank to justify what was inside. Sadly the freighter went the way of the of the "other" t1 industrial ship post change. (mammouth, bestower, itty V, tyra) which are rarely used other than nitch roles now because they increased their bay size but gave them zero tank. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22065
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 13:34:00 -
[1561] - Quote
Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:Very well put. I'm curious when CCP is going to realize that you can only force so much PVP action on industrialist and increased mineral costs before they just say screw this and throw in the towel. I already gave a break down how this is clearly a nerf to freighters (despite what others may say) in my earlier article. I can't remember seeing anyone saying it isn't a nerf. And anyway, industrialists don't care about mineral costs GÇö all those costs are transferred over to the customer anyway.
Quote:Sadly the freighter went the way of the of the "other" t1 industrial ship post change. (mammouth, bestower, itty V, tyra) which are rarely used other than nitch roles now because they increased their bay size but gave them zero tank. The increase in bay size means you can tank them harder than before without a loss in relative capacity. You, as a industrial pilot, choose to give them zero tank. 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. |
Silvetica Dian
Manson Family Advent of Fate
1042
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 13:42:00 -
[1562] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Quote:So lets look at another comparable example. If you were to make a similar fit comparison and did just invuls and extenders and then did a DCU and bulkheads, the outcome is still the same. Orders of magnitudes better buffs than comparable.
1 DCU t2 4 bulkheads t2 1.3mil effective hp boost
1 t2 invul 4 t2 large extenders 164k effective hp boost That's not a comparable example. That's you making a nonsensical comparison between a pretty stupid fit and a completely idiotic fit. Let's provide an actual point of comparison instead. 1 DCU II 3 Invuln II 1.72mil EHP. Far more tank per fitting space and far fewer wasted slots. Oh, and do you know what it was that created that boost in your example? I'll give you five guesses, and the first four don't countGǪ In fact, let's remove that factor from the equation and just do an apples-to-apples comparison: 4+ù bulkheads come out as +220k EHP; 3+ù Invuln IIs come out as +450k EHP. Wasting slots and CPU on all those GÇ£overpoweredGÇ¥ bulkheads give us less than half of what we get from the comparable module, on top of a crapton of downsides we really don't want to deal with. The point is this: bulkheads' percentage-based boost is the norm for cap ships, and is in fact far lower than what you get from conventional tanking methods. This actually holds true for subcaps as well, where relative buffer size, higher resists, and higher value on other low-slot modules makes the small increase in hull HP a mere afterthought GÇö something you might squeeze in if you have nothing better to do. It certainly isn't overpowered GÇö the fact that you have to use a failfit to even begin to give the appearance of bulkheads being better shows this with utmost clarity. We don't even have to use fits to see this. Simple maths will do. GÇó Bulkhead GÇö +20% hull EHP, infers penalties on the ship, 40/1 fitting cost. GÇó DCII GÇö +150% hull EHP, +18% armour EHP, +14% shield EHP, +¦ cap draw, 30/1 fitting cost. GÇó Invuln II GÇö +43% shield EHP, decent cap draw, 44/1 fitting cost. GÇó EANM II GÇö +33% armour EHP, no cap draw, 36/1 fitting cost. Well look at thatGǪ lowest bonus, second highest fitting cost, significant penalties. Yes, that combination just screams overpowered. So: since every sensible option on a capship yields better tank for fitting space anyway (and fitting space is not something they lack so differences there are minute); since all other hull upgrades cost 0/0; since subcaps only ever fit bulkheads because they have a slot and some CPU left over; since subcaps also yield far better tank using other modules in their fewer lowslots; there is nothing that becomes imbalanced by removing the fitting costs for bulkheads as well.
The supply of people willing to get pwned by Tippia on the forums never seems to dry up. It is hilarious watching them tie themselves in knots. Money at its root is a form of rationing. When the richest 85 people have as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion (50% of humanity) it is clear where the source of poverty is. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/20/trickle-down-economics-broken-promise-richest-85 |
Mar Drakar
LDK Sorry We're In Your Space Eh
70
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 13:46:00 -
[1563] - Quote
Allison A'vani wrote:Mar Drakar wrote:Kids how about you stop crying and deal with it.
back the day there weren't even carriers to jump around, and we dealt with it. Then carriers came and it became much easier then JFs came and it became "whatever"
imo this nerf isn't going far enough, and the very concept of multiple consecutive jump drive activations should be nerfed by logarithmic scale.
CCP, please MAKE NEW EDEN BIG AGAIN .
This step is a step in good direction. "Back in the day," T2 prices were ridiculously high. Thanks to invention and the proliferation of JF (to move the region locked moon goo), you can use t2 ships and modules with out paying an obscene amount for them. Also, "back in the day," was before the high sec ice belt nurf, so isotopes were extremely cheep. You are welcome btw.
back in the day isotopes weren't used as sugar too... back in the day you couldn't traverse the whole of eve in 15 minutes
I agree that some things went for the better (t2 invention, pos towers not used for sov anymore, carriers not allowing indys with stuff in ship bay...), but you cannot deny that eve is now SMALL, and this is THE major problem currently, and seems like CCP acknowledges this but does so by going in circles.
And before you tell me about moongoo moving, our corp had 20 large towers farm back when IRON was alive, and somehow we could survive without JF's, moon goo is no reason to have JF's in place, and moving big bulky resources across the eden SHOULD be more prohibiting task than it is now.
so my point stands MAKE EVE LARGE again. |
Silvetica Dian
Manson Family Advent of Fate
1044
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 13:50:00 -
[1564] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Dracvlad wrote:Below is the type of person that I and many others think that Fozzie will listen to: TheGunslinger42 wrote:Carebear industrialists have been demanding more tank and speed in their big spacetrucks for god knows how long - now that they're giving the option of that (but with a tradeoff, of course) they poop their spacepants and rage and rage and rage.
Good changes, and delicious tears. Great job Fozzie, more of this sort of thing. Here is the sort of person that he should instead listen to: Dareth Astrar wrote:It concerns me ....snip... Funny thing is, Gunslinger was also a part of the group that informed those asking for fitting changes, what would happen. So your idea on who you think was/is listened to, is way off.
Also i read the stuff written by Dareth and got the impression that he was a very poor industrialist. His description of huge effort for low profits amused me greatly and is the exact opposite of how i do industry. Money at its root is a form of rationing. When the richest 85 people have as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion (50% of humanity) it is clear where the source of poverty is. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/20/trickle-down-economics-broken-promise-richest-85 |
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
12
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 13:55:00 -
[1565] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:Very well put. I'm curious when CCP is going to realize that you can only force so much PVP action on industrialist and increased mineral costs before they just say screw this and throw in the towel. I already gave a break down how this is clearly a nerf to freighters (despite what others may say) in my earlier article. I can't remember seeing anyone saying it isn't a nerf. And anyway, industrialists don't care about mineral costs GÇö all those costs are transferred over to the customer anyway. Quote:Sadly the freighter went the way of the of the "other" t1 industrial ship post change. (mammouth, bestower, itty V, tyra) which are rarely used other than nitch roles now because they increased their bay size but gave them zero tank. The increase in bay size means you can tank them harder than before without a loss in relative capacity. You, as a industrial pilot, choose to give them zero tank.
Ok so i''m going to be nice about this but clearly you didn't read my post earlier so don't say it was not a nerf unless you can counter what i already posted.
As for the second statement yes they DID nerf the tank of the 2nd t1 industrial ships all around which you can go read here https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3263705. As you can see everyone one of these ships had a mid slot removed which is far more valuable than a small 200 (yes hundred not thousand) shield hp increase. |
Sael Va'Tauri
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 14:11:00 -
[1566] - Quote
Given the fact that cargo is taking around a 30% nerf, I assume the material components of building freighters is going to drop by 30% as well? Since we purchase freighters to haul things, and we're going to have to buy rigs to bring them back to their pre nerf status, its only logical to reduce the cost of freighters so we keep everything the same, right? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22065
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 14:15:00 -
[1567] - Quote
Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:Ok so i''m going to be nice about this but clearly you didn't read my post earlier so don't say it was not a nerf unless you can counter what i already posted. You knowGǪ if you're going to respond to a post, it helps if you actually read the post first. Otherwise, you risk ending up GÇö as you have done now, and as you did in your previous post GÇö with some pretty silly fallacies. I would suggest that you read my post and try again.
Quote:As for the second statement yes they DID nerf the tank of the 2nd t1 industrial ships all around which you can go read here https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3263705. As you can see everyone one of these ships had a mid slot removed which is far more valuable than a small 200 (yes hundred not thousand) shield hp increase. 404 Page not found. But I'll blame the forum's autolinking for that one.
If you read through that thread, you'll notice a few things: most of them get some minor tank buff. Most of them get more slots that can be used for tanking, and as mentioned: by giving them more base cargo, you can tank them harder. CCP did not give them GÇ£zero tankGÇ¥. In fact, they made it a lot easier to tank them well. Only you, the pilot, can give them zero tank that through your fitting decisions. You can also decide to not do that but instead make them more sturdy. The only real exception was the Itty V, which was a bit out of line with how good it was in relation to the other old tier-2 haulers. 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. |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
59
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 14:22:00 -
[1568] - Quote
Sael Va'Tauri wrote:Given the fact that cargo is taking around a 30% nerf, I assume the material components of building freighters is going to drop by 30% as well? Since we purchase freighters to haul things, and we're going to have to buy rigs to bring them back to their pre nerf status, its only logical to reduce the cost of freighters so we keep everything the same, right?
Same for JF?? |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11689
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 14:23:00 -
[1569] - Quote
Sael Va'Tauri wrote:Given the fact that cargo is taking around a 30% nerf, I assume the material components of building freighters is going to drop by 30% as well? Since we purchase freighters to haul things, and we're going to have to buy rigs to bring them back to their pre nerf status, its only logical to reduce the cost of freighters so we keep everything the same, right?
That 30% cargo space is empty space, technically from an RP point of view there would be more cost as you filling that empty space with the systems and fittings to host the new rigs. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Dave Stark
5903
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 14:25:00 -
[1570] - Quote
Carniflex wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Carniflex wrote: The same warm feeling a JF pilot is getting from fitting these nice T2 rigs for getting back where it was. Like the fuel consumption increase would not have been enough to poke the smaller entities in the eye.
you haven't answered the question. if you're going to nerf guns by 40%, what is being given to players? That was the answer. The "warm feeling". The same thing the JF pilots are getting :) no, JF pilots get rigs.
so again; what do i get if guns get a 40% nerf? |
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
419
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 14:30:00 -
[1571] - Quote
Silvetica Dian wrote:Mag's wrote:Dracvlad wrote:Below is the type of person that I and many others think that Fozzie will listen to: TheGunslinger42 wrote:Carebear industrialists have been demanding more tank and speed in their big spacetrucks for god knows how long - now that they're giving the option of that (but with a tradeoff, of course) they poop their spacepants and rage and rage and rage.
Good changes, and delicious tears. Great job Fozzie, more of this sort of thing. Here is the sort of person that he should instead listen to: Dareth Astrar wrote:It concerns me ....snip... Funny thing is, Gunslinger was also a part of the group that informed those asking for fitting changes, what would happen. So your idea on who you think was/is listened to, is way off. Also i read the stuff written by Dareth and got the impression that he was a very poor industrialist. His description of huge effort for low profits amused me greatly and is the exact opposite of how i do industry.
And yet your alliance... Don't be a turd and follow the herd Instead be a Hero at Hub Zero |
Kosh Seere
Space Exploitation Inc Get Off My Lawn
24
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 14:40:00 -
[1572] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Sael Va'Tauri wrote:Given the fact that cargo is taking around a 30% nerf, I assume the material components of building freighters is going to drop by 30% as well? Since we purchase freighters to haul things, and we're going to have to buy rigs to bring them back to their pre nerf status, its only logical to reduce the cost of freighters so we keep everything the same, right? That 30% cargo space is empty space, technically from an RP point of view there would be more cost as you filling that empty space with the systems and fittings to host the new rigs. Ye, that doesn't make sense at all, nor is it in any way a sound logic. Cap cargo rigs take up 40m3 each and if a 30% drop in cargospace is justified through the need for space for rigs I'd like to see more calibration points and more rig slots. Skill yourself! |
Delhaven
Vicis Inter Astrum I'd Rather Be Roaming
45
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 14:41:00 -
[1573] - Quote
Some random thoughts:
1. Why not just nerf capital cargohold rigs and increase the base amount of cargo space on Freighters and Jump Freighters? They only other ship that they might get used on is the Rorqual, but it's due for a rebalance soon anyway and it could be accommodated then.
2. Will the Orca be getting capital-sized rigs next? It is, after all, also a capital ship. If not, can this exception also be used with Freighters and Jump Freighters so that they can also use large rigs? I like the idea of being able to customize my freighters, and having spent most of yesterday playing with the numbers, I'm not completely opposed to the changes as they stand. My beef is that the cost of capital rigs will eliminate any flexibility.
3. Can the Freighter and Jump Freighter changes be put off until after the big industry patch? With the changes in refining, IGÇÖm guessing there will be a lot more ore moved, and a lot less minerals. Personally, IGÇÖd like to see how the market shakes out before I commit to spending a couple of hundred million ISK on rigs only to find out IGÇÖll have to change them later because the economy is completely different. |
Jattila Vrek
Green Visstick High
11
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 14:43:00 -
[1574] - Quote
Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:There are several on here saying it isn't a nerf and gives better flexibility. however it does not. And further more not all of us use freighters for the industrial purposes you mentioned. for example now i'll need two different freighters to do the task of one. as it is used of multitude of purposes ranging from high value low space material to low value high m3 ice. are you going to destroy your cargo rigs used to transport ice? no that's a huge loss when you need to transport something of value. The fact this so called "flexibility" is sem-permanent is the problem. You don't need cargo rigs to move high volume low value items, use warp speed rigs, which will give you almost the same m3/hr moved as cargo rigs. Warp speed rigs work for both cases. |
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
12
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 14:52:00 -
[1575] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:Ok so i''m going to be nice about this but clearly you didn't read my post earlier so don't say it was not a nerf unless you can counter what i already posted. You knowGǪ if you're going to respond to a post, it helps if you actually read the post first. Otherwise, you risk ending up GÇö as you have done now, and as you did in your previous post GÇö with some pretty silly fallacies. I would suggest that you read my post and try again.
Touche I thought you were arguing at first that it was not a nerf which i quickly changed but not before you quoted it.
Tippia wrote:Quote:As for the second statement yes they DID nerf the tank of the 2nd t1 industrial ships all around which you can go read here https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3263705. As you can see everyone one of these ships had a mid slot removed which is far more valuable than a small 200 (yes hundred not thousand) shield hp increase. 404 Page not found. But I'll blame the forum's autolinking for that one. If you read through that thread, you'll notice a few things: most of them get some minor tank buff. Most of them get more slots that can be used for tanking, and as mentioned: by giving them more base cargo, you can tank them harder. CCP did not give them GÇ£zero tankGÇ¥. In fact, they made it a lot easier to tank them well. Only you, the pilot, can give them zero tank that through your fitting decisions. You can also decide to not do that but instead make them more sturdy. The only real exception was the Itty V, which was a bit out of line with how good it was in relation to the other old tier-2 haulers.
They removed the possibility of tanking them any way other than shield by removing the majority of all other hp. but then removed mid slots which are necessary to try and fit resists. I'll relinking but the forum gods may crap on this link as well. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3263705
The mammoth for example was capable of getting nearly 15k ehp completely passive. Now you are lucky if you can even get 7k. Not that 15k was much but 7 k is a completely joke. Anyhow that is for another forum and i will return back to the freighter talk now. |
Axe Coldon
Coldon Enterprises Axion Bionics
39
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 15:00:00 -
[1576] - Quote
Mar Drakar wrote:Allison A'vani wrote:Mar Drakar wrote:Kids how about you stop crying and deal with it.
back the day there weren't even carriers to jump around, and we dealt with it. Then carriers came and it became much easier then JFs came and it became "whatever"
imo this nerf isn't going far enough, and the very concept of multiple consecutive jump drive activations should be nerfed by logarithmic scale.
CCP, please MAKE NEW EDEN BIG AGAIN .
This step is a step in good direction. "Back in the day," T2 prices were ridiculously high. Thanks to invention and the proliferation of JF (to move the region locked moon goo), you can use t2 ships and modules with out paying an obscene amount for them. Also, "back in the day," was before the high sec ice belt nurf, so isotopes were extremely cheep. You are welcome btw. back in the day isotopes weren't used as sugar too... back in the day you couldn't traverse the whole of eve in 15 minutes I agree that some things went for the better (t2 invention, pos towers not used for sov anymore, carriers not allowing indys with stuff in ship bay...), but you cannot deny that eve is now SMALL, and this is THE major problem currently, and seems like CCP acknowledges this but does so by going in circles. And before you tell me about moongoo moving, our corp had 20 large towers farm back when IRON was alive, and somehow we could survive without JF's, moon goo is no reason to have JF's in place, and moving big bulky resources across the eden SHOULD be more prohibiting task than it is now. so my point stands MAKE EVE LARGE again.
Make Eve large by expanding the universe not by nerfing ships. Let us go places no one has gone before. Discover new galaxies..idk how they implement it. But more systems not harder to travel in the ones we have.
|
Ix Method
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
139
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 15:06:00 -
[1577] - Quote
Probably a bit late now but with the Freighters/BR/DST all so generic now it might be an opportunity to unify them into an ORE style single skill group. Not even necessarily ORE, there's room to mess around with another minor faction.
Sure art, effort, etc. but there's potential to add more value than four kinda samey, not really racial not really interesting subsets of the same basic ships. Would we really miss having the choice between a Prov/Obelisk, Prowler/Viator, etc?
Forgive the ramble, hooray for the changes Travelling at the speed of love. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22067
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 15:11:00 -
[1578] - Quote
Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:Touche I thought you were arguing at first that it was not a nerf which i quickly changed but not before you quoted it. Fair enough, I saw the edit. I'm still dubious of the claim though. The most I've seen is people saying that, no, you can indeed boost your abilities beyond what you had before, but that this ability comes at a predictable cost. It may not be a net buff, but nor is it a total nerf either since you can get those higher values.
Quote:They removed the possibility of tanking them any way other than shield by removing the majority of all other hp. but then removed mid slots which are necessary to try and fit resists. I'll relinking but the forum gods may crap on this link as well. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3263705The mammoth for example was capable of getting nearly 15k ehp completely passive. Now you are lucky if you can even get 7k. Not that 15k was much but 7 k is a completely joke. They also REMOVED base cargo from this ship as well and added a low which is near worthless for shield tanking when you already had 4. Anyhow that is for another forum and i will return back to the freighter talk now. Tip for linking: either make sure it is completely separate from other words around it, or use the in-line {url} mark-up. Aaaaanyway.
My point is that what they did was to give you some additional capital (cargo space and lowslots) that you can trade for increased abilities elsewhere, or perhaps more accurately, not spend modules on improving. If they give the ship a 30% cargo increase, then that's one expander you don't have to fit. It's much the same as how range bonuses for guns can be turned into damage bonuses: you can now use shorter-ranged ammo to exchange that range for more damage in situations where you'd normally be stuck with some mediocre mid-range/snore-damage ammo.
That's kind of the beauty of the attribute and fitting system in the game GÇö with some fiddling, almost anything can be traded against anything. Ok, so the Mammoth was able to get 15k EHP passively. It can still get it actively, and more. Moreover, the Mammoth was changed to be a fast transport, and they certainly did that. Not being around is the best tank there is.
Agility is once again something you can trade against other stats. Slap some additional bulk on that thing and laugh as your align times end up the same as they always were. 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. |
Mar Drakar
LDK Sorry We're In Your Space Eh
71
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 15:21:00 -
[1579] - Quote
Axe Coldon wrote:Mar Drakar wrote:
back in the day isotopes weren't used as sugar too... back in the day you couldn't traverse the whole of eve in 15 minutes
I agree that some things went for the better (t2 invention, pos towers not used for sov anymore, carriers not allowing indys with stuff in ship bay...), but you cannot deny that eve is now SMALL, and this is THE major problem currently, and seems like CCP acknowledges this but does so by going in circles.
And before you tell me about moongoo moving, our corp had 20 large towers farm back when IRON was alive, and somehow we could survive without JF's, moon goo is no reason to have JF's in place, and moving big bulky resources across the eden SHOULD be more prohibiting task than it is now.
so my point stands MAKE EVE LARGE again.
Make Eve large by expanding the universe not by nerfing ships. Let us go places no one has gone before. Discover new galaxies..idk how they implement it. But more systems not harder to travel in the ones we have.
Who needs more useless space that is reachable from anywhere in 15+2 minutes?, oh 15+5? that's bonus 3 regions into every direction, ~quadrupling the space that may be accessed.
More systems would only have diminishing return for expansion currently, they would be either in reach from everywhere, or in reach from certain places... for vast majority of entities that would make them effectively irrelevant.
There should be no means of traversing galaxy on a whim, plain and simple. Logistics should require effort as it used to
so yet again CCP
MAKE EVE BIG AGAIN |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1561
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 15:22:00 -
[1580] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Carniflex wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Carniflex wrote: The same warm feeling a JF pilot is getting from fitting these nice T2 rigs for getting back where it was. Like the fuel consumption increase would not have been enough to poke the smaller entities in the eye.
you haven't answered the question. if you're going to nerf guns by 40%, what is being given to players? That was the answer. The "warm feeling". The same thing the JF pilots are getting :) no, JF pilots get rigs. so again; what do i get if guns get a 40% nerf?
he doesnt get it. hes just blinded by nerd rage. 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" |
|
Dave Stark
5915
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 15:23:00 -
[1581] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Carniflex wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Carniflex wrote: The same warm feeling a JF pilot is getting from fitting these nice T2 rigs for getting back where it was. Like the fuel consumption increase would not have been enough to poke the smaller entities in the eye.
you haven't answered the question. if you're going to nerf guns by 40%, what is being given to players? That was the answer. The "warm feeling". The same thing the JF pilots are getting :) no, JF pilots get rigs. so again; what do i get if guns get a 40% nerf? he doesnt get it. hes just blinded by nerd rage.
i get it, but you can't give me rigs if i already have them. so he simply didn't answer the question of; what do i get?
but the fact that you couldn't see it, does dictate that you're blinded by nerd rage. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22067
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 15:26:00 -
[1582] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:he doesnt get it. hes just blinded by nerd rage. i get it, but you can't give me rigs if i already have them. so he simply didn't answer the question of; what do i get? but the fact that you couldn't see it, does dictate that you're blinded by nerd rage. He's talking about Carniflex. 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. |
Dxella
Licentia Ex Vereor Black Core Alliance
4
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 15:27:00 -
[1583] - Quote
I Think you are nerfing them to hard Fozzie, tho that to be said less HP and longer align time for better cargo is kinda logical,
They are not designed for taking damage nor being quick, they are designed to make big hauls and thats how it should be,
Freigthers
Decrease HP and make them align slower ( as the stats u posted now fozzie ) , but make them need to fit atleast 1 Tech 1 cargo rig for getting the current cargo hold space, and the other 2 rig slots as a option for the player to make how he wants to use it, ( someone else mentioned this earlier regarding having atleast 1 rig )
For the JF's
Same deal there when it comes to HP and Align time, use the stats u posted, same goes for the cargo, atleast 1 Tech 1 cargo rig for same cargo stats as now, after all they are costing quite a abit for that Jump drive and smaller cargo hold, and i Think the fuel change will keep things intressting as it is.
Having less hp and longer align time makes sense to gain extra cargo hold, after all, Less armor plates on the ship, the more room u get inside for storage. and they are big ships so why would they align quickly?
ofcourse you will need to adjust Capital's repackaged m3 so you cant bring them into HS.
|
Dave Stark
5917
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 15:28:00 -
[1584] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:he doesnt get it. hes just blinded by nerd rage. i get it, but you can't give me rigs if i already have them. so he simply didn't answer the question of; what do i get? but the fact that you couldn't see it, does dictate that you're blinded by nerd rage. He's talking about Carniflex.
sigh, then there was absolutely no need for him to quote my post. |
Alexis Nightwish
State War Academy Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 15:29:00 -
[1585] - Quote
Allison A'vani wrote:Alexis Nightwish wrote:Jump freighters are OP. They are OP because of jump/cyno mechanics, not because of tank, agility, cargo, or whatever other attribute you want to haphazardly whack around with the nerf bat.
You want to make it more appealing to do industry in null, and within smaller areas? This isn't the way to do it. Instead, make jumps cost fuel relative to the distance jumped (possibly going up exponentially with distance?), and don't allow cynos to be lit within 1AU of any celestials. Suddenly JFs aren't invulnerable, and we get a nice power projection nerf at the same time. Win-win.
The T1 freighter nerfs are way too harsh. It's basically like this:
CCP: We're all about "player choice", so we're going to take a slightly UP ship class that has no alternatives to its use and nerf the **** out of it. But to make it okay we'll make sure you can get approximately the pre-nerf value in ONE area by using incredibly expensive rigs.
Freighter Pilot: So what you're saying is that you're going to kick me in the balls, and tell me it's okay because now I can buy Aspirin?
CCP: You got it! ^^
FP: So basically a nerf is totally justified so long as one nerfed aspect can be restored with all your rig slots? What a load of bull****!
Carrier Pilot: Something something Nyx... You obviously are not part of any decently sized alliance and do not play the same game as anyone else if you really think any of that. That is possibly the stupidest post so far in this entire thread. Every major alliance in the game would no longer have any logistical back bone if that were the case. As I said, win-win.
|
Ammzi
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
1769
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 15:40:00 -
[1586] - Quote
Alexis Nightwish wrote:Allison A'vani wrote:Every major alliance in the game would no longer have any logistical back bone if that were the case. As I said, win-win.
GrrrNullsec |
Axe Coldon
Coldon Enterprises Axion Bionics
39
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 15:44:00 -
[1587] - Quote
Mar Drakar wrote:Axe Coldon wrote:Mar Drakar wrote:
back in the day isotopes weren't used as sugar too... back in the day you couldn't traverse the whole of eve in 15 minutes
I agree that some things went for the better (t2 invention, pos towers not used for sov anymore, carriers not allowing indys with stuff in ship bay...), but you cannot deny that eve is now SMALL, and this is THE major problem currently, and seems like CCP acknowledges this but does so by going in circles.
And before you tell me about moongoo moving, our corp had 20 large towers farm back when IRON was alive, and somehow we could survive without JF's, moon goo is no reason to have JF's in place, and moving big bulky resources across the eden SHOULD be more prohibiting task than it is now.
so my point stands MAKE EVE LARGE again.
Make Eve large by expanding the universe not by nerfing ships. Let us go places no one has gone before. Discover new galaxies..idk how they implement it. But more systems not harder to travel in the ones we have. Who needs more useless space that is reachable from anywhere in 15+2 minutes?, oh 15+5? that's bonus 3 regions into every direction, ~quadrupling the space that may be accessed. More systems would only have diminishing return for expansion currently, they would be either in reach from everywhere, or in reach from certain places... for vast majority of entities that would make them effectively irrelevant. There should be no means of traversing galaxy on a whim, plain and simple. Logistics should require effort as it used to so yet again CCP MAKE EVE BIG AGAIN
I disagree. If space was sufficiently larger..you would get game play elsewhere. My idea would be far away..maybe 8-10 cyno jumps another low/high sec region. Surrounded by its own null. You could go from here to there..but be so far to trade anything of size would be too expensive. IT would develop its own alliances and power brokers..which eventually would invade Old Eve. It would be cool.
Make the connections between the 2 areas NPC space so it can't be controlled by any one alliance. (except manned gate camps and such. Put no stations between so no safe docking for caps. And it the connections are npc can be no user stations either.
And of course high slots for jf's so they can cloak. Want more fun make it so titans' can't traverse the distance. this is accomplished simply by having an area where the gate to gate range is beyond the jump range of the titan..the ship with the shortest jump distance. Would also mean no bridging between areas. Which would further its isolation.
The wild west of eve. Have the concord response there be slower by 100%. could do lots of stuff to make it more dangerous. and some upsides to make it worthwhile. You want get people in the game, I guarantee it will get them in in droves. A new beginning.
Could eve make the sov rules there different. the sky is the limit.
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1561
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 15:51:00 -
[1588] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Tippia wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:he doesnt get it. hes just blinded by nerd rage. i get it, but you can't give me rigs if i already have them. so he simply didn't answer the question of; what do i get? but the fact that you couldn't see it, does dictate that you're blinded by nerd rage. He's talking about Carniflex. sigh, then there was absolutely no need for him to quote my post.
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" |
Dave Stark
5922
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 16:00:00 -
[1589] - Quote
it's hard to dislike smiley faces. |
Lvzbel Ixtab
0ne Percent. Odin's Call
37
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 16:08:00 -
[1590] - Quote
He actually knows why this changes are bad, everyone else that comes here and start blabbing about carebear tears is really close minded becasue huge alliances and small gang/solo pvpers like myself own freighters to move their assets around.
So if you think this changes only affect carebears you have no idea of whats going on this will affect EVERYONE freighter pilots or not.
Dareth Astrar wrote:It concerns me that to address a few points, you have made such massive structural changes to the hauling backbone that keeps this game running.
I was concerned with the coming industrial changes, but willing to see them in practice on SiSi for a while before making final comments.
We may be a small corporation, but we had already adopted an approach of attempting to perform industry outside of a major hub. The problem has always been hauling the massive quantities of materials around to actually make it possible.
One of our regular builds used to comprise of the following:
Tritanium1,464,196,468 Pyerite 291,120,685 Mexallon81,465,340 Isogen 15,966,498 Nocxium3,588,315 Zydrine 912,678 Megacyte460,246
1,857,710,230 total units. 18,577,102.3 m3 volume. Charon's Maxed Pilots (which we needed): 981,250 m3 Total Loads: 18.93, so 19 round trips to collect minerals
New Charon Max Load before rigs: 687,500 m3 Total Loads: 27.02, so 28 round trips. (47.37% increase in runs!!!!)
I disagree with those that say just rig it up and shut-up. Industry isn't as profitable as people seem to think, a point I may discuss greater later.
Realistically you have to make the profit to pay for the costs you are incurring. Nothing new, just the basics of any business, so realistically it's only 3xT1 Capital rigs that will be afforded regularly. So what is that impact:
New Charon Max Load with 3xT1 Capital rigs: 1,045,602 m3 Total Loads: 17.76, so 18 rounded up. Already much slower to move then 6 months ago with the warp speed and travel changes!
So with all these changes, with additional cost per ship used, we save 1 round trip. I'm sorry, but the practicality of the claimed benefit is being somewhat over claimed here, as everyone is only looking at the T2 rigged max end results only.
After many years of performing our building on a fortnightly basis, we long ago realized the time and effort, lack of fun and lacking of reliable profitability (by the time big items and build batches came out, market depreciation and peoples inability to do basic maths by consistently just undercut the lowest on market in Jita already, often negated the profit to barely average out to 1-5% after sales costs) actually had most people migrate to running Incursions or anything else to make a living AND try to get enjoyment from, what is after all a Game, and not to have it be like work which they were trying to escape!
It strikes me that there were a few things with these changes that CCP focused on, and really forgot the cause-effect of all others.
* EHP were high. Fine, so they obviously wanted to increase ganking of freighters in high sec. Not something I think is sensible given they are the backbone supporting the economy, but fine. * Didn't want certain things to fit into freighters after the changes. Fine, the simple option is increase the volume of those things so that they don't. * Give freighters an ability to customize a load-outs. This could have been done more easily with module slots, and at a far reduced cost to the pilots of those ships. The reason I think they did this with rigs is they realize they've created a massive array of Capital Rig BPO's that are never ever used! There are reasons for that, examine those before assuming this is a sensible option for customization.
So why did people keep asking for rigs? I'm not going to lie, we would have liked to have seen bigger cargo holds, but with the profits being made it also has to factor in the additional costs of any change affecting the business.
Practical terms that were regular reasons: * Size of ships packages were high. Some stupidly so, for example you could only fit 1 Orca in a charon, as they were 500k m3. Personally I would have preferred to have seen reductions in silly sizes before reductions in hauling sizes. * CCP keep missing/ignoring the industrial points: Ore compression is one thing, but actually what is needed is Mineral compression, so that much more can be moved in smaller number of trips. This is still lacking, and the means by which players did this with modules is now less viable, and post the industrial patch not at all viable considering the reprocessing of modules and items given the massive losses. * Hauling is painfully slow now, and exceptionally boring for a game, nearly as boring as mining!
Sadly, all things considered it just strikes me that over the past year all the changes CCP keep making are to increase player time trying to make money, reduce the quantity they can make, and increase the cost of everything else so having fun in PvP is much greater end cost to the economy.
As in our own development at my place of work:
Always Stop, think first: * Incentive/reason for the change (always requires a business benefit) * What is the benefit to the customer paying * Cost and time factors for us, are they reasonable for the desired feature requested. Is it a wise use of resources? * Always keep it simple. If it's getting away, rethink.
|
|
Lara Divinity
Seles Deep Space Industries Order of the Exalted
12
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 16:13:00 -
[1591] - Quote
so i petioned this situation since i was training for a charon this is what i sent and what ccp replied where in the hell is that even fair...
dear ccp i was planning to buy a freighter b4 the update so i started training for one for almost a month! but now with the sudden massive nerf to freighters coming up i feel like its a total waste to even buy one and the time and isk i spent on buying and training for the prepatch freighter are completly useless now and were a big waste of time ...bcos i had in mind to get a freighter the way it was presented to me in the market (that was what i was training for and not for what is coming up) i dont even want to buy a freighter anymore with the new changes arriving to it...but in the meantime i did buy all the skillbooks and did spend all the time training to be able to fly one...and since i just found out about the massive nerving...i dont think i will even get one and it would only seem fair to me if i get my skillpoints refunded so i can place them into other more usefull specializations...i feel like i have been scammed bcos as i said b4 ive been training for almost a month on this goal to only find out that the ships arent goin to be what they whereand as they are presented in the market currently in ten days i will have the advanced spaceship command to level 5 and
as for the refund of skillpoints it would come down to 1.280.000 skillpoints for advanced spaceship command lvl 5 not goin to count spaceship command lvl 5 into it cos its a skill i use on other ships to but the advanced one is only good for freighters wich i aint planning to get nomore with the massive nerf coming up. also leaving out the 75million isk skillbook i got for caldari freighter and the 50million for the advanced spaceship command skillbook wich brings it down to 125million in total. hopefully u guys can see and understand my point of view and my dissapointment. if i knew these changes in advance i would have never have started training to fly a freighter or even spend that kind of isk on it, and i would be using my skillpoints on more usefull specializations in other areas waits patiently on a decent reply have a nice productive day.... Sincerely Lara Divinity
CCP replies with this crap Greetings Lara Divinity, GM Ood here.
Thank you for contacting Customer Support.
Customer Support is unable to offer a reclamation of skill points and ISK spent on skills you no longer wish to use. EVE Online is constantly changing and as such, skill training and ISK reimbursement is not something we offer, in regards to unwanted training. We apologize that you feel these upcoming changes to EVE will hinder your ability to utilize a Freighter in the manner you were hoping.
If you have any suggestions or concerns, in regards to the upcoming changes, we would suggest that you address these suggestions and concerns on the EVE Online forums. The best place would be the "Features and Ideas Discussion" section of the EVE Online forums. The developers frequently read that forum section for new ideas and player feedback. We have included the link for the relevant forum page below.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=topics&f=270
If you have any other issues or questions, please feel free to contact Customer Support further.
Best regards, GM Ood CCP Customer Support | EVE Online | DUST 514
so basicly i have been training for a month for somthing that is now gonna get nerfed like hell n dont even feel like buyin nomore bcos of it ...n ccp isnt even willing to refund the skillpoints feels more n more like a milking game
|
Zerstorung Vorvote
Thrax Intersolar Dispute Resolutions Special Operators Federation Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 16:21:00 -
[1592] - 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.
Quote: and with T1 cargo rigs their cargo holds will be between 4 and 7% smaller than current. |
Lara Divinity
Seles Deep Space Industries Order of the Exalted
12
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 16:22:00 -
[1593] - Quote
ccp ur makin this game go from bad to worse but thats probably the entire point of ur so caklled sand box if it should be a sandbox then stop forcing ppl to move to nullsec by changin the hell out off everything if ppl decide they want to live n do somthing their way but noo its all bout null nowthis game is goin to hell...in a sandbox ppl shouldnt be forced to move to other sectors...or have ppl training for somthing that that aint gonna get bcause you guys suddenly decide its time to change it bcos null doesnt have there industry localized its pure crap imo and a total waste of time training for somthing that i never use now anyays i could have had a ton of other skills on lvl 5 ..instead of all this crap ur putting the letting guy go thru...thumbs down n like i said before a huge dissapointmenti diid not subscribe to deal with this crap |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22071
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 16:22:00 -
[1594] - Quote
Lara Divinity wrote:so basicly i have been training for a month for somthing that is now gonna get nerfed like hell n dont even feel like buyin nomore bcos of it There was a reason for you to invest in the skill books and start training, right? That reason will not go away with the patch. Whatever problem you were having that you thought you would need a freighter to solve, you'll still need a freighter to solve. Just keep plugging away at those skills GÇö the needs and solutions will remain the same as always.
Quote: if it should be a sandbox then stop forcing ppl to move to nullsec by changin the hell out off everything This has absolutely nothing to do with nullsec, and even less to do with forcing people to move anywhere at all. 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. |
Lara Divinity
Seles Deep Space Industries Order of the Exalted
12
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 16:29:00 -
[1595] - Quote
Tippia wrote:[quote=Lara Divinity]so basicly i have been training for a month for somthing that is now gonna get nerfed like hell n dont even feel like buyin nomore bcos of it There was a reason for you to invest in the skill books and start training, right? That reason will not go away with the patch. Whatever problem you were having that you thought you would need a freighter to solve, you'll still need a freighter to solve. Just keep plugging away at those skills GÇö the needs and solutions will remain the same as always.
the reason was the freighter i was presented in the market not the one thats coming up i can haul my stuff in smaller loads to it will just take longer and at least i wouldnt have wasted my sp id have a ton of other skills on lvl 5 |
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 16:29:00 -
[1596] - Quote
Tippia wrote:No, I mean the one where you flat out said that I was trolling. I only asked if you were because you've already admitted that you're doing it once, and I only said you were spamming because you were spamming.
You mean the one where you asked me if I was trolling and I said IGÇÖd admit to trolling only if you admitted that your GÇ£I told you soGÇ¥ posts were trolling as well? Besides I never said that your whole argument was invalid just because you were and are trolling. I was simply saying youGÇÖre being a butt hole for the sake of it.
Tippia wrote:Maybe you should pay more attention to what I'm actually writing and less to the confused mess that's going on inside your head. That's how all your fallacies are created.
Maybe you should write better instead of inviting confusion with posts like GÇ£Mu.GÇ¥
Tippia wrote: Bulkheads are hull upgrades.
Bulkheads are hull upgrades only because thatGÇÖs how they were classified when the game first came out. How many market changes have been made recently to move things around to where they actually make since? Bulkheads ARE tanking modules because the only reason for adding more HP is if you want to ya know live longerGǪ. IGÇÖll get to their OPness later.
Just because no one fits that way doesnGÇÖt mean that the modules arenGÇÖt overpowered. So if you want to use real examples lets provide better context with the first example you provided, 1 dcu t2 and 3x invul t2. At level 5 skills this has an effective HP of 1.78mil hp. Now, IGÇÖm not saying the most people fit a PDU in that second low slot, but letGÇÖs say for the sake of the argument that most people do. In doing so you get a little bit better cap and your EHP jumps to 1.83mil. BUT, instead, letsGÇÖ put a t2 bulkhead thereGǪ your hp jumps from 1.78 to 1.934! AMAZING! You get 100k more EHP for that one slot than you do for using a PDU! Now the real question I would ask is why no fits a large t2 shield extender? Is it because the measly boost in EHP it gives for a cap ship isnGÇÖt worth the slot compared to just adding another invul or maybe another hardner?
Tippia wrote:So you argument is a strawman fallacy. If no-one fits a capship that way, you think there might be a reason for it? Do you also think there might be a reason why they don't fit your supposedly GÇ£overpoweredGÇ¥ bulkheads either?
No, itGÇÖs not. It was an example to illustrate my point of how your idea was bad. The question asked was why are BULKHEADS overpowered, not DCUGÇÖs, not invuls, and not any other module. So I tried to show you using the only comparable modules we have to them which are mods like extenders, and then you change your argument to add in other things like DCUGÇÖs and invuls.
[quote=Tippia ] No, you didn't prove that because you didn't use comparable modules. By picking a capship, you disqualified any kind of raw buffer expansion from being part of the discussion, be it armour plates or shield extenders. If you want to compare against those, use a ship and fit that actually makes use of those modules like, say, a BC or a BS.
If you're going to use a capship as your testing bench, you'll notice that all modules on it are percentage based. You'll also quickly notice that bulkheads give pitiful percentages compared to the other modules. Finally, you'll notice that bulkheads have massively inflated fitting costs compared to many of those modules, especially once you factor in the percentage bonuses they give.
"Well look at thatGǪ lowest bonus, second highest fitting cost, significant penalties. Yes, that combination just screams overpowered.
So: since every sensible option on a capship yields better tank for fitting space anyway (and fitting space is not something they lack so differences there are minute); since all other hull upgrades cost 0/0; since subcaps only ever fit bulkheads because they have a slot and some CPU left over; since subcaps also yield far better tank using other modules in their fewer lowslots; there is nothing that becomes imbalanced by removing the fitting costs for bulkheads as well."
IGÇÖm not disqualifying anything. I was simply showing an extreme edge case that is possible. The point of balance is not to look at things that are working. ItGÇÖs to look at things that donGÇÖt. Now the reason I picked a cap ship is several fold. A. your idea was to give low slots to a freighter, not to a bc, not to a cruiser or anything else. A freighter is a cap ship. B. Cap ships have problems in terms of fitting buffer modules because of the current meta. Generally speaking, for all sub cap ship classes, buffer fits typically include both resists and raw hp boost mods aka 2-3 invuls and a couple extenders for shields. However for cap ships, there are no raw HP mods that offer usable boosts on cap ships BESIDES bulkheads. This includes extenders, and this includes plates. For example, if there was a mod that gave your ship a 25% percent straight boost to shield HP youGÇÖd see a vastly different fit on caldari cap ships than you do today. But there isnGÇÖt and the reason is because a boost like that on a cap ship would be over powered.
Now as far as IGÇÖm concerned your comparison to other modules that arenGÇÖt raw HP boosters is garbage. You know as well as I do that A. Hull starts out with no resist, and B that there are no other Hull resist mods besides the DCU. If hull tanking was properly coded to be comparable to other forms of tanking this comparison would be easier. Further, your comparison numbers are a bit skewed. T2 bulkheads give 25% to hull. If you want to argue that no one fits hull tanks because of how skewed the current meta is towards other mods thatGÇÖs fine. But that doesnGÇÖt change the fact that bulkheads and hull tanking in general is broken. You know it and I know. |
Mar Drakar
LDK Sorry We're In Your Space Eh
71
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 16:35:00 -
[1597] - Quote
Axe Coldon wrote:
I disagree. If space was sufficiently larger..you would get game play elsewhere. My idea would be far away..maybe 8-10 cyno jumps another low/high sec region. Surrounded by its own null. You could go from here to there..but be so far to trade anything of size would be too expensive. IT would develop its own alliances and power brokers..which eventually would invade Old Eve. It would be cool.
Developing paralel eve within eve? that would be meta, but with current rules it would be current eve eventually.
Axe Coldon wrote:Want more fun make it so titans' can't traverse the distance. this is accomplished simply by having an area where the gate to gate range is beyond the jump range of the titan..the ship with the shortest jump distance. Would also mean no bridging between areas. Which would further its isolation.
The wild west of eve. Have the concord response there be slower by 100%. could do lots of stuff to make it more dangerous. and some upsides to make it worthwhile. You want get people in the game, I guarantee it will get them in in droves. A new beginning.
Could eve make the sov rules there different. the sky is the limit.
What you proposing is developing, seeding and inventing another eve, while frankly we have one sitting here with empty forgotten places, and the only reason for that is that EVE BECAME SMALL with each jump drive capable ship released and built in droves.
Your idea would at most double the space that's available, while I call for proper logarithmic scale increase in it's size, while not bringing too big of a price for it, therefore these two approaches are hardly a comparable things, then again one does not exclude the other.
|
Robert71
Finanzamt Hannover-Mitte
9
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 16:36:00 -
[1598] - Quote
What the hell is going on at Rekyavik....
Post #1 tells:
CCP Fozzie wrote:...To compensate for the ability to use rigs, the base capacity of all Freighters and Jump Freighters is going down, by between 27 and 30%. This means that Freighters can get significantly higher maximum capacity than before using rigs, 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....
Post #9 tells me:
CCP Fozzie wrote:...T1 rigs are easily enough to bring normal freighters above their current cargo values.
So what is true? First post wrotes with T1 rigs less cargo than now. 9 posts later "T1 rigs are enough???"
So for me it's just the next nerf: I have to install T1 or T2 captial size rigs to get the same cargo. But with (massive?) dropped EHP. A single Capital Cargohold Optimization II starts with 700mil - so there is absolute no relation to put one ore two of them into a freighter.
3 Days 79 Pages and 1500 replies... that's really cazy... nothing more to comment about this nerf !
PS: An acceptable change would be: slightly less cargo (10%) wihtout and noticeable more (20%) cargo with rigs so I know what the 700mil are for!
|
Lara Divinity
Seles Deep Space Industries Order of the Exalted
13
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 16:40:00 -
[1599] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Lara Divinity wrote:so basicly i have been training for a month for somthing that is now gonna get nerfed like hell n dont even feel like buyin nomore bcos of it ...n ccp isnt even willing to refund the skillpoints feels more n more like a milking game
so, you took a risk, and it didn't pay off. now you're mad?
i dint take a risk n dont even try to troll me stark i trained for somthing that was presented to me in the market least ccp can do is refund the skillpoints or giv me another month of gametime to cover the needless training for this freighter crap this beein said shove ur told ur so's where the sun dont shine |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
62
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 16:41:00 -
[1600] - Quote
Lara Divinity wrote:so i petioned this situation since i was training for a charon this is what i sent and what ccp replied where in the hell is that even fair... dear ccp i was planning to buy a freighter b4 the update so i started training for one for almost a month! but now with the sudden massive nerf to freighters coming up i feel like its a total waste to even buy one and the time and isk i spent on buying and training for the prepatch freighter are completly useless now and were a big waste of time ...bcos i had in mind to get a freighter the way it was presented to me in the market (that was what i was training for and not for what is coming up) i dont even want to buy a freighter anymore with the new changes arriving to it...but in the meantime i did buy all the skillbooks and did spend all the time training to be able to fly one...and since i just found out about the massive nerving...i dont think i will even get one and it would only seem fair to me if i get my skillpoints refunded so i can place them into other more usefull specializations...i feel like i have been scammed bcos as i said b4 ive been training for almost a month on this goal to only find out that the ships arent goin to be what they whereand as they are presented in the market currently in ten days i will have the advanced spaceship command to level 5 and as for the refund of skillpoints it would come down to 1.280.000 skillpoints for advanced spaceship command lvl 5 not goin to count spaceship command lvl 5 into it cos its a skill i use on other ships to but the advanced one is only good for freighters wich i aint planning to get nomore with the massive nerf coming up. also leaving out the 75million isk skillbook i got for caldari freighter and the 50million for the advanced spaceship command skillbook wich brings it down to 125million in total. hopefully u guys can see and understand my point of view and my dissapointment. if i knew these changes in advance i would have never have started training to fly a freighter or even spend that kind of isk on it, and i would be using my skillpoints on more usefull specializations in other areas waits patiently on a decent reply have a nice productive day.... Sincerely Lara Divinity CCP replies with this crap Greetings Lara Divinity, GM Ood here. Thank you for contacting Customer Support. Customer Support is unable to offer a reclamation of skill points and ISK spent on skills you no longer wish to use. EVE Online is constantly changing and as such, skill training and ISK reimbursement is not something we offer, in regards to unwanted training. We apologize that you feel these upcoming changes to EVE will hinder your ability to utilize a Freighter in the manner you were hoping. If you have any suggestions or concerns, in regards to the upcoming changes, we would suggest that you address these suggestions and concerns on the EVE Online forums. The best place would be the "Features and Ideas Discussion" section of the EVE Online forums. The developers frequently read that forum section for new ideas and player feedback. We have included the link for the relevant forum page below. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=topics&f=270If you have any other issues or questions, please feel free to contact Customer Support further. Best regards, GM Ood CCP Customer Support | EVE Online | DUST 514 so basicly i have been training for a month for somthing that is now gonna get nerfed like hell n dont even feel like buyin nomore bcos of it ...n ccp isnt even willing to refund the skillpoints feels more n more like a milking game Possibly the worst reaction to this change on this thread. And that is quite the triumph given the level of sperg, smug and misinformation that has been spewed. |
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1562
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 16:41:00 -
[1601] - Quote
Robert71 wrote: So what is true? First post wrotes with T1 rigs less cargo than now. 9 posts later "T1 rigs are enough???"
base capacity is going down 30%.
but now u can fit 3 rigs, so max possible capacity is actually larger than current. 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" |
Avalloc
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
16
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 16:43:00 -
[1602] - Quote
I thought they wanted MORE people to migrate out to nullsec, not LESS.
You're nerfing JF capacity along with fuel consumption too. Yes, the nullsec occupant isn't going to be please but more so you just increased the barrier of entry for anyone wanting to move out there. Leaving JF fuel consumption as it is pre-Kronos might be kinder for everyone, especially players who want to expand. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22075
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 16:56:00 -
[1603] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Maybe you should write better instead of inviting confusion with posts like GÇ£Mu.GÇ¥ Mu was the only vaild answer to the question.
Quote:Bulkheads ARE tanking modules because the only reason for adding more HP is if you want to ya know live longerGǪ GǪwhich doesn't particularly impact how they should be priced in terms of fitting. That price is more related to what class of modules they belong to.
Quote:Just because no one fits that way doesnGÇÖt mean that the modules arenGÇÖt overpowered. Yes, it does. You see, if something is overpowered, players exploit the hell out of it. It's just what they do. It's kind of a defining trait of something overpowered: that it outshines all options and everyone uses it as much as they can. No-one is exploiting bulkheads for the simple reason that they're pretty weak as modules go. They have a couple of niche uses that makes them an interesting option, but for the most part, it's not a good use of a slot.
If something is rarely fitted, this is your first clue that, if anything, it may actually be underpowered. It simply cannot be overpowered because then it would not be fitted rarely. If you try to argue otherwise, you have simply not understood how fitting works.
Quote:No, itGÇÖs not. It was an example to illustrate my point of how your idea was bad. Too bad that it failed to do so since you invented a scenario that has no connection with reality. You only managed to demonstrate that bulkheads are indeed not overpowered, since the alternatives are so much better. If the module you're trying to paint as overpowered utterly fails to outperform even a bog-standard fit, your arguments deflates like a souffl+¬ in a sheet metal roller.
All you're doing is showing that it is possible to fit a ship badly. That doesn't demonstrate anything about balance and utterly fails to prove any kind of overpoweredness. If anything, it just shows that you have to invent the most absurdly adverse conditions for your assumptions to come true because under normal circumstances, they are nonsense GÇö the effects you're wishing for simply does not appear. By picking irrelevant modules, you've disqualified your example as a valid comparison, and you've disqualified your argument since it no longer has anything to support itself with.
Moreover, since the question was whether bulkheads were overpowered or not, we have to compare it to the other options available. On a capship, those options are hardeners, DCUs, maybe the odd PDU. As demonstrated, they all outshine the poor little bulkhead. What you ignorantly believe is a change in the argument is a comparison to see whether the supposedly overpowered module outperforms other modules. Since it does not, it can't be overpowered. It's that simple. If you have problems separating a methodology for comparison with an argument, it's pretty alarming (but it explains why you're so confused by such simple facts).
Or is your argument now that all capship tanking modules are overpowered?
Quote:Now the reason I picked a cap ship is several fold. A. your idea was to give low slots to a freighter, not to a bc, not to a cruiser or anything else. A freighter is a cap ship. B. Cap ships have problems in terms of fitting buffer modules because of the current meta. GǪand as such, trying to compare bulkheads with a buffer module is nonsensical and proves nothing. Ok, not quite true. It proves you have no argument. It proves you have to invent a nonsense scenario to support your position, which makes your position nonsense as well.
You have yet to demonstrate a scenario where bulkheads are overpowered. They aren't overpowered on capships because all other tanking options (hardeners) are a better use of your space. They aren't overpowered on subcaps because all other tanking options (buffers and hardeners) are a better use of your space. They can't be overtpowered on freighters because they will be the only option and the results will remain within the realms of what is already balanced.
So not only are bulkheads not overpowered, as amply demonstrated, and as confirmed your failure to show otherwise, but reducing the fitting requirements also does nothing to that current balance. It simply puts them in line with the other hull upgrades and opens up a new avenue of allowing freighter modification without running afoul of the modules that would actually be overpowered, such as the good old suitcase. 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. |
Dave Stark
5929
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 16:56:00 -
[1604] - Quote
Lara Divinity wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Lara Divinity wrote:so basicly i have been training for a month for somthing that is now gonna get nerfed like hell n dont even feel like buyin nomore bcos of it ...n ccp isnt even willing to refund the skillpoints feels more n more like a milking game
so, you took a risk, and it didn't pay off. now you're mad? i dint take a risk n dont even try to troll me stark i trained for somthing that was presented to me in the market least ccp can do is refund the skillpoints or giv me another month of gametime to cover the needless training for this freighter crap this beein said shove ur told ur so's where the sun dont shine
i'm not trying to troll you, it wasn't a secret that freighters were getting rebalanced. ccp announced a long time ago it would happen, then nearly 3 weeks ago, they announced that it would be coming on the 3rd of june.
also, as has been pointed out; if you needed a freighter before, you'll still need it after. so you either didn't need a freighter and you're just whining... or you still need a freighter, and you're just whining.
i'm not telling you "i told you so" at all, i'm just pointing out that you're whining.
you trained to fly a freighter, you can still fly a freighter; there's nothing to refund and even less reason to give you free game time. |
Hiryu Jin
Enterprise Estonia Northern Coalition.
31
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 17:08:00 -
[1605] - Quote
CCP's an abusive partner and we're all their battered victims. We love you, yet all you do is hurt us.
|
TopTrader
Tech3 Company Avaricious Cartel
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 17:23:00 -
[1606] - Quote
Overall i like the idea of customizing but for me there could be more options and where are you innovations? Its like Freighter got no rigs right? just give them some and name it customizing LOL
The bonuses are still the same - this is really boring and not cool at all. I would like to see freighter bonuses like: - +5-10% Cargo Capacity but more difference in cargo and agility in the freighter itsself -> maybe different bonuses for each race, its still a freighter, that meanc cargospace, but yes ther ships are damn slow - some sort of allign time and/or agility, speed not that important, but not make them warp and allign like a battleship -> you just click warp and wait till the ship start to warp and then you wait and wait
The bonuses for the jumpfreighter are still the same too- this is really boring and not cool at all. I would like to see bonuses like: - +5-10% Cargo Capacity but more difference in cargo and agility in the freighter itsself - some sort of allign time and/or agility, speed not that important -> you just click warp and wait till the ship start to warp and then you wait and wait + - 10% jump fuel requirements, i dont know about that, i think right direction - maybe some kind of hull resist(only a little bit). I feel armor, shield, hull hp is the wrong way...
Personally i dont need every day the maximum of my cargo of the freighter so i will use a mix of the new capital rigs. If i take a look at the rigs overall i have to say that the rigs not always have the best results like a lot of jumpfreighter pilots already described. To customize the freighter is still a good idea but but ..was you said on fanfest i from my perspective expected more way more, im sad. |
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
2746
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 17:27:00 -
[1607] - Quote
Lara Divinity wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Lara Divinity wrote:so basicly i have been training for a month for somthing that is now gonna get nerfed like hell n dont even feel like buyin nomore bcos of it ...n ccp isnt even willing to refund the skillpoints feels more n more like a milking game
so, you took a risk, and it didn't pay off. now you're mad? i dint take a risk n dont even try to troll me stark i trained for somthing that was presented to me in the market least ccp can do is refund the skillpoints or giv me another month of gametime to cover the needless training for this freighter crap this beein said shove ur told ur so's where the sun dont shine
Why do you want more time to play a game you obviously dislike?
Protip: Unsub and quit now if this type of change is what it takes to make you rage. You'll be a happier person for it. Rifterlings pirate corporation is now recruitng members for lowsec PvP operations. Newbie friendly, free T1 frigate and dessy hangar, solo tutoring and PvP classes for new members. Join our in game channel 'weflyrifters' and speak to a recruiter today. |
Thanatos Marathon
Black Fox Marauders Repeat 0ffenders
194
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 17:27:00 -
[1608] - Quote
All,
Some of you are looking at this as a total nerf to JF's and logistics, and with current numbers it is fairly harsh for those who cannot afford to constantly replace T2 rigs (see the little guy), but it doesn't mean that something didn't need to be done, nor that JFs weren't overpowered (and boring - no choices) and in need of some form of reduction (even at the rediculous cost in isk and sp).
Upsides to the change in combination with increase in fuel price as I see them (there may be more that I am missing off the top of my head):
Diversity: People will rig and fit their ships different and different things will happen based on that. Above and beyond that it lines them up with every other ship in the game (rig slots). Would some alternate rigs be nice to have to expand the options? I think so.
Slight push towards local production (each little bit counts): By increasing fuel costs by roughly 50% and decreasing cargo unless you want to get your JF ganked it makes a little bit more sense to try and mine locally in lowsec and especially nullsec, (though I would like to note that mining/ratting/salvaging in FW Lowsec is much more dangerous than in null, so if you want to build anything that requires salvage you will still probably jump 99% of it in).
Reduced power of JFs: Many of you will disagree with me, but only CCP can probably pull the numbers to show how much m3 of stuff is moved from highsec to lowsec/nullsec via Jump Freighters instead of via other means of shipping. As it stands now getting a Jump Freighter toon and ship (usually multiple) is almost mandatory for all PVP corps that are active in low/null as it is the most efficient way to stock almost everything. A slight reduction in Jump Freighter Cargo space along with the price increase of isotopes makes the choice of how to move stuff around in dangerous space more interesting for those that aren't BLOC sized alliances. Will you use a Blockade runner next time? Will you go back to the days of trying to push a regular freighter through? More choice and harder decisions with corresponding consequences is a net plus imo when looking at balancing.
The downsides as I see them now:
The numbers hit to align time/ehp are going to make JF ganking much easier (and quite a few of them are already getting killed, perhpas you could provide the exact numbers?). You can either rig for align time (and then not have the EHP to deal with a half decent gank), or you can rig for EHP (and have an align time that makes it much easier to bump you off, after which EHP doesn't matter much).
Under that scenario you are either A.) more likely to be ganked in highsec, even if your hold is empty. B.) more likely to get bumped and ganked off station.
Is the design goal to get more Jump Freighters killed even after adding on to the cost of them? If not then I would seriously consider a 50% reduction in the hit to EHP & Align time, before rigging. After all, if people "make the decision" to rig for space, even 50% of the nerf you are proposing to unrigged EHP and Align time makes them much easier to bump/gank in highsec.
Costs: You are driving costs up by a significant amount in terms of SP and ISK. This only makes it harder for those on the ground floor to work their way up, but has almost no impact what so ever on massive coalitions. Perhaps to balance it out while retaining the benefits of the rigging changes you could look at reducing the amount of materials needed to produce these ships and bring the cost back in line with their current amounts (IE new JFs/Freighters cost as much to build with rigs as those currently cost without).
In closing, thank you for adding diversity and choice to logistical shipping, but please remember us little guys.
- Than
BLFOX is currently recruiting |
Emizeko Chai
Freight Club The Marmite Collective
34
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 17:33:00 -
[1609] - Quote
Jattila Vrek wrote:Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:There are several on here saying it isn't a nerf and gives better flexibility. however it does not. And further more not all of us use freighters for the industrial purposes you mentioned. for example now i'll need two different freighters to do the task of one. as it is used of multitude of purposes ranging from high value low space material to low value high m3 ice. are you going to destroy your cargo rigs used to transport ice? no that's a huge loss when you need to transport something of value. The fact this so called "flexibility" is sem-permanent is the problem. You don't need cargo rigs to move high volume low value items, use warp speed rigs, which will give you almost the same m3/hr moved as cargo rigs. Warp speed rigs work for both cases.
One of the smartest posts in the thread. Everyone's focused on m3 and not realizing that it's total m3/hour throughput that really matters, and this rig opportunity combined with an Ascendancy set will mean a single freighter pilot can push significantly more m3 per hour while remaining below a given gank value threshold per trip. Yes, even with the align changes -- which look big on an unskilled ship, but when you look at the final align times with skills, are only going to change by a couple of seconds.
This rigging change has the potential to be a boon, especially for those pilots who didn't travel full very often. They get their hauling done sooner, and in less total time.
I think it needs to also be said:
Only a fool would think abusive behavior towards devs is going to work better than constructive criticism. There's been some really ugly comments in this thread. Even if you hate the change, there's no reason to hate the dev. They are sincerely trying to improve the game. Rational argument might help you, abuse isn't going to. |
Vincintius Agrippa
F L O O D
41
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 17:34:00 -
[1610] - Quote
Question, will everything in eve cost significantly more because of this? After all everything is shipped with freighters. This seems like a loose loose situation. Less capacity means more trips. Then fuel nerf means it cant go as far. Sure you can fit rigs, but these rigs cost almost a bi each, and now that 1bil jf jumps to 4bil.
Casual patches and upgrades that increase gameplay are fine, but the inert tendency to push the nerf button every month or so isnt. Most of ccp's "balancing" desrtoying one thing and building another up. ex. You like a certain ship. You like the way it looks, you like the way it flies, you like and understand what you can do in it. CCP sees this and grabs the hammer of thor. They cut pg and cpu and increase mass and lower agility. And histerically they do the opposite to your ships direct competitor. Essentially making something that seems popular worse, just because it is popular.
Now i dont think one should reign supreme, but I dont think everything should be equal either. There should be a counter to your ship. Meaning each ship should be able to counter the other and atleast have equal chance of survival on paper. However know what you can and can't fight. |
|
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 17:36:00 -
[1611] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Mu was the only vaild answer to the question.
Saying something doesnGÇÖt make it true. See below.
Tippia wrote:which doesn't particularly impact how they should be priced in terms of fitting. That price is more related to what class of modules they belong to.
Fitting is always a factor in terms of the benefits a module provides. If that wasnGÇÖt the case then t2 mods wouldnGÇÖt take more fitting. Now class is A FACTOR, but these modules have NO CLASS. Aka there are no small and medium and large versions. Therefore their balance has to be spread across the whole spectrum of classes and fitting is an important way to do that.
Tippia wrote:Yes, it does. You see, if something is overpowered, players exploit the hell out of it. It's just what they do. It's kind of a defining trait of something overpowered: that it outshines all options and everyone uses it as much as they can. No-one is exploiting bulkheads for the simple reason that they're pretty weak as modules go. They have a couple of niche uses that makes them an interesting option, but for the most part, it's not a good use of a slot.
If something is rarely fitted, this is your first clue that, if anything, it may actually be underpowered. It simply cannot be overpowered because then it would not be fitted rarely. If you try to argue otherwise, you have simply not understood how fitting works.
I understand what you getting at with players and exploiting, but the problem is not that bulkheads arenGÇÖt overpowered, its that hull tanking is underpowered. If hull tanking had the same options that others did then bulkheads would have to be significantly tweeked. No one fits bulkheads not because they are underpowered but because the supporting modules around them make no fin sense.
Tippia wrote:Too bad that it failed to do so since you invented a scenario that has no connection with reality.
Really? So the fitting I just mentioned in my previous post of 1 dcu t2 and 1 t2 bulkhead has no connection with realityGǪ Good to know that your reality is skewed.
But letGÇÖs get back to the point, and really the entire point of this back and forth in the first place on the freaking question I asked you originally. GÇ£Is hull tanking viable on one ship or all ships?GÇ¥
And here is your true answer: GÇ£They aren't overpowered on capships because all other tanking options (hardeners) are a better use of your space. They aren't overpowered on subcaps because all other tanking options (buffers and hardeners) are a better use of your space.GÇ¥
Granted you were speaking specifically of bulkheads, but because as you demonstrated, you canGÇÖt evaluate just one module in vacuum against its similar competing modules, this equally applies to hull tanking in general as well. In other words, if hull tanking were viable then more people would do it on more ships than just one.
But seriously, was that answer so dang hard that it required all of this back and forth to get to? |
Dave Stark
5931
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 17:38:00 -
[1612] - Quote
Vincintius Agrippa wrote:Question, will everything in eve cost significantly more because of this?
i doubt it. |
Aerissa Nolen
XYJAX
20
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 17:41:00 -
[1613] - Quote
I have a really simple suggestion to help with the cargo issue, assuming that CCP did not intend to nerf cargo capacity for the general use-case.
Give T1 freighters 250 calibration instead of 400. This would allow a T1 freighter to fit no more than 1 T1 and 1 T2 cargo rig at maximum. You could not have 2 x T2 rigs OR 3 x T1 rigs (or 2 x T2 + 1 T1). Then re-up the base cargo sizes by 50,000m3 from the current suggested values to compensate for not being able to use 3 cargo rigs.
Most other rigs of interest for a T1 freighter are 50/75 calibration and will fit just fine within the 250 limit. The only ones at 100/150 are the aux thrusters and polycarbons, but I see no reason they can't have the same restricted use as the cargoholds since base agility/velocity is not changing on T1 freighters anyway.
This may have been suggested elsewhere, but it would be a really simple change to the proposal. Here is what the sizing would look like in this case, based on max skills:
Charon: no rigs: 762,500 1 T1: 876,875 1 T2: 915,000 2 T1: 1,008,406 1 T2 + 1 T1: 1,052,250
Obelisk: no rigs: 737,500 1 T1: 848,125 1 T2: 885,000 2 T1: 975,344 1 T2 + 1 T1: 1,017,750
Providence: no rigs: 725,000 1 T1: 833,750 1 T2: 870,000 2 T1: 958,812 1 T2 + 1 T1: 1,000,500
Fenrir: no rigs: 712,500 1 T1: 819,375 1 T2: 855,000 2 T1: 942,281 1 T2 + 1 T1: 983,250
Wrap your brain around Kronos freighter changes: http://xyjax.com/optimizer_kronos/ |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
62
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 17:43:00 -
[1614] - Quote
Thanatos Marathon wrote:All,
Some of you are looking at this as a total nerf to JF's and logistics, and with current numbers it is fairly harsh for those who cannot afford to constantly replace T2 rigs (see the little guy), but it doesn't mean that something didn't need to be done, nor that JFs weren't overpowered (and boring - no choices) and in need of some form of reduction (even at the rediculous cost in isk and sp).
Upsides to the change in combination with increase in fuel price as I see them (there may be more that I am missing off the top of my head):
Diversity: People will rig and fit their ships different and different things will happen based on that. Above and beyond that it lines them up with every other ship in the game (rig slots). Would some alternate rigs be nice to have to expand the options? I think so.
Slight push towards local production (each little bit counts): By increasing fuel costs by roughly 50% and decreasing cargo unless you want to get your JF ganked it makes a little bit more sense to try and mine locally in lowsec and especially nullsec, (though I would like to note that mining/ratting/salvaging in FW Lowsec is much more dangerous than in null, so if you want to build anything that requires salvage you will still probably jump 99% of it in).
Reduced power of JFs: Many of you will disagree with me, but only CCP can probably pull the numbers to show how much m3 of stuff is moved from highsec to lowsec/nullsec via Jump Freighters instead of via other means of shipping. As it stands now getting a Jump Freighter toon and ship (usually multiple) is almost mandatory for all PVP corps that are active in low/null as it is the most efficient way to stock almost everything. A slight reduction in Jump Freighter Cargo space along with the price increase of isotopes makes the choice of how to move stuff around in dangerous space more interesting for those that aren't BLOC sized alliances. Will you use a Blockade runner next time? Will you go back to the days of trying to push a regular freighter through? More choice and harder decisions with corresponding consequences is a net plus imo when looking at balancing.
The downsides as I see them now:
The numbers hit to align time/ehp are going to make JF ganking much easier (and quite a few of them are already getting killed, perhpas you could provide the exact numbers?). You can either rig for align time (and then not have the EHP to deal with a half decent gank), or you can rig for EHP (and have an align time that makes it much easier to bump you off, after which EHP doesn't matter much).
Under that scenario you are either A.) more likely to be ganked in highsec, even if your hold is empty. B.) more likely to get bumped and ganked off station.
Is the design goal to get more Jump Freighters killed even after adding on to the cost of them? If not then I would seriously consider a 50% reduction in the hit to EHP & Align time, before rigging. After all, if people "make the decision" to rig for space, even 50% of the nerf you are proposing to unrigged EHP and Align time makes them much easier to bump/gank in highsec.
Costs: You are driving costs up by a significant amount in terms of SP and ISK. This only makes it harder for those on the ground floor to work their way up, but has almost no impact what so ever on massive coalitions. Perhaps to balance it out while retaining the benefits of the rigging changes you could look at reducing the amount of materials needed to produce these ships and bring the cost back in line with their current amounts (IE new JFs/Freighters cost as much to build with rigs as those currently cost without).
In closing, thank you for adding diversity and choice to logistical shipping, but please remember us little guys.
- Than
Holy Space Jesus, too much wrong here, but let's hit the key points.
1. Nobody who owns a jump freighter and uses a JF is going to switch to using a blockade runner or regular freighter to move their stuff through a hostile area just because JF may use more fuel or have less space. They'll just make more jumps and pass along increased costs.
2. None of this will create more local production or markets. Perhaps a few marginal areas will exist, but bulk will still be in hubs. That's where the customers will be, thus that is where the goods will be. Or try selling your stuff locally and hope you have enough customers to buy it.
3. Quit yapping about the big blocs and nullsec super alliances. The alliance itself may be rich enough to not care about any of this in terms of costs, but the average nullsec player doesn't get all their stuff moved for them by the alliance. Quit making it sound like the average nullsec player is somehow so different from the average hisec player in this regard. |
XxRTEKxX
Fenrir's Dogs of War Union 0f Revolution
116
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 17:48:00 -
[1615] - Quote
Where does the CSM currently stand on the proposed new changes? Are they in favor of this direction, or with the majority here who are against the changes?
I haven't seen any statements from them yet. |
Thanatos Marathon
Black Fox Marauders Repeat 0ffenders
194
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 17:51:00 -
[1616] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:,
Holy Space Jesus, too much wrong here, but let's hit the key points.
1. Nobody who owns a jump freighter and uses a JF is going to switch to using a blockade runner or regular freighter to move their stuff through a hostile area just because JF may use more fuel or have less space. They'll just make more jumps and pass along increased costs.
2. None of this will create more local production or markets. Perhaps a few marginal areas will exist, but bulk will still be in hubs. That's where the customers will be, thus that is where the goods will be. Or try selling your stuff locally and hope you have enough customers to buy it.
3. Quit yapping about the big blocs and nullsec super alliances. The alliance itself may be rich enough to not care about any of this in terms of costs, but the average nullsec player doesn't get all their stuff moved for them by the alliance. Quit making it sound like the average nullsec player is somehow so different from the average hisec player in this regard.
1. My blockade runner will see more use (and I may pickup a DST) 2. We will end up building more destroyer & cruiser hulls and shipping in fewer 3. Ok, perhaps I should just say spacerich instead of nullblock. The spacerich aren't impacted as much because they have a much larger pool of isk to pull from. BLFOX is currently recruiting |
Thanatos Marathon
Black Fox Marauders Repeat 0ffenders
194
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 17:54:00 -
[1617] - Quote
XxRTEKxX wrote:Where does the CSM currently stand on the proposed new changes? Are they in favor of this direction, or with the majority here who are against the changes?
I haven't seen any statements from them yet.
Check their websites. For example Sugar Kyles BLFOX is currently recruiting |
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
114
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 17:54:00 -
[1618] - Quote
XxRTEKxX wrote:Where does the CSM currently stand on the proposed new changes? Are they in favor of this direction, or with the majority here who are against the changes?
I haven't seen any statements from them yet. Considering Fozzie said lastnight he was in talks with them, I have to assume they aren't cheering about it either.. I was hoping Fozzie would have posted the results of the talk by now, along with some changes lol |
Delhaven
Vicis Inter Astrum I'd Rather Be Roaming
45
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 17:59:00 -
[1619] - Quote
Aerissa Nolen wrote:I have a really simple suggestion to help with the cargo issue, assuming that CCP did not intend to nerf cargo capacity for the general use-case. (EDIT: I have updated my optimizer tool (see my sig) with a button that lets you try out these changes).
Give T1 freighters 250 calibration instead of 400. This would allow a T1 freighter to fit no more than 1 T1 and 1 T2 cargo rig at maximum. You could not have 2 x T2 rigs OR 3 x T1 rigs (or 2 x T2 + 1 T1). Then re-up the base cargo sizes by 50,000m3 from the current suggested values to compensate for not being able to use 3 cargo rigs.
Most other rigs of interest for a T1 freighter are 50/75 calibration and will fit just fine within the 250 limit. The only ones at 100/150 are the aux thrusters and polycarbons, but I see no reason they can't have the same restricted use as the cargoholds since base agility/velocity is not changing on T1 freighters anyway.
This may have been suggested elsewhere, but it would be a really simple change to the proposal. Here is what the sizing would look like in this case, based on max skills:
[Numbers] This seems like a pretty simple and elegant solution. I like it.
EDIT: Brilliant tool, by the way. |
BEPOHNKA
Phoenix Company Force Northern Associates.
168
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 18:01:00 -
[1620] - Quote
This goes out too CCP Fozzie,
How should be look at the changes set in front of us all. The changes which CCP has layout is no good at all. Here is idea of which I would have lay out for both a freighter with rigs and jump freighter with rigs. Both are used differently in the game so.. both classes should have a different effect from the rigs. So here is what I would lay out and WHY...
I understand why your trying to cut down size to make up the different from the rigs on a capital haulers. The sizes should not be cut down at all because nothing is being hurt from the game. So just to cut down size 4% with t2 rigs is not the right way of doing things. Just leave it alone for now until you look at the low slots in the game for the freighter class.
Freighter ability to use rigs would be effect by align times. Without rigs haul, it can warp ++ / align faster ++. Jump Freighter ability to use rigs would be effect by jump range and fuel uses. With out rigs more jump range ++ / less fuel ++.
Reason behind this is because JF don't use star gates CCP they JUMP.... Freighter use the star gates....
PROVIDENCE
Amarr Freighter Bonus per level: +5% Cargo Capacity +5% Maximum Velocity
Slot layout: 0H, 0M, 0L; Rigs: 3(+3) Slots, 400 Calibration, Uses Capital Rigs Fittings: 1 PWG, 1 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 5000 / 36000(+12000) / 92500(-20000) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time / warp speed): 70 / 0.0625 / 900,000,000 / 107.22s / 1.37 Cargo Capacity: 530000(-205000)m3
CHARON
Caldari Freighter Bonus per level: +5% Cargo Capacity +5% Maximum Velocity
Slot layout: 0H, 0M, 0L; Rigs: 3(+3) Slots, 400 Calibration, Uses Capital Rigs Fittings: 1 PWG, 1 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 15000(+9000) / 20000 / 87500(-18750) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time / warp speed): 60 / 0.0625 / 960,000,000 / 114.37s / 1.37 Cargo Capacity: 550000(-235000)m3
OBELISK
Gallente Freighter Bonus per level: +5% Cargo Capacity +5% Maximum Velocity
Slot layout: 0H, 0M, 0L; Rigs: 3(+3) Slots, 400 Calibration, Uses Capital Rigs Fittings: 1 PWG, 1 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 8000(+2687) / 30000(+7500) / 97500(-22500) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time / warp speed): 65 / 0.0625 / 940,000,000 / 111.99s / 1.37 Cargo Capacity: 540000(-210000)m3
FENRIR
Minmatar Freighter Bonus per level: +5% Cargo Capacity +5% Maximum Velocity
Slot layout: 0H, 0M, 0L; Rigs: 3(+3) Slots, 400 Calibration, Uses Capital Rigs Fittings: 1 PWG, 1 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 10000(+4375) / 28000(+6750) / 82500(-17500) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time / warp speed): 80 / 0.0625 / 820,000,000 / 97.69s / 1.37 Cargo Capacity: 520000(-200000)m3
ARK
Amarr Freighter Bonus per level: +5% Cargo Capacity +5% Agility
Jump Freighters Bonus per level: +10% to shield, armor and hull hitpoints -10% jump fuel requirements
Slot layout: 0H, 0M, 0L; Rigs: 2(+2) Slots, 400 Calibration, Uses Capital Rigs Fittings: 1 PWG, 1 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 6000 / 43200(+14400) / 111000(-24000) Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 20 / 47.5(+7.5) / 62.5(+12.5) Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 50 / 35 / 34.375(+9.375) / 40(+20) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time / warp speed): 84 / 0.0625(+0.0125) / 900,000,000 / 77.98(+15.6)s / 1.5 Signature Radius: 2800(-12) Cargo Capacity: 199000(-76625)m3
RHEA
Caldari Freighter Bonus per level: +5% Cargo Capacity +5% Agility
Jump Freighters Bonus per level: +10% to shield, armor and hull hitpoints -10% jump fuel requirements
Slot layout: 0H, 0M, 0L; Rigs: 2(+2) Slots, 400 Calibration, Uses Capital Rigs Fittings: 1 PWG, 1 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 18000(+10800) / 24000 / 105000(-22500) Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 40(+20) / 47.5(+7.5) / 50 Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 50 / 58.75(+13.75) / 34.375(+9.375) / 10 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time / warp speed): 72 / 0.0625(+0.0125) / 960,000,000 / 83.18(+16.64)s / 1.5 Signature Radius: 2930(-2) Cargo Capacity: 207000(-87375)m3
ANSHAR
Gallente Freighter Bonus per level: +5% Cargo Capacity +5% Agility
Jump Freighters Bonus per level: +10% to shield, armor and hull hitpoints -10% jump fuel requirements
Slot layout: 0H, 0M, 0L; Rigs: 2(+2) Slots, 400 Calibration, Uses Capital Rigs Fittings: 1 PWG, 1 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 9600(+3224.4) / 36000(+9000) / 117000(-27000) Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 30(+10) / 55(+15) / 50 Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 50 / 43.125(+8.125) / 51.25(+16.25) / 10 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time / warp speed): 78 / 0.0625(+0.0125) / 940,000,000 / 81.44(+16.28)s / 1.5 Signature Radius: 2880(-4) Cargo Capacity: 203000(-78250) m3
NOMAD
Minmatar Freighter Bonus per level: +5% Cargo Capacity +5% Agility
Jump Freighters Bonus per level: +10% to shield, armor and hull hitpoints -10% jump fuel requirements
Slot layout: 0H, 0M, 0L; Rigs: 2(+2) Slots, 400 Calibration, Uses Capital Rigs Fittings: 1 PWG, 1 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 12000(+5250) / 33600(+8100) / 99000(-21000) Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 25(+25) / 30(+10) / 40 / 50 Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 70(+10) / 43.125(+8.125) / 25 / 10 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time / warp speed): 96 / 0.0625(+0.0125) / 820,000,000 / 71.05(+14.21)s / 1.5 Signature Radius: 2700(-8) Cargo Capacity: 195000(-75000)m3
Let us know what you think![/quote] |
|
TopTrader
Tech3 Company Avaricious Cartel
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 18:04:00 -
[1621] - Quote
Thanatos Marathon wrote:XxRTEKxX wrote:Where does the CSM currently stand on the proposed new changes? Are they in favor of this direction, or with the majority here who are against the changes?
I haven't seen any statements from them yet. Check their websites. For example Sugar Kyles
I just read the part, and he also mentioned the little detail of the prices as well. I cant imagine what will going on after the addon. The big nerf is live and no one can fit rigs...cause to expensive and/or no one on the market. Like he said addional to rigs, modules and other stuff would be cool without making them overpowered but we still speaking of freighters :) |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
63
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 18:06:00 -
[1622] - Quote
XxRTEKxX wrote:Where does the CSM currently stand on the proposed new changes? Are they in favor of this direction, or with the majority here who are against the changes?
I haven't seen any statements from them yet.
Just a blurb but links to other things re: CSM views
https://sites.google.com/site/csmwire/news/djfunkybaconitsbestiholdoffontalkingabouttheseforafewdays
|
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
63
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 18:12:00 -
[1623] - Quote
Thanatos Marathon wrote:Dirk MacGirk wrote:,
Holy Space Jesus, too much wrong here, but let's hit the key points.
1. Nobody who owns a jump freighter and uses a JF is going to switch to using a blockade runner or regular freighter to move their stuff through a hostile area just because JF may use more fuel or have less space. They'll just make more jumps and pass along increased costs.
2. None of this will create more local production or markets. Perhaps a few marginal areas will exist, but bulk will still be in hubs. That's where the customers will be, thus that is where the goods will be. Or try selling your stuff locally and hope you have enough customers to buy it.
3. Quit yapping about the big blocs and nullsec super alliances. The alliance itself may be rich enough to not care about any of this in terms of costs, but the average nullsec player doesn't get all their stuff moved for them by the alliance. Quit making it sound like the average nullsec player is somehow so different from the average hisec player in this regard. 1. My blockade runner will see more use (and I may pickup a DST) 2. We will end up building more destroyer & cruiser hulls and shipping in fewer 3. Ok, perhaps I should just say spacerich instead of nullblock. The spacerich aren't impacted as much because they have a much larger pool of isk to pull from.
1. If you were using JF before when you could have used a blockade runner, why didn't you? Apparently this wasn't an m3 decision or a time decision (more trips with less m3). You going to take on more risk your high value things for some fuel savings?
2. building more in null, low, where and shipping to where?
3. Yes, the space rich will always be able to adapt better. Just like the real rich adapt better to changes in the real world. Nothing new there. But the whole null versus anywhere else thing is such a meme at this point. Null is made up of more than just the space rich. As is hisec and lowsec. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22078
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 18:17:00 -
[1624] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Saying something doesnGÇÖt make it true. Doesn't change the fact that mu was the only valid answer.
Quote:Fitting is always a factor in terms of the benefits a module provides. Not really, no. It's only a factor if it eats away at a rare resource. In this case, the resource in question is not the fitting space but the module slot, and since the benefits this module provide are so small compared to the alternatives, its fitting price is almost entirely irrelevant. Making it in line with the other modules of its class makes sense from a purely logical perspective, and doesn't create any balancing issues due to its niche uses and low performance. The slot itself is by far more costly than the CPU it requires.
Quote:I understand what you getting at with players and exploiting, but the problem is not that bulkheads arenGÇÖt overpowered, its that hull tanking is underpowered. You mean the tanking style that can only be done with two modules: bulkheads (which provide a very small bonus) and DCUs (which provide a very large bonus) as a whole is underpowered. Then it rather follows that of the two possible combinations, the one that provides the much smaller-bonused module is what brings the whole package down, rather than the one that provides a massive bonus. The massive-bonus one does not even manage to drag the small-bonus module out of the realm of GÇ£underpoweredGÇ¥.
So what you're saying is that bulkheads are not so much underpowered as super-underpowered since they manage to drag down DCUs that low. They have the best supporting module in the game and still doesn't manage to climb higher than underpowered.
Yes, really. Your using modules normally fitted to cruiser and battlecruisers as a point of comparison means that your fit has no connection with reality and that your comparison only proves that you know how to failfit a ship. It shows nothing that has any relevance whatsoever to balance. Using your deplorable methodology, I can easily prove that citadel cruise missiles are immensely overpowered and need to be nerfed to hell and back.
After all: GÇó Phoenix w/ 3+ù Citadel Cruise I + Siege II = 72k alpha; nearly 3k DPS. GÇó Revelation w/ 3+ù Heavy Beam Laser II + Siege II = 342 alpha; nearly 80 DPS.
Of course, that's just nonsense, and you know it. You also know that your point of comparison is nonsense. You know that the conclusion from your comparison is nonsense. You know that your entire position is nonsense. If we actually do a proper comparison, we come to the same conclusion every time: bulkheads do not even nearly provide the same performance as the other modules you'd want to fit to tank your capship. Any claim that they are overpowered is therefore fundamentally idiotic unless all forms of capship tanking is deemed overpowered in one fell swoop.
Quote:But letGÇÖs get back to the point, and really the entire point of this back and forth in the first place on the freaking question I asked you originally. GÇ£Is hull tanking viable on one ship or all ships?GÇ¥
And here is your true answer My true answer hasn't changed: it's still mu. You can keep inventing all the nonsensical strawman arguments you want, but that just makes you a liar and a troll GÇö it does not in any way alter my answer. The quote you're now attempting to shoe-horn in doesn't even address the same issue, so it's very obviously not an answer to the question.
And no, that was neither the original question nor the entire point, so you manage to be as utterly and completely wrong about that as you have been about every single thing you've ever said. The original question, and the entire point of the conversation, was GÇ£How are bulkheads imbalanced? How would making them take up no fitting space make them more imbalanced?GÇ¥ GÇö questions you have not been able to answer in a way that supports your original claim.
Instead, using your failures as very helpful support, we have satisfactorily proven GÇö beyond any doubt GÇö that bulkheads are not overpowered, but are rather, if anything, massively underpowered. If we compare them in a vacuum, they come out behind the other modules. If we compare them in context, they come out behind the other modules. You have not been able to come up with any scenario where they offer any kind of advantage (much less an overpowered one) and you've shown that they are actually such a drag that they make an entire tanking style under-perform. We can therefore further conclude that reducing their fitting requirements will not unbalance anything, since it does not alter their performance in any way, and no matter how cheap, they will not replace those other modules. 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. |
Thanatos Marathon
Black Fox Marauders Repeat 0ffenders
194
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 18:19:00 -
[1625] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:
1. My blockade runner will see more use (and I may pickup a DST) 2. We will end up building more destroyer & cruiser hulls and shipping in fewer 3. Ok, perhaps I should just say spacerich instead of nullblock. The spacerich aren't impacted as much because they have a much larger pool of isk to pull from
1. If you were using JF before when you could have used a blockade runner, why didn't you? Apparently this wasn't an m3 decision or a time decision (more trips with less m3). You going to take on more risk your high value things for some fuel savings?
2. building more in null, low, where and shipping to where?
3. Yes, the space rich will always be able to adapt better. Just like the real rich adapt better to changes in the real world. Nothing new there. But the whole null versus anywhere else thing is such a meme at this point. Null is made up of more than just the space rich. As is hisec and lowsec.
1. Time and to a lesser degree risk (with scout alts moving a blockade runner is easy, just time consuming) With the cost change per M3 to move it as well as inheriting greater risk due to a couple extra seconds of align or reduced EHP I may not want to risk the JF as often.
2. FW Lowsec (Black Rise). We build as much as we can locally and stock our own market.
3. Yup, it is a matter of finding a balance point. If the cost of living went up 50% in a year in the USA there would be riots. The rich for the most part wouldn't be the ones in the streets, but plenty of other people would be. There is nothing wrong with being rich (or internet space rich), but allowing the little guy to climb the ladder as it were is important for player morale. BLFOX is currently recruiting |
QUENTIN SLACKER
Modro University Against ALL Anomalies
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 18:23:00 -
[1626] - Quote
just pull down your pants and dump on JFs more Please ty
garbage update **** changes
ffs if ur gonna do this to freighter / jump freighters at least give them a low slot |
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
13
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 18:23:00 -
[1627] - Quote
Tippia wrote:
My point is that what they did was to give you some additional capital (cargo space and lowslots) that you can trade for increased abilities elsewhere, or perhaps more accurately, not spend modules on improving.
They're not giving freighters lows are they? If they are i missed that. That would change a lot. My point was just that with the rigs which are incredibly expensive do not make the ship very versatile. I would be all for that cause then you are right you could simply fit expanders, plating etc. whatever was necessary for the given task but i'm not going to be destroying rigs left and right for the various tasks.
Tippia wrote: If they give the ship a 30% cargo increase, then that's one expander you don't have to fit. It's much the same as how range bonuses for guns can be turned into damage bonuses: you can now use shorter-ranged ammo to exchange that range for more damage in situations where you'd normally be stuck with some mediocre mid-range/snore-damage ammo.
I understand exactly what you are saying here. However the freighters like the t1 large indies had BOTH nerfed. there was no increase in hold. in fact there was a decrease with all of the increase they are describing requiring one to fit rigs/modules making it impossible to meet even what they were currently at.
Tippia wrote: Ok, so the Mammoth was able to get 15k EHP passively. It can still get it actively, and more. Moreover, the Mammoth was changed to be a fast transport, and they certainly did that. Not being around is the best tank there is. Agility is once again something you can trade against other stats. Slap some additional bulk on that thing and laugh as your align times end up the same as they always were.
Except for the fact the ship bonuses top speed NOT agility which encourages afk travel. If anything they should have had them bonus agility like the other indies or give them a significant tank increase. The speed bonus with the light tank is rather confusing as what benefit do you have to that bonus if now it requires active piloting to even meet the tank it had before? |
Derath Ellecon
Washburne Holdings Situation: Normal
2247
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 18:34:00 -
[1628] - Quote
In case it hasn't been said yet. The new freighters are up on SiSi for your rig testing pleasure.
I'll be honest, Im not as upset in some ways but annoyed with others. I think the cargo nerf is manageable on freighters, but I think the EHP nerf was too great.
with 3 T1 trimarks I can only get an obelisk slightly higher on EHP than before. The only reason I find this to be an issue is that it seems in many other areas of rebalance, ships have been balanced to account for some of the power creep in recent years, while one ship most susceptible (a freighter with no offensive capabilities) is seeing too much of a reduction. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22080
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 18:37:00 -
[1629] - Quote
Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:They're not giving freighters lows are they? If they are i missed that. That would change a lot. My point was just that with the rigs which are incredibly expensive do not make the ship very versatile. I would be all for that cause then you are right you could simply fit expanders, plating etc. whatever was necessary for the given task but i'm not going to be destroying rigs left and right for the various tasks. No, they're not, but Mynnna had a proposal for that idea that spun out into some other small changes that could be made to avoid the bigger pitfalls (such as the massive argument above about how supposedly overpowered bulkheads are ).
And I was only talking about what they did during the industrial tiercide GÇö how it wasn't the kind of blanket nerf it was presented as.
Quote:I understand exactly what you are saying here. However the freighters like the t1 large indies had BOTH nerfed. there was no increase in hold. in fact there was a decrease with all of the increase they are describing requiring one to fit rigs/modules making it impossible to meet even what they were currently at. Yes, that is kind of the point of the whole change. It's not meant to be a buff; it's just meant to give freighters options. The price of those options is an overall worse ship. That's why I always argued against fitting options: I wanted to keep my excellent-at-everything (jump) freighter. As for the indies, some of them had their cargo increased, some did not GÇö it all depended on how bad they were compared to each other before. The top performers came down a bit; the bottom performer came up a lot. I'm guessing that your perception there is somewhat born out of your ship being in a fairly good spot to begin with.
Quote:Except for the fact the ship bonuses top speed NOT agility which encourages afk travel. If anything they should have had them bonus agility like the other indies or give them a significant tank increase. It got an agility increase. Remember, agility is better the lower it is GÇö for the Mammoth, they changed it from 1.0 to 0.91. Since agility translates directly into align time, that's 9% faster aligning right there. Sure, and istab gives you twice as much, but stillGǪ it's half a slot that can be used for something else.
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. |
Dave Stark
5936
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 18:39:00 -
[1630] - Quote
Derath Ellecon wrote:with 3 T1 trimarks I can only get an obelisk slightly higher on EHP than before. The only reason I find this to be an issue is that it seems in many other areas of rebalance, ships have been balanced to account for some of the power creep in recent years, while one ship most susceptible (a freighter with no offensive capabilities) is seeing too much of a reduction. try using hull rigs, since they provide more EHP. |
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3292
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 18:40:00 -
[1631] - Quote
XxRTEKxX wrote:Where does the CSM currently stand on the proposed new changes? Are they in favor of this direction, or with the majority here who are against the changes?
I haven't seen any statements from them yet.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=search&topic=Freighters+and+Jump+Freighters+Rebalance&forumID=270&csmbadge=1
We've been talking on thread. Not in huge detail, but behind the scenes, we've been talking with Fozzie.
Screaming and ranting isn't a good way to get a response, but just chatting is a good way bring people round to your PoV. Repeating what someone else has said isn't particularly beneficial either. Be assured, we take this seriously.
We've been keeping an eye on the good posts in thread, and using them to shape the discussion, where appropriate. Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Andre Vauban
Quantum Cats Syndicate Repeat 0ffenders
276
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 18:44:00 -
[1632] - Quote
Fozzie, Can you please elaborate on CCP's intentions of these changes? I personally think these changes suck as they are going to make my life more difficult as I am a JF pilot supplying a lowsec alliance. With these changes, in coordination with the industry and mineral changes, is going to shut down our capital business and massively disincentive us from using BC and up hulls. It will be very expensive and time consuming to haul enough BC and up hulls via JF. With the reprocessing changes, it will not be cost effective to haul minerals for BC and up (hauling raw uncompressed minerals for cruiser and down still works).
-Does CCP want to see less BC and up in lowsec? If the answer is yes, then these changes are good. If the answer is no, then these changes are bad.
-Does CCP want to see sov nullsec as the only cost effective and viable place to produce capitals? If the answer is yes, then these changes (along with the reprocessing changes) are good. If not, these changes are bad.
-Does CCP want to severely limit the ability of smaller corporations alliances to move across EVE universe while still allowing larger corporations the ability to move across the EVE universe at will? If the answer is yes, then these changes are good. If the answer is no, then these changes are bad.
I personally feel that the main "problem" in EVE today is how small the universe has become and the ability for corporations and alliances to move pilots, ships, and materials anywhere in Eve in minutes. I believe CCP sees this problem as well but continues to attempt to apply duct-tape to the problem rather than fix it. The real answer lies in adding new limits around pilots ability to jump to cynos. Let it be fast, easy, and cheap to move pilots, ships, and materials within one cyno jump but have it become exponentially worse as we increase the number of cyno jumps.
QCATS is recruiting:-á https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3896299 |
Dave Stark
5937
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 18:49:00 -
[1633] - Quote
sisi changes http://pastebin.com/5NdjVCGU source there's mention of fuel rigs.
"his ship modification is designed to decrease the fuel requirements of jump drive travel at the expense of fuel bay capacity. Penalty: Using more than one type of this module or similar modules that affect the same attribute on the ship will be penalized."
enjoy. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22080
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 18:52:00 -
[1634] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:sisi changes http://pastebin.com/5NdjVCGUsourcethere's mention of fuel rigs. "his ship modification is designed to decrease the fuel requirements of jump drive travel at the expense of fuel bay capacity. Penalty: Using more than one type of this module or similar modules that affect the same attribute on the ship will be penalized." enjoy.
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. |
|
ISD Tyrozan
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
386
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 18:56:00 -
[1635] - Quote
A post containing private correspondence with GMs has been removed.
Forum rule 9. Posting of private CCP communication is prohibited. ISD Tyrozan Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department @ISDTyrozan | @ISD_CCL |
|
XxRTEKxX
Fenrir's Dogs of War Union 0f Revolution
117
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 18:59:00 -
[1636] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:XxRTEKxX wrote:Where does the CSM currently stand on the proposed new changes? Are they in favor of this direction, or with the majority here who are against the changes?
I haven't seen any statements from them yet. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=search&topic=Freighters+and+Jump+Freighters+Rebalance&forumID=270&csmbadge=1We've been talking on thread. Not in huge detail, but behind the scenes, we've been talking with Fozzie. Screaming and ranting isn't a good way to get a response, but just chatting is a good way bring people round to your PoV. Repeating what someone else has said isn't particularly beneficial either. Be assured, we take this seriously. We've been keeping an eye on the good posts in thread, and using them to shape the discussion, where appropriate.
Thanks for the response.
|
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
63
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 19:00:00 -
[1637] - Quote
ISD Tyrozan wrote:A post containing private correspondence with GMs has been removed.
Forum rule 9. Posting of private CCP communication is prohibited.
Couldn't you have just removed the part about the CCP response? Because the original part was classic EVE-O forum material
Give me my skillpoints back. LOL |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5665
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 19:02:00 -
[1638] - Quote
I see people are beginning to realize why some of us were pointing out years ago that begging for the ability to rig a freighter might not actually be something you're going to be happy with if you actually get it.
Interesting changes, it will be even more so when things finally end up getting tweaked a bit more.
I'm not going to comment much more than this at the current time, as quite frankly I think the game would be vastly improved in a number of ways if Jump Freighters were removed from the game completely.
For those debating whether local markets will be strengthened by these changes, yes, they likely will be. However this particular change will only have an ancillary effect.
The main boost that local markets will get will come with the industry changes next release. To one degree or another the market hubs will follow the industrial hubs (at least in an effort to keep shipping distances to a minimum), and those are going to be shifting around a great deal.
So the industry changes will likely lead to a greater need to ship large quantities of goods around New Eden (which is a very good thing), which means these changes will have a small but noticeable impact... reinforcing the upcoming pressure to develop local trade hubs instead of simply shipping everything to and from Jita (and the handful of other largish trade hubs).
I also suspect the increased level of shipping, AND increased pressure to develop local markets, will be felt in all area's of space... which will be a bit of a first. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 19:04:00 -
[1639] - Quote
Tippia wrote: Saying something doesnGÇÖt make it true. Doesn't change the fact that mu was the only valid answer. If by valid you mean that itGÇÖs completely meaningless, then sure.
Tippia wrote: Not really, no. It's only a factor if it eats away at a rare resource. In this case, the resource in question is not the fitting space but the module slot In this case? You start putting cit torp launchers on a dread and suddenly you have infinite CPU all of a sudden? Fitting is always a factor because no ship has infinite fitting resources.
Tippia wrote: You mean the tanking style that can only be done with two modules: bulkheads (which provide a very small bonus) and DCUs (which provide a very large bonus) as a whole is underpowered. Then it rather follows that of the two possible combinations, the one that provides the much smaller-bonused module is what brings the whole package down, rather than the one that provides a massive bonus.
Hey look a fallacy! The other possibility is that the tanking style doesnGÇÖt have the proper support modules to make it an effective choice. Aka both modules could potentially be fine on their own and together, but still arenGÇÖt effective when viewed against the other choices a player can make because they lack the other choices that other tanking styles provide.
Tippia wrote: Yes, really. Your using modules normally fitted to cruiser and battlecruisers as a point of comparison means that your fit has no connection with reality and that your comparison only proves that you know how to failfit a ship.
And why am I comparing them to battleship mods, oh right, because again comparable modules do not exist for the class we are talking aboutGǪ or did you miss that whole point? So the question then becomes WHY they donGÇÖt exist. Is it because there wasnGÇÖt time? They werenGÇÖt thought about? Or even because if they did they would be stupidly overpowered?!
Likely a combination of all of the above.
Tippia wrote: And no, that was neither the original question nor the entire point, so you manage to be as utterly and completely wrong about that as you have been about every single thing you've ever said. The original question, and the entire point of the conversation, was GÇ£How are bulkheads imbalanced? How would making them take up no fitting space make them more imbalanced?GÇ¥ GÇö questions you have not been able to answer in a way that supports your original claim.
Instead, using your failures as very helpful support, we have satisfactorily proven GÇö beyond any doubt GÇö that bulkheads are not overpowered, but are rather, if anything, massively underpowered. If we compare them in a vacuum, they come out behind the other modules. If we compare them in context, they come out behind the other modules. You have not been able to come up with any scenario where they offer any kind of advantage (much less an overpowered one) and you've shown that they are actually such a drag that they make an entire tanking style under-perform. We can therefore further conclude that reducing their fitting requirements will not unbalance anything, since it does not alter their performance in any way, and no matter how cheap, they will not replace those other modules.
No, the original question was why should bulkheads be the one off exception to how every other tanking module works in the game? Your response is because they are completely underpowered relative to all of the other tanking modules. And my answer is that just because an entire way of doing things is underpowered doesnGÇÖt mean we should acknowledge that fact by putting a square peg into a round that is an even nicher use case than what we currently have. What should be done instead is that Hull tanking and all aspects of it should receive a massive rebalance as well as the only ship that does so: the orca. (Which given everything changed in the last year needs one anywayGǪ) But youGÇÖd rather cut off your nose to spite your face instead of just acknowledging that simple fact.
|
BEPOHNKA
Phoenix Company Force Northern Associates.
168
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 19:05:00 -
[1640] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:XxRTEKxX wrote:Where does the CSM currently stand on the proposed new changes? Are they in favor of this direction, or with the majority here who are against the changes?
I haven't seen any statements from them yet. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=search&topic=Freighters+and+Jump+Freighters+Rebalance&forumID=270&csmbadge=1We've been talking on thread. Not in huge detail, but behind the scenes, we've been talking with Fozzie. Screaming and ranting isn't a good way to get a response, but just chatting is a good way bring people round to your PoV. Repeating what someone else has said isn't particularly beneficial either. Be assured, we take this seriously. We've been keeping an eye on the good posts in thread, and using them to shape the discussion, where appropriate.
The changes we face are not what we want at all so listen to us on the forums. Give us good replies and point us to them.. That's were we should be at this point. |
|
Retar Aveymone
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
377
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 19:08:00 -
[1641] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:sisi changes http://pastebin.com/5NdjVCGU sourcethere's mention of fuel rigs. "his ship modification is designed to decrease the fuel requirements of jump drive travel at the expense of fuel bay capacity. Penalty: Using more than one type of this module or similar modules that affect the same attribute on the ship will be penalized." enjoy. who cares
HIGH GRADE PIRATE IMPLANTS
no longer will my titan character have to be gimped in his training because he uses slaves
no longer will my freighter character be as gimped in his training because he uses nomads
:happysun: |
Vincintius Agrippa
F L O O D
41
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 19:16:00 -
[1642] - Quote
I dont see why this change was implemented in the first place. There arent many ways to fit a jf or freighter anyway. So there shouldn't have been a big surprise to how people fit them.
The goal of freighters is to move the maximum amount of cargo from point A to point B in the least amount of time with the most efficiency, without getting ganked.
Cargo or agility rigs on a freighter? Blasphemy. Agility mods? What madness! Low-grade NOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMaaaaaaaaaaaaadddds? Sacrilege! |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22080
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 19:20:00 -
[1643] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:If by valid you mean that itGÇÖs completely meaningless, then sure. No, by valid I mean valid. Just because you don't understand the term does not mean it's meaningless, nor does it mean that you get to replace it with some disconnected statement of your choice.
If you still don't understand the answer, you can (sitll) ask. Don't worry, I won't bite.
Yes, in this case. A low-slot is far more valuable than 40tf CPU, especially on a Phoenix, since the other, far more useful modules you want to put in that slot cost more CPU.
Quote:Hey look a fallacy! The other possibility is that the tanking style doesnGÇÖt have the proper support modules to make it an effective choice. Just one problem: it does. It has the most effective support module of them all, as it happens. So that's not really a possibility at all, nor is it a fallacy unless what you said was all wrongGǪ which, I'll grant you, is highly probable.
Quote:And why am I comparing them to battleship mods, oh right, because GǪit's the only way for your claim to be true. Unfortunately, it also makes your claim nonsensical and irrelevant since it is based on an utterly invalid comparison. What's left is to compare it against the modules that doe the same thing (modify EHP by a percentage) and which are used for capshipsGǪ and what do you know? The bulkheads come dead last. So any claim that they're overpowered runs afoul on either being based on an invalid comparison or being ad odds with reality.
The reasons why capships don't have their own buffer modules aren't particularly relevant to the question of whether bulkheads are overpowered or not. The only thing that really matters is whether the other percentage-based modules that aid in tanking are spectacularly bad in comparison, and they're not. In fact, they're all much better. Thus, bulkheads simply can't be overpowered.
Quote:No, the original question was why should bulkheads be the one off exception to how every other tanking module works in the game? GǪwhich was answered. You then made the counter-claim that they were somehow overpowered, and you have been struggling and failing to support this claim ever since, which is what has created this back-and forth. All you've managed to do is demonstrate the exact opposite in at least two different ways.
Either way, the conclusion is the same: bulkheads are not overpowered GÇö they are, if anything, underpowered. It makes quite a lot of sense to remove their fitting costs. Doing so actually provides a solution to the key problem of giving freighters low slots, and it has pretty much zero bad side-effects. The only thing that comes close is that some miners will be able to tank a bit more, but if they are willing to give up their MLUs for that, all power to 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. |
Dave Stark
5937
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 19:22:00 -
[1644] - Quote
Vincintius Agrippa wrote:I dont see why this change was implemented in the first place. There arent many ways to fit a jf or freighter anyway. So there shouldn't have been a big surprise to how people fit them.
The goal of freighters is to move the maximum amount of cargo from point A to point B in the least amount of time with the most efficiency, without getting ganked.
Cargo or agility rigs on a freighter? Blasphemy. Agility mods? What madness! Low-grade NOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMaaaaaaaaaaaaadddds? Sacrilege!
low grade nomads, now mid grade nomads. with even more sp/hour. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22080
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 19:23:00 -
[1645] - Quote
Retar Aveymone wrote:HIGH GRADE PIRATE IMPLANTS
no longer will my titan character have to be gimped in his training because he uses slaves
no longer will my freighter character be as gimped in his training because he uses nomads
:happysun: More accurately, regular implants become high-grade, with +1 to their attribute bonus; low-grade implants become mid-grade, also with +1 to their attribute bonus; and completely new low-grade implants are introduced that are only the same as the current ones in that they provide a total attribute bonus of +2.
So you're still gimped by 1 point. 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. |
Derath Ellecon
Washburne Holdings Situation: Normal
2248
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 19:23:00 -
[1646] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Derath Ellecon wrote:with 3 T1 trimarks I can only get an obelisk slightly higher on EHP than before. The only reason I find this to be an issue is that it seems in many other areas of rebalance, ships have been balanced to account for some of the power creep in recent years, while one ship most susceptible (a freighter with no offensive capabilities) is seeing too much of a reduction. try using hull rigs, since they provide more EHP.
They aren't on the market yet on SiSi it seems. Nor could I find the new jump fuel rigs. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22080
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 19:26:00 -
[1647] - Quote
Derath Ellecon wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Derath Ellecon wrote:with 3 T1 trimarks I can only get an obelisk slightly higher on EHP than before. The only reason I find this to be an issue is that it seems in many other areas of rebalance, ships have been balanced to account for some of the power creep in recent years, while one ship most susceptible (a freighter with no offensive capabilities) is seeing too much of a reduction. try using hull rigs, since they provide more EHP. They aren't on the market yet on SiSi it seems. Nor could I find the new jump fuel rigs. Are the BPOs in? It would be a round-about way, but stillGǪ 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. |
Vincintius Agrippa
F L O O D
41
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 19:27:00 -
[1648] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:sisi changes http://pastebin.com/5NdjVCGUsourcethere's mention of fuel rigs. "his ship modification is designed to decrease the fuel requirements of jump drive travel at the expense of fuel bay capacity. Penalty: Using more than one type of this module or similar modules that affect the same attribute on the ship will be penalized." enjoy.
Oh yeah, who scans down sites uncloaked lol? Hi-sec maybe? Low-sec, null, and wormhole space is suicide.
As for fuel rigs: That like saying "This rig reduces the capacitor need need of entering warp, but decreases warp speed". I'd understand some loss of cargo space with THIS rig, but does it not defeat the purpose with reduced fuel capacity?
New medium grade Pirate implants? Interesting. |
Dave Stark
5937
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 19:27:00 -
[1649] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Derath Ellecon wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Derath Ellecon wrote:with 3 T1 trimarks I can only get an obelisk slightly higher on EHP than before. The only reason I find this to be an issue is that it seems in many other areas of rebalance, ships have been balanced to account for some of the power creep in recent years, while one ship most susceptible (a freighter with no offensive capabilities) is seeing too much of a reduction. try using hull rigs, since they provide more EHP. They aren't on the market yet on SiSi it seems. Nor could I find the new jump fuel rigs. Are the BPOs in? It would be a round-about way, but stillGǪ nope. only thing we know about them are what's in that pastebin link. |
Dave Stark
5937
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 19:30:00 -
[1650] - Quote
Vincintius Agrippa wrote:As for fuel rigs: That like saying "This rig reduces the capacitor need need of entering warp, but decreases warp speed".
it's not like saying that at all |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22080
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 19:34:00 -
[1651] - Quote
Vincintius Agrippa wrote:As for fuel rigs: That like saying "This rig reduces the capacitor need need of entering warp, but decreases warp speed". I'd understand some loss of cargo space with THIS rig, but does it not defeat the purpose with reduced fuel capacity? WeeellGǪ it means you have to have a better infrastructure along the way or that you can operate from farther away if you have a few-jump route. If you can fill up between jumps, you can get more distance from the fuel.
Also, it depends on what the fuel reduction is. The capacity penalty looks to be the same -10% (i.e. -5GÇô6% after skills) as on most rigs. If the savings is larger than the capacity loss, you can travel farther on a single tank too.
Quote:New medium grade Pirate implants? Interesting. Again, the medium-grades aren't that interesting. They're the old low-grades renamed, but with a higher attribute bonus. The really new implants are the new low-grades. 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. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5666
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 19:34:00 -
[1652] - Quote
Vincintius Agrippa wrote:Dave Stark wrote:sisi changes http://pastebin.com/5NdjVCGU sourcethere's mention of fuel rigs. "his ship modification is designed to decrease the fuel requirements of jump drive travel at the expense of fuel bay capacity. Penalty: Using more than one type of this module or similar modules that affect the same attribute on the ship will be penalized." enjoy. Oh yeah, who scans down sites uncloaked lol? Hi-sec maybe? Low-sec, null, and wormhole space is suicide. As for fuel rigs: That like saying "This rig reduces the capacitor need need of entering warp, but decreases warp speed". I'd understand some loss of cargo space with THIS rig, but does it not defeat the purpose with reduced fuel capacity? New medium grade Pirate implants? Interesting. It's saying that you can make the trip require less fuel, but you will not be able to use it to increase your jump range... so the same trip will be less expensive. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Retar Aveymone
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
378
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 19:40:00 -
[1653] - Quote
Tippia wrote:More accurately, regular implants become high-grade, with +1 to their attribute bonus; low-grade implants become mid-grade, also with +1 to their attribute bonus; and completely new low-grade implants are introduced that are only the same as the current ones in that they provide a total attribute bonus of +2. So you're still gimped by 1 point. yes but the filthy rich flying around in pirate implants will no longer be third-class citizens when it comes to sp accumulation, merely second-class citizens
a magnificant improvement, now please make ultra-high grade tia |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
3644
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 19:41:00 -
[1654] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:It's saying that you can make the trip require less fuel, but you will not be able to use it to increase your jump range... so the same trip will be less expensive. Of course you can put fuel in your cargohold too. The fuel bay doesn't limit a JF. Still there is a cost. |
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 19:45:00 -
[1655] - Quote
Tippia wrote:If you still don't understand the answer, you can (sitll) ask. Don't worry, I won't bite. I did ask, but you donGÇÖt answer point blank questions, so there really isnGÇÖt much point in asking again.
Tippia wrote:Yes, in this case. A low-slot is far more valuable than 40tf CPU, especially on a Phoenix, since the other, far more useful modules you want to put in that slot cost more CPU.
Oh? LetGÇÖs look at the example of 1 dcu and 1 bulkhead on the phoenix. IGÇÖve seen people put maybe one other mod in the bulkheadGÇÖs spot besides a PDU and that would be a 4th BCU (since really the first three are nearly mandatory given its roll) So what would be more important than a PDU or a BCU?
Tippia wrote: one problem: it does. It has the most effective support module of them all, as it happens. So that's not really a possibility at all, nor is it a fallacy unless what you said was all wrongGǪ which, I'll grant you, is highly probable.
Oh really, because cap ships have a local cap sized hull repair mod? Oh rightGǪ it doesnGÇÖt exist. One module a tank does not make.
Tippia wrote: it's the only way for your claim to be true.
Then why is it that all other HP mods are fixed amounts and not percentage based? I mean if percentage based boosts werenGÇÖt OP and easily balanced then how come all the other buffer mods are broken into separate sub classes? |
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
13
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 19:50:00 -
[1656] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:They're not giving freighters lows are they? If they are i missed that. That would change a lot. My point was just that with the rigs which are incredibly expensive do not make the ship very versatile. I would be all for that cause then you are right you could simply fit expanders, plating etc. whatever was necessary for the given task but i'm not going to be destroying rigs left and right for the various tasks. No, they're not, but Mynnna had a proposal for that idea that spun out into some other small changes that could be made to avoid the bigger pitfalls (such as the massive argument above about how supposedly overpowered bulkheads are ).
bulk heads OP?? waaah?? OK just caught up your earlier convo. don't want to get too much into it except if they were so OP why is it that ships which have their greatest amount of hp in the hull(orca's) still will shield tank the majority of the time....... The only purpose bulkheads even serve atm is to just be a giant buffer. This brings me to the suggestion i made on the hull rigs forum about creating an ORE logi ship that gives a bonus to remote hull reps since their is NO TIME REASONABLE way to repair hulls outside of stations.
Tippia wrote:Yes, that is kind of the point of the whole change. It's not meant to be a buff; it's just meant to give freighters options. The price of those options is an overall worse ship. That's why I always argued against fitting options: I wanted to keep my excellent-at-everything (jump) freighter.
So can we all agree just to tell CCP don't push this update and leave the freighters alone?
Tippia wrote:As for the indies, some of them had their cargo increased, some did not GÇö it all depended on how bad they were compared to each other before. The top performers came down a bit; the bottom performer came up a lot. I'm guessing that your perception there is somewhat born out of your ship being in a fairly good spot to begin with.
Not necessarily. the only one to receive a cargo boost was the tyra or badger II. the rest had a cargo reduction or didn't move while all lost a mid slot
Tippia wrote: It got an agility increase. Remember, agility is better the lower it is GÇö for the Mammoth, they changed it from 1.0 to 0.91. Since agility translates directly into align time, that's 9% faster aligning right there. Sure, and istab gives you twice as much, but stillGǪ it's half a slot that can be used for something else.
I understand that but it still doesn't change the fact a velocity bonus is pointless on this ship if it's supposed to be the gtfo ship. Maybe burning back to gate in low? IDK. |
Retar Aveymone
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
378
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 19:51:00 -
[1657] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Then why is it that all other HP mods are fixed amounts and not percentage based? I mean if percentage based boosts werenGÇÖt OP and easily balanced then how come all the other buffer mods are broken into separate sub classes? http://games.chruker.dk/eve_online/item.php?type_id=11239
because resistances >>> percent hp, this module is unused yet it does exist
your argument is wrong |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22083
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 19:55:00 -
[1658] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:I did ask, but you donGÇÖt answer point blank questions Incorrect. Again, just ask. I won't bite.
Quote:Oh? LetGÇÖs look at the example of 1 dcu and 1 bulkhead on the phoenix. IGÇÖve seen people put maybe one other mod in the bulkheadGÇÖs spot besides a PDU and that would be a 4th BCU (since really the first three are nearly mandatory given its roll) So what would be more important than a PDU or a BCU? Fair enough. I thought for a moment that they cost 44, not 40. The point is still the same: the bulkhead is a waste of a slot, and it's not skipped over for a lack of CPU GÇö it's skipped over because there are far better things to put in that slot. Pretty much anything, in fact, is a better use of the slot.
Quote:Oh really, because cap ships have a local cap sized hull repair mod? They have the same superior hull-tanking support module as every other ship in the game.
Quote:Then why is it that all other HP mods are fixed amounts and not percentage based? Because they are meant for specific ship sizes. Hull-tanking, not being a proper tanking mode to begin with, doesn't get that because it would just be pointless clutter. Instead, it just becomes a percentage mod like hardeners and DCUs. 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. |
Vincintius Agrippa
F L O O D
41
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 19:56:00 -
[1659] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Vincintius Agrippa wrote:As for fuel rigs: That like saying "This rig reduces the capacitor need need of entering warp, but decreases warp speed". it's not like saying that at all
No, but it is a good approximation of most people attitudes toward it.
Perhaps this is a better one: Starting June, car manufacturers are doubling the mpg of their new vehicles, but they are cutting the size of all current gas tanks by half. ------- You see, it defeats the f******g purpose.
|
Derath Ellecon
Washburne Holdings Situation: Normal
2248
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 19:56:00 -
[1660] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Tippia wrote:Derath Ellecon wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Derath Ellecon wrote:with 3 T1 trimarks I can only get an obelisk slightly higher on EHP than before. The only reason I find this to be an issue is that it seems in many other areas of rebalance, ships have been balanced to account for some of the power creep in recent years, while one ship most susceptible (a freighter with no offensive capabilities) is seeing too much of a reduction. try using hull rigs, since they provide more EHP. They aren't on the market yet on SiSi it seems. Nor could I find the new jump fuel rigs. Are the BPOs in? It would be a round-about way, but stillGǪ nope. only thing we know about them are what's in that pastebin link.
I guess my main beef is that unless they were planning on actually nerfing freighters, it would seem that I should be able to get back to where I was with some combination of rigs.
For example, I should be able to use some combination of rigs to basically get back to where my Obelisk was pre-rigs. Then If I chose to, I could get an even better tank, at the expense of cargo (which helps counteract the power creep of gankers in recent years) OR larger cargo at the expense of EHP.
Right now at least I cannot find a combination of rigs that gets me back to a balanced state of where my freighter is now.
Now if the goal was an actual nerf (who knows the freighter balance pass may have chopped out cargo even without the rig idea) then so be it. It just seems like this was pitched as a buff to freighters when it really doesn't seem to be.
Granted it is hard to know without a working EFT or all available rigs at least available on SiSi. |
|
Retar Aveymone
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
378
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 19:57:00 -
[1661] - Quote
Vincintius Agrippa wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Vincintius Agrippa wrote:As for fuel rigs: That like saying "This rig reduces the capacitor need need of entering warp, but decreases warp speed". it's not like saying that at all No, but it is a good approximation of most people attitudes toward it. Perhaps this is a better one: Starting June, car manufacturers are doubling the mpg of their new vehicles, but they are cutting the size of all current gas tanks by half. ------- You see, it defeats the f******g purpose. gas isn't free |
Vincintius Agrippa
F L O O D
41
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 19:57:00 -
[1662] - Quote
I suppose, some large alliances with good enough logistics could make it work, but for everyone else not so much. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5666
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 19:59:00 -
[1663] - Quote
Retar Aveymone wrote:Vincintius Agrippa wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Vincintius Agrippa wrote:As for fuel rigs: That like saying "This rig reduces the capacitor need need of entering warp, but decreases warp speed". it's not like saying that at all No, but it is a good approximation of most people attitudes toward it. Perhaps this is a better one: Starting June, car manufacturers are doubling the mpg of their new vehicles, but they are cutting the size of all current gas tanks by half. ------- You see, it defeats the f******g purpose. gas isn't free Exactly, the same trip is costing you half as much... which in this case is exactly the point, not increasing your range. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
15615
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 20:00:00 -
[1664] - Quote
maths can be pretty hard "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!" |
Derath Ellecon
Washburne Holdings Situation: Normal
2248
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 20:02:00 -
[1665] - Quote
Vincintius Agrippa wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Vincintius Agrippa wrote:As for fuel rigs: That like saying "This rig reduces the capacitor need need of entering warp, but decreases warp speed". it's not like saying that at all No, but it is a good approximation of most people attitudes toward it. Perhaps this is a better one: Starting June, car manufacturers are doubling the mpg of their new vehicles, but they are cutting the size of all current gas tanks by half. ------- You see, it defeats the f******g purpose.
Except that it doesn't. You still spend less on fuel.
And to use the car analogy, in general car manufacturers seem to size a tank to go a certain distance. Regardless of MPG most vehicles seem to have around a 400-600mile range per tank.
JF will be about the same. They will be able to jump the same number of LY per tank. But it will cost less since it is burning less fuel. I don't see a problem with that. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
64
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 20:02:00 -
[1666] - Quote
Retar Aveymone wrote:Vincintius Agrippa wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Vincintius Agrippa wrote:As for fuel rigs: That like saying "This rig reduces the capacitor need need of entering warp, but decreases warp speed". it's not like saying that at all No, but it is a good approximation of most people attitudes toward it. Perhaps this is a better one: Starting June, car manufacturers are doubling the mpg of their new vehicles, but they are cutting the size of all current gas tanks by half. ------- You see, it defeats the f******g purpose. gas isn't free
gas, grass or a$$. nobody rides for free
And yes, the could cut the size of the tank even if they increased the MPG. They aren't saying you can go further on one tank of gas, just that the car is more efficient at going the same distance as before. MPG is different than Distance to Empty |
Vincintius Agrippa
F L O O D
41
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 20:04:00 -
[1667] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Retar Aveymone wrote:Vincintius Agrippa wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Vincintius Agrippa wrote:As for fuel rigs: That like saying "This rig reduces the capacitor need need of entering warp, but decreases warp speed". it's not like saying that at all No, but it is a good approximation of most people attitudes toward it. Perhaps this is a better one: Starting June, car manufacturers are doubling the mpg of their new vehicles, but they are cutting the size of all current gas tanks by half. ------- You see, it defeats the f******g purpose. gas isn't free Exactly, the same trip is costing you half as much... which in this case is exactly the point, not increasing your range.
I'd rather have a large gas tank and better gas mileage :) |
Dave Stark
5940
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 20:04:00 -
[1668] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:maths can be pretty hard i liked maths better when it involved numbers.
it became the devil when writing an equation was like writing an essay in greek. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22083
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 20:05:00 -
[1669] - Quote
Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:bulk heads OP?? waaah?? OK just caught up your earlier convo. don't want to get too much into it except if they were so OP why is it that ships which have their greatest amount of hp in the hull(orca's) still will shield tank the majority of the time....... The only purpose bulkheads even serve atm is to just be a giant buffer. This brings me to the suggestion i made on the hull rigs forum about creating an ORE logi ship that gives a bonus to remote hull reps since their is NO TIME REASONABLE way to repair hulls outside of stations. Well, yes. His argument is basically GÇ£onoz, look at this large bonus! If we don't compare it to anything relevant it looks really big on its own! OMGZ OP!GÇ¥ Never mind that it's a pretty tiny bonus and that anything even remotely overpowered instantly shows up everywhere. Reality can be such a drag when you're making baseless assumptions after all.
Quote:So can we all agree just to tell CCP don't push this update and leave the freighters alone? Yes. Although I'm warming up to the lowslot ideaGǪ
Quote:Not necessarily. the only one to receive a cargo boost was the tyra or badger II. the rest had a cargo reduction or didn't move while all lost a mid slot Fair enough, but then, it was a rebalance and a reshuffling of roles, and not just an indy buff. Granted, I might be a bit over-neutral since I can fly anything and don't care which is better at what, but I felt there was more room for fitting for purpose after the change.
Quote:I understand that but it still doesn't change the fact a velocity bonus is pointless on this ship if it's supposed to be the gtfo ship. Maybe burning back to gate in low? IDK. It's a minmatar ship. If it doesn't go fast, the tape will peel off before it gets there. It's speed bonus or sucking vacuum! 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. |
Dave Stark
5940
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 20:06:00 -
[1670] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Quote:So can we all agree just to tell CCP don't push this update and leave the freighters alone? Yes. Although I'm warming up to the lowslot ideaGǪ bad tippia. no. no low slots. |
|
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
64
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 20:13:00 -
[1671] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Tippia wrote:Quote:So can we all agree just to tell CCP don't push this update and leave the freighters alone? Yes. Although I'm warming up to the lowslot ideaGǪ bad tippia. no. no low slots.
Don't fear the lowslots Dave. They too will come at a cost and we'll get another hundred pages of tears from people who can't do the math. Probably a pretty severe nerf to base stats. But the level of real flexibility should vastly outweigh changes to the base stats. Far more so than all this BS related to a discussion about rigs alone.
At some point these ships have to come into the same realm as all other ships in the game. Either leave them alone (change is bad) or rebalance them from the ground up. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22083
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 20:14:00 -
[1672] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Tippia wrote:Quote:So can we all agree just to tell CCP don't push this update and leave the freighters alone? Yes. Although I'm warming up to the lowslot ideaGǪ bad tippia. no. no low slots. WeeellGǪ it all hinges on the idea that they'll stay at 0+0 CPU and grid, and that the modules that can be used will be restricted that way. This creates a much smaller pool of modifications that can happen and much smaller counter-balancing nerfs. It might even be possible to almost retain a sensible middle-ground while still allowing for specific (non-excessive) boosts. 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. |
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
116
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 20:15:00 -
[1673] - Quote
I like the lowslot idea.
Other than the fact that it's cheaper, it's also more versatile, and allows you to change your freighter for the task.. re-rigging really isn't an option with Capital Rigs :p
I mean I need to move a LOT of crap.. Cargo.. On the way back I'm not moving much, but it's worth a fair bit.. Tank.. Gotta get it done faster ? Agility..
I won't miss the loss of warpspeed rigs as an option.. though I think adding a warpspeed low-slot item, would open up a lot of gameplay options.. if the penalty was right.. |
Dave Stark
5940
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 20:18:00 -
[1674] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Tippia wrote:Quote:So can we all agree just to tell CCP don't push this update and leave the freighters alone? Yes. Although I'm warming up to the lowslot ideaGǪ bad tippia. no. no low slots. Don't fear the lowslots Dave. They too will come at a cost and we'll get another hundred pages of tears from people who can't do the math. Probably a pretty severe nerf to base stats. But the level of real flexibility should vastly outweigh changes to the base stats. Far more so than all this BS related to a discussion about rigs alone. At some point these ships have to come into the same realm as all other ships in the game. Either leave them alone (change is bad) or rebalance them from the ground up.
i honestly don't think freighters need touching. they do what they were intended to do fine, the variation between races is good. there's no need to give them fittings, of any kind.
they're probably the most well balanced ship class we have in eve in their current state. they don't need flexibility, they have one job; they move junk from A to B. a job that they do remarkably well. |
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
116
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 20:19:00 -
[1675] - Quote
Tippia wrote: WeeellGǪ it all hinges on the idea that they'll stay at 0+0 CPU and grid, and that the modules that can be used will be restricted that way. This creates a much smaller pool of modifications that can happen and much smaller counter-balancing nerfs. It might even be possible to almost retain a sensible middle-ground while still allowing for specific (non-excessive) boosts.
I'll be honest.. they can nerf my Freighter HP into the ground if they let me fit a DCUII to gain it back.. Here's why..
I'm actually awake when I move my freighter, so I can turn it on.. others aren't, so not my problem. Also, it lets me fit the ship for the need.. I don't need huge tank if I'm just moving a lot of m3 of crap.. On the other hand I might move something of value, and want 2x Bulkhead and a DCUII..
In any case the true tank REQUIRES you to be there. Awake and alert. Making afk hauling still viable, but at much more diminished returns or higher risk. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1564
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 20:25:00 -
[1676] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Dirk MacGirk wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Tippia wrote:Quote:So can we all agree just to tell CCP don't push this update and leave the freighters alone? Yes. Although I'm warming up to the lowslot ideaGǪ bad tippia. no. no low slots. Don't fear the lowslots Dave. They too will come at a cost and we'll get another hundred pages of tears from people who can't do the math. Probably a pretty severe nerf to base stats. But the level of real flexibility should vastly outweigh changes to the base stats. Far more so than all this BS related to a discussion about rigs alone. At some point these ships have to come into the same realm as all other ships in the game. Either leave them alone (change is bad) or rebalance them from the ground up. i honestly don't think freighters need touching. they do what they were intended to do fine, the variation between races is good. there's no need to give them fittings, of any kind. they're probably the most well balanced ship class we have in eve in their current state. they don't need flexibility, they have one job; they move junk from A to B. a job that they do remarkably well.
u could remove racial freighters and make one ORE freighter. wouldnt change much. same with all haulers. 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" |
Dave Stark
5940
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 20:27:00 -
[1677] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:u could remove racial freighters and make one ORE freighter. wouldnt change much. same with all haulers.
too much hassle.
besides, the variation between races gives freighters "choice" as it is. especially since cross training for freighters is trivial now. |
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
116
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 20:31:00 -
[1678] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:u could remove racial freighters and make one ORE freighter. wouldnt change much. same with all haulers. too much hassle. besides, the variation between races gives freighters "choice" as it is. especially since cross training for freighters is trivial now. Also the Provi/Ark is Sexy. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1565
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 20:32:00 -
[1679] - Quote
Sniper Smith wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:u could remove racial freighters and make one ORE freighter. wouldnt change much. same with all haulers. too much hassle. besides, the variation between races gives freighters "choice" as it is. especially since cross training for freighters is trivial now. Also the Provi/Ark is Sexy.
so sexy...and the only one i dnt have :( 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" |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22086
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 20:46:00 -
[1680] - Quote
Sniper Smith wrote:I'll be honest.. they can nerf my Freighter HP into the ground if they let me fit a DCUII to gain it back.. Here's why..
I'm actually awake when I move my freighter, so I can turn it on.. others aren't, so not my problem. Also, it lets me fit the ship for the need.. I don't need huge tank if I'm just moving a lot of m3 of crap.. On the other hand I might move something of value, and want 2x Bulkhead and a DCUII..
In any case the true tank REQUIRES you to be there. Awake and alert. Making afk hauling still viable, but at much more diminished returns or higher risk. Good point. I suppose the baseline would then be something along the lines of DCUII, Expander II, Bulkhead II. HmmGǪ the problem is that we get this:
GÇó Replacing expander (losing 22% cargo from baseline) with a bulkhead means you get 50% more hull EHP at max tank. GÇó Replacing it with an istab gives 20% faster align, only 25% more hull EHP GÇó Replacing it with a WCS gives 25% more hull EHP and you're now safe from a single long point. Yay. GÇó Ditching the bulkhead (-17% hull EHP and +12% cargo from baseline) for another expander gives you 44% more cargo. GÇó Ditching both the bulkhead and DCU for full cargo gives you 80% less hull EHP and 84% more cargo than baseline.
It's a bit swingy and the variance comes at a very low cost. We have a 130 percentage point difference between maximum and minimum tank and 106pp between max and min cargo. And we still have an absolute upper bound for cargo capacity of 1.3M m-¦, so the maximum baseline for cargo has to be 700k m-¦ (which in practice means that everyone + dog will fly around with just over 1MGǪ). If we go by the results of the OP, the maximum CCP wants to see is much less GÇö somewhere around 1.1M GÇö which would put the baseline at 590k (i.e. 848k with one extra expander). 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. |
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6428
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 20:49:00 -
[1681] - Quote
So, someone mentioned this earlier but I think it bears repeating.
If a lowslot is given with sufficient fittings to put a DCU 2 on there, the end result will be a crapton of ganked freighters and an ocean of tears.
Because such an addition will result in a hefty nerf to overall capability, but moreso because if people could be asked to be at their keyboard for each jump to turn on a module then freighters would not autopilot so much. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 20:51:00 -
[1682] - Quote
Tippia wrote:GÇó Replacing it with a WCS gives 25% more hull EHP and you're now safe from a single long point. Yay.
You do realize that stabs take fitting right? 20-35 cpu and 1 grid...
And if the baseline is one DCU you'd you have to lose the DCU to fit a stab. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22086
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 20:53:00 -
[1683] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Tippia wrote:GÇó Replacing it with a WCS gives 25% more hull EHP and you're now safe from a single long point. Yay. You do realize that stabs take fitting right? You do realise we're talking about a completely different scenario now, right? 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. |
Lidia Caderu
Harbingers of Chaos Inc The East India Co.
31
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 20:53:00 -
[1684] - Quote
Quote:base capacity of all Freighters and Jump Freighters is going down, by between 27 and 30%. Thank you Fozzie |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
10008
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 21:01:00 -
[1685] - Quote
Alexis Nightwish wrote:Instead, make jumps cost fuel relative to the distance jumped (possibly going up exponentially with distance?), Gee if only there were some attribute that says that jumps take a certain amount of fuel per light year of jump distance. And the only way to do this is with a linear relation between jump distance and fuel use, otherwise people would just make lots of smaller jumps instead of a few big jumps. If that's your goal you should just nerf jump range.
Alexis Nightwish wrote:and don't allow cynos to be lit within 1AU of any celestials. Suddenly JFs aren't invulnerable, and we get a nice power projection nerf at the same time. Win-win. And suddenly we get some pretty good nerfs to content creation too. Many battles would never be able to happen. This is not what anyone really wants. "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 21:05:00 -
[1686] - Quote
Tippia wrote:I won't bite. I donGÇÖt believe you and evidence of prior behavior speaks to the contrary.
[quote=Tippia] Fair enough. I thought for a moment that they cost 44, not 40. The point is still the same: the bulkhead is a waste of a slot, and it's not skipped over for a lack of CPU GÇö it's skipped over because there are far better things to put in that slot. Pretty much anything, in fact, is a better use of the slot. People might start fitting it if it was free (and they were a bit daft), but that rather suggests once more that they are far from overpowered. [quote]
I donGÇÖt understand how the bulkhead in that case is a waste of slotGǪ If thatGÇÖs the case then the bulkhead thatGÇÖs fitted to the orca is just a waste of a slot there as well. After all what IGÇÖm proposing is basically the same thing, you have your invuls in mids on the orca just like the phoenix and you have your dcu as well. A PDU offers marginal HP compared to the bulkhead and not much in terms of cap recharge unless you are trying to stack with cap charge mods to get cap stable, at which point buffer tanks are irrelevant and its more about repairing HP. The 4th BCU only offers marginally better DPS due to the stacking penalties. So again, if the bulkhead is such a waste, what other module would be a better fit?
[quote=Tippia]They have the same superior hull-tanking support module as every other ship in the game. You understand the value of resistances over just bulk HP, yes? And you understand the value of massive resist bonuses over very very tiny raw HP increases?
And you understand that buffer tanks arenGÇÖt the only way to tank ships as well? I understand the value of resistances, but only to a point. ThereGÇÖs a reason sub caps fit a mix of resistances and HP boosters. Resistances are stacking penalized and therefore at some point the best option is to fit a mix a both. But when you have 200k HP and you buff that by 25% and itGÇÖs not stacking penalized thatGÇÖs not very very tinyGǪ
|
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
117
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 21:05:00 -
[1687] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:So, someone mentioned this earlier but I think it bears repeating.
If a lowslot is given with sufficient fittings to put a DCU 2 on there, the end result will be a crapton of ganked freighters and an ocean of tears.
Because such an addition will result in a hefty nerf to overall capability, but moreso because if people could be asked to be at their keyboard for each jump to turn on a module then freighters would not autopilot so much. Yes they would.. cause people are Lazy.
I'd expect the most common Freighter would be 3x Cargo.. Some might fit a DCUII, but they would still auto.. thus not turning it on.. Others would auto with a DCUII, and turn it on after each jump, but still have it on another screen or behind their other windows..
So no you see an Auto'ing Freighter, scan shows it has a DCUII, 2x Cargo, do you take the gank and assume it's off, or on..
I like the idea of variety.. Much more variation for the people hauling, and risk/reward for the people ganking.. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
10008
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 21:05:00 -
[1688] - Quote
But really I cast my vote on making no changes to freighters and jump freighters at all.
In an ideal world I'd like a system where you could keep the current stats of freighters, or you could decide to make tradeoffs like somewhat more agility for a lot less tank and cargo, somewhat more tank for a lot less agility and cargo, or somewhat more cargo for a lot less agility and tank. That's not currently possible though because nothing that improves any of those attributes has a deleterious effect on the other two (at least not in the same sense or degree). "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22086
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 21:21:00 -
[1689] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:You do realize I added an edit before you posted right? You do realise that it makes no difference, right? And you do realise that what I quoted was what was in your post at the time, right?
Again, you made a mistake. Live with it. 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. |
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 21:24:00 -
[1690] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:You do realize I added an edit before you posted right? You do realise that it makes no difference, right? And you do realise that what I quoted was what was in your post at the time, right? Again, you made a mistake. Live with it.
What was the mistake? |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22087
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 21:26:00 -
[1691] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:What was the mistake? You assumed that CPU and grid was in any way a problem because you failed to read and thus didn't notice that we're talking about a completely different scenario.
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. |
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 21:33:00 -
[1692] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:What was the mistake? You assumed that CPU and grid was in any way a problem because you failed to read and thus didn't notice that we're talking about a completely different scenario.
No, it appears the problem is that I assumed you were working under your old proposal + the new one and bulkheads wouldn't require CPU. So instead of giving freighters 29 CPU you'd be giving them 59 CPU and 1 grid. (since they already have 1 each) |
Emiko Rowna
Aliastra Gallente Federation
10
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 21:40:00 -
[1693] - Quote
Oh a cat fight, where is my popcorn? |
Mag's
the united
17284
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 21:41:00 -
[1694] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Tippia wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:What was the mistake? You assumed that CPU and grid was in any way a problem because you failed to read and thus didn't notice that we're talking about a completely different scenario. No, it appears the problem is that I assumed you were working under your old proposal + the new one and bulkheads wouldn't require CPU. So instead of giving freighters 29 CPU you'd be giving them 59 CPU and 1 grid. (since they already have 1 each) Yes, that would be your mistake.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22088
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 21:41:00 -
[1695] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:No Yes, it appears the problem is that I assumed you were working under your old proposal
In other words, you assumed that CPU and grid was in any way a problem because you failed to read and thus didn't notice that we're talking about a completely different scenario. I fixed your post, by the way.
So yes, you made a mistake. Live with it. 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. |
Vincintius Agrippa
F L O O D
41
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 21:43:00 -
[1696] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Tippia wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:You do realize I added an edit before you posted right? You do realise that it makes no difference, right? And you do realise that what I quoted was what was in your post at the time, right? Again, you made a mistake. Live with it. What was the mistake?
HHm, you two share a striking resemblance to eachother :) |
Mag's
the united
17284
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 21:46:00 -
[1697] - Quote
Vincintius Agrippa wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Tippia wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:You do realize I added an edit before you posted right? You do realise that it makes no difference, right? And you do realise that what I quoted was what was in your post at the time, right? Again, you made a mistake. Live with it. What was the mistake? HHm, you two share a striking resemblance to eachother :) No not really. Tippia is his usual logical self. Whereas Valterra is, well, highly illogical and prone to large memory lapses as well as complete removal from reality in one instance.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Ramona Quimby
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 21:52:00 -
[1698] - Quote
Unsub three accounts.
Freighters could easily be buffed tank wise 3 to 10 times in EHP, just to keep up with how easy it has become to kill them.
Instead they're being nerfed to please Goons and Gankers.
Stop nerfing hi-sec and buffing null-sec.
Instead: Buff hi-sec, nerf null-sec, and ban null-sec players from CSM, only hi-sec and low-sec should matter. Nerf-null. |
Mag's
the united
17284
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 21:55:00 -
[1699] - Quote
Ramona Quimby wrote:Unsub three accounts.
Freighters could easily be buffed tank wise 3 to 10 times in EHP, just to keep up with how easy it has become to kill them.
Instead they're being nerfed to please Goons and Gankers.
Stop nerfing hi-sec and buffing null-sec.
Instead: Buff hi-sec, nerf null-sec, and ban null-sec players from CSM, only hi-sec and low-sec should matter. Nerf-null. Many Goons and gankers actually warned those silly pilots who asked for this.
I will take your stuff if you no longer need it.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22089
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 22:00:00 -
[1700] - Quote
Ramona Quimby wrote:Instead they're being nerfed to please Goons and Gankers.
Stop nerfing hi-sec and buffing null-sec. You realise, of course, that this change has every potential to create problems for goons and gankers; that they weren't part of the groups who advocated this change; and that this hits nullsec harder than it does highsec.
Mag's wrote:No not really. Tippia is his usual logical self. Whereas Valterra is, well, highly illogical and prone to large memory lapses as well as complete removal from reality in one instance. I think he might be referring to our appearance, except that Valterra is a beat-up old Civire who can't even dress herself properly and who lacks my fabulous ass. 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. |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
10334
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 22:13:00 -
[1701] - Quote
Ladies and gentlemen this is your nightly message to let you know that I've caught up to this point in the thread and that we still have not forgotten about you.
There's a version two of the design currently posted for the CSM in their internal forums, they've responded largely positively so far. I'm going to let them think about it overnight and if all looks good we'll post the proposal for public feedback tomorrow.
Thanks as always! Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Mag's
the united
17284
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 22:14:00 -
[1702] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Mag's wrote:No not really. Tippia is his usual logical self. Whereas Valterra is, well, highly illogical and prone to large memory lapses as well as complete removal from reality in one instance. I think he might be referring to our appearance, except that Valterra is a beat-up old Civire who can't even dress herself properly and who lacks my fabulous ass. I don't see the resemblance in that regard at all either.
But yes, you do have a fine ass.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22089
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 22:15:00 -
[1703] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Ladies and gentlemen this is your nightly message to let you know that I've caught up to this point in the thread and that we still have not forgotten about you. There's a version two of the design currently posted for the CSM in their internal forums, they've responded largely positively so far. I'm going to let them think about it overnight and if all looks good we'll post the proposal for public feedback tomorrow. Thanks as always! \o/ Free puppies for everyone? 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. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1566
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 22:17:00 -
[1704] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Ladies and gentlemen this is your nightly message to let you know that I've caught up to this point in the thread and that we still have not forgotten about you. There's a version two of the design currently posted for the CSM in their internal forums, they've responded largely positively so far. I'm going to let them think about it overnight and if all looks good we'll post the proposal for public feedback tomorrow. Thanks as always!
*smells cake that will be eaten too* 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" |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
3645
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 22:19:00 -
[1705] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Ladies and gentlemen this is your nightly message to let you know that I've caught up to this point in the thread and that we still have not forgotten about you. There's a version two of the design currently posted for the CSM in their internal forums, they've responded largely positively so far. I'm going to let them think about it overnight and if all looks good we'll post the proposal for public feedback tomorrow. Thanks as always! *smells cake that will be eaten too* Prepare for crow.
The great thing about being a pessimist is never being disappointed. |
Lyn Fel
Black Frog Logistics Red-Frog
48
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 22:23:00 -
[1706] - Quote
In before everyone freaks out about having spent billions on rigs they can't use. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11691
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 22:40:00 -
[1707] - Quote
Lyn Fel wrote:In before everyone freaks out about having spent billions on rigs they can't use.
I'm waiting for full fittings and the nerfs that go with it. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22091
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 22:42:00 -
[1708] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Lyn Fel wrote:In before everyone freaks out about having spent billions on rigs they can't use. I'm waiting for full fittings and the nerfs that go with it. Attempt #2: Only highslots. 6 of 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. |
Yuri Fedorov
Serenity Profits
4
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 22:44:00 -
[1709] - Quote
Tippia wrote:baltec1 wrote:Lyn Fel wrote:In before everyone freaks out about having spent billions on rigs they can't use. I'm waiting for full fittings and the nerfs that go with it. Attempt #2: Only highslots. 6 of them! Role bonus: may launch bombs in highsec.
I am ready to gank catalysts with a freighter. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6429
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 22:45:00 -
[1710] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Ladies and gentlemen this is your nightly message to let you know that I've caught up to this point in the thread and that we still have not forgotten about you. There's a version two of the design currently posted for the CSM in their internal forums, they've responded largely positively so far. I'm going to let them think about it overnight and if all looks good we'll post the proposal for public feedback tomorrow. Thanks as always!
This will be interesting.
Now we get to see if CCP caves to crying, or not.
Either way, this thread demonstrates an abject lesson of "be careful what you wish for." "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
|
Desert Ice78
Gryphons of the Western Wind
391
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 22:57:00 -
[1711] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Ladies and gentlemen this is your nightly message to let you know that I've caught up to this point in the thread and that we still have not forgotten about you. There's a version two of the design currently posted for the CSM in their internal forums, they've responded largely positively so far. I'm going to let them think about it overnight and if all looks good we'll post the proposal for public feedback tomorrow. Thanks as always! Fozzie, I must admit that I'm struggling to come up with any concrete feedback on version 1, because the proposals are terrible, root and branch.
Freighters and JF's are terrible ships to fly already, but they serve their single purpose well enough to make them indispensable in certain situations. I don't understand what is the rush to make them even more terrible to fly. What exactly are you trying to do?
I am a pod pilot: http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/DesertIce/POD.jpg
CCP Zulu: Came expecting a discussion about computer monitors, left confused. |
Silvetica Dian
Manson Family Advent of Fate
1045
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 23:13:00 -
[1712] - Quote
so.... I would guess they are going with changing the calibration (either of the ship or the rigs) so that 3 cargo rigs can't be used. Then they can increase the base cargo a bit and the end result is that everyone fits 1-2 cargo and 1-2 "other" rigs. We get some customisation and everyone that already bought rigs/ started building them stays happy. Of all the pages of crying i think that was the only helpful idea that both kept rigs , allowed choice and stopped cargoholds from getting too large. anyway keep up the entertainment guys. o7
Money at its root is a form of rationing. When the richest 85 people have as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion (50% of humanity) it is clear where the source of poverty is. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/20/trickle-down-economics-broken-promise-richest-85 |
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 23:17:00 -
[1713] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:No Yes, it appears the problem is that I assumed you were working under your old proposal
In other words, you assumed that CPU and grid was in any way a problem because you failed to read and thus didn't notice that we're talking about a completely different scenario. I fixed your post, by the way. So yes, you made a mistake. Live with it.
Man for someone that claims they don't bite you sure don't act like it. Also its not COMPLETELY different since your original proposal was arguing for low slots, the one you started posting about recently is only a modification of that to add fittings to able to fit certain things. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22093
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 23:22:00 -
[1714] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Man for someone that claims they don't bite you sure don't act like it. It's because you never honestly ask for information.
Quote:Also its not COMPLETELY [yadda yadda] You made a mistake. Live with it. Also, take the opportunity to learn to read posts rather than assume what will be in them and act on the strawman you just erected. 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. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
66
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 23:30:00 -
[1715] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Dirk MacGirk wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Tippia wrote:Quote:So can we all agree just to tell CCP don't push this update and leave the freighters alone? Yes. Although I'm warming up to the lowslot ideaGǪ bad tippia. no. no low slots. Don't fear the lowslots Dave. They too will come at a cost and we'll get another hundred pages of tears from people who can't do the math. Probably a pretty severe nerf to base stats. But the level of real flexibility should vastly outweigh changes to the base stats. Far more so than all this BS related to a discussion about rigs alone. At some point these ships have to come into the same realm as all other ships in the game. Either leave them alone (change is bad) or rebalance them from the ground up. i honestly don't think freighters need touching. they do what they were intended to do fine, the variation between races is good. there's no need to give them fittings, of any kind. they're probably the most well balanced ship class we have in eve in their current state. they don't need flexibility, they have one job; they move junk from A to B. a job that they do remarkably well.
I don't discount any of that. I really don't. But IF they are going to go down the rabbit hole and allow rigs of all things, then at least perform a full review and make a final decision. This entire process seems very short-sighted and rushed |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
66
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 23:34:00 -
[1716] - Quote
Ramona Quimby wrote:Unsub three accounts.
Freighters could easily be buffed tank wise 3 to 10 times in EHP, just to keep up with how easy it has become to kill them.
Instead they're being nerfed to please Goons and Gankers.
Stop nerfing hi-sec and buffing null-sec.
Instead: Buff hi-sec, nerf null-sec, and ban null-sec players from CSM, only hi-sec and low-sec should matter. Nerf-null.
Really should be a new forum rule: say you will unsub 3 times anywhere on the forums and CCP makes it happen
Candyman, Candyman, Can... |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1566
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 23:38:00 -
[1717] - Quote
that i would like 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" |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
67
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 23:42:00 -
[1718] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Ladies and gentlemen this is your nightly message to let you know that I've caught up to this point in the thread and that we still have not forgotten about you. There's a version two of the design currently posted for the CSM in their internal forums, they've responded largely positively so far. I'm going to let them think about it overnight and if all looks good we'll post the proposal for public feedback tomorrow. Thanks as always!
Fozzie, can you confirm:
Word on the street, actually in the alley behind the street, is that there will be 1 high, mid and low slot offered along with rigs and the current nerf tp base stats. However, as a give back to Jump Freighters, which will still lose some cargo cap due to only having two rigs, they will be getting the ability to use covert ops cloaking devices.
Is my dream of a cloaky freighter really coming true? |
Valterra Craven
246
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 23:50:00 -
[1719] - Quote
Tippia wrote:It's because you never honestly ask for information.
And the rebuttal to that would be Mu.
Tippia wrote:You made a mistake. Live with it. Also, take the opportunity to learn to read posts rather than assume what will be in them and act on the strawman you just erected.
And you are being a butt for the sake of it. Live with it. Also I did read, otherwise I wouldn't have made any edits to try and make things clearer as to what I was talking about. Also, learn what a strawman is.
|
Circumstantial Evidence
118
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 00:24:00 -
[1720] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:Fozzie, can you confirm: Is my dream of a cloaky freighter really coming true? Tippia is winning this thread ... at the moment... therefore, 6 highslots. + Tippia 151 (8,8%) + Dave Stark 149 (8,7%) (Though CCP's opinion could quickly shift back toward Dave Stark's views!)
Tippia wrote:Attempt #2: Only highslots. 6 of them! Role bonus: may launch bombs in highsec.
|
|
Valterra Craven
246
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 00:33:00 -
[1721] - Quote
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:Dirk MacGirk wrote:Fozzie, can you confirm: Is my dream of a cloaky freighter really coming true? Tippia is winning this thread ... at the moment... therefore, 6 highslots. + Tippia 151 (8,8%) + Dave Stark 149 (8,7%) (Though CCP's opinion could quickly shift back toward Dave Stark's views!) Tippia wrote:Attempt #2: Only highslots. 6 of them! Role bonus: may launch bombs in highsec.
I don't see them doing either. I don't recall a time where they announced changes and then completely rolled them back immediately based on negative feedback. (AKA the new bounty structures for 0.0 being a good example of the hatred of them and them going in with only minor changes) Whats likely to happen is they refine the numbers a bit to make them less painful. or maybe at the very least tune the build costs a bit given how massive the baseline changes are and how expensive it will be to get back to baseline on just one value. |
Circumstantial Evidence
118
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 00:45:00 -
[1722] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:I don't see them doing either. I don't recall a time where they announced changes and then completely rolled them back immediately based on negative feedback. I did not expect anyone to take that post seriously I agree with you! |
Ranamar
Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind
58
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 01:02:00 -
[1723] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Ladies and gentlemen this is your nightly message to let you know that I've caught up to this point in the thread and that we still have not forgotten about you. There's a version two of the design currently posted for the CSM in their internal forums, they've responded largely positively so far. I'm going to let them think about it overnight and if all looks good we'll post the proposal for public feedback tomorrow. Thanks as always!
Is there any chance we're getting jump rigs? I might consider something other than cargo rigs if there was a fuel reduction one that got me better fuel/cargo than expanders. At the very least, it would provide an option for JFs that isn't either cargo or reducing the time spent warping to a hisec gate. |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
129
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 01:15:00 -
[1724] - Quote
BEPOHNKA wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:XxRTEKxX wrote:Where does the CSM currently stand on the proposed new changes? Are they in favor of this direction, or with the majority here who are against the changes?
I haven't seen any statements from them yet. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=search&topic=Freighters+and+Jump+Freighters+Rebalance&forumID=270&csmbadge=1We've been talking on thread. Not in huge detail, but behind the scenes, we've been talking with Fozzie. Screaming and ranting isn't a good way to get a response, but just chatting is a good way bring people round to your PoV. Repeating what someone else has said isn't particularly beneficial either. Be assured, we take this seriously. We've been keeping an eye on the good posts in thread, and using them to shape the discussion, where appropriate. Again JF JUMP to points not use star gates... Again freighters use star gates ... Only one class will be effected from this change, and why nerf hual of them makes no sense at all keep it the same with rigs for now. The changes we face are not what we want at all so listen to us on the forums. Give us good replies and point us to them.. That's were we should be at this point.
You are wrong, you can not jump to beacons in high sec as you can not light a cyno in high sec (ofc you can jump from highsec to a beacon). If you want to take goods to a trade hub then you have to take several gates.
EDIT: Highsec is the scariest place in the game, especially as my JF pilot is my only char that has a sec status above -2 . |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates RAZOR Alliance
451
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 01:40:00 -
[1725] - Quote
Yuri Fedorov wrote:Tippia wrote:baltec1 wrote:Lyn Fel wrote:In before everyone freaks out about having spent billions on rigs they can't use. I'm waiting for full fittings and the nerfs that go with it. Attempt #2: Only highslots. 6 of them! Role bonus: may launch bombs in highsec. I am ready to gank catalysts with a freighter.
In Russia freighter ganks you! This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |
MailDeadDrop
Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
328
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 01:46:00 -
[1726] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Rigs are permanent upgrades, and cannot be easily swapped to fit the situation. I'm alright with simply adding rigs to freighters, I'd prefer the ability to fit modules though. Preventing the use of DCU2's shouldn't be that arduous, and would allow a nice balance spot between the modules already in the game.
Harder than you might think. Eve has no understanding of 'only these modules' or 'but not that class of ship' Really? So I can fit a covert cloak onto any hull with enough CPU and PG? Oh, wait...
MDD |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6429
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 01:48:00 -
[1727] - Quote
MailDeadDrop wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Rigs are permanent upgrades, and cannot be easily swapped to fit the situation. I'm alright with simply adding rigs to freighters, I'd prefer the ability to fit modules though. Preventing the use of DCU2's shouldn't be that arduous, and would allow a nice balance spot between the modules already in the game.
Harder than you might think. Eve has no understanding of 'only these modules' or 'but not that class of ship' Really? So I can fit a covert cloak onto any hull with enough CPU and PG? Oh, wait... MDD
Way to not read any further.
The explanation (not that it needed any) was a few posts below the one you quoted. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11691
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 03:25:00 -
[1728] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Circumstantial Evidence wrote:Dirk MacGirk wrote:Fozzie, can you confirm: Is my dream of a cloaky freighter really coming true? Tippia is winning this thread ... at the moment... therefore, 6 highslots. + Tippia 151 (8,8%) + Dave Stark 149 (8,7%) (Though CCP's opinion could quickly shift back toward Dave Stark's views!) Tippia wrote:Attempt #2: Only highslots. 6 of them! Role bonus: may launch bombs in highsec. I don't see them doing either. I don't recall a time where they announced changes and then completely rolled them back immediately based on negative feedback. (AKA the new bounty structures for 0.0 being a good example of the hatred of them and them going in with only minor changes) Whats likely to happen is they refine the numbers a bit to make them less painful. or maybe at the very least tune the build costs a bit given how massive the baseline changes are and how expensive it will be to get back to baseline on just one value.
There was a super carriers change that they had to pull.
In the end, if you want rigs then you will have these nerfs. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
293
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 03:44:00 -
[1729] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Ladies and gentlemen this is your nightly message to let you know that I've caught up to this point in the thread and that we still have not forgotten about you. There's a version two of the design currently posted for the CSM in their internal forums, they've responded largely positively so far. I'm going to let them think about it overnight and if all looks good we'll post the proposal for public feedback tomorrow. Thanks as always!
Here's to hoping version two won't cost freighter and JF pilots an arm and a leg (an then some). I still stand by a lot of others convinced that freighters/JFs should never have even been messed with, but if you guys are determined to do so, rigs are kind of a crappy option to go with. |
Vincintius Agrippa
F L O O D
41
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 03:50:00 -
[1730] - Quote
Ramona Quimby wrote:Unsub three accounts.
Freighters could easily be buffed tank wise 3 to 10 times in EHP, just to keep up with how easy it has become to kill them.
Instead they're being nerfed to please Goons and Gankers.
Stop nerfing hi-sec and buffing null-sec.
Instead: Buff hi-sec, nerf null-sec, and ban null-sec players from CSM, only hi-sec and low-sec should matter. Nerf-null.
I'm soory, but I was completely distracted by your hair due :D |
|
Ben Hatton
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
9
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 04:02:00 -
[1731] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Ladies and gentlemen this is your nightly message to let you know that I've caught up to this point in the thread and that we still have not forgotten about you. There's a version two of the design currently posted for the CSM in their internal forums, they've responded largely positively so far. I'm going to let them think about it overnight and if all looks good we'll post the proposal for public feedback tomorrow. Thanks as always!
2 Low slots no rigs please Mr Fozzie, that is all. |
Valterra Craven
246
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 04:06:00 -
[1732] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
There was a super carriers change that they had to pull.
In the end, if you want rigs then you will have these nerfs.
Oh, would you happen to remember the year or what it was about? I tried to keep up with in game news on my break, but my eve history is a bit spotty.
And I while I may have made a right a$$ of myself in this thread (which I try not to do) I would never be so stupid that I'd want rigs on freighters. |
Jarnis McPieksu
493
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 04:23:00 -
[1733] - Quote
Sobaan Tali wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Ladies and gentlemen this is your nightly message to let you know that I've caught up to this point in the thread and that we still have not forgotten about you. There's a version two of the design currently posted for the CSM in their internal forums, they've responded largely positively so far. I'm going to let them think about it overnight and if all looks good we'll post the proposal for public feedback tomorrow. Thanks as always! Here's to hoping version two won't cost freighter and JF pilots an arm and a leg (an then some). I still stand by a lot of others convinced that freighters/JFs should never have even been messed with, but if you guys are determined to do so, rigs are kind of a ****** option to go with.
No, it must cost an arm and leg. How am I otherwise going to shift all this super-pricy T2 salvage and the T2 capital rigs I already built!
|
M Key
Hedion University Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 04:32:00 -
[1734] - Quote
Can you delay these changes if not straight up cancel them?
As it stands its a massive hit to anyone who is in industry or hauling. Its a massive buff to the gankers.
I'd suggest you look at which group puts more money into your hands CCP. The vast legions of industrialists and haulers or the handful of vocal people who gank. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11691
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 04:34:00 -
[1735] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:baltec1 wrote:
There was a super carriers change that they had to pull.
In the end, if you want rigs then you will have these nerfs.
Oh, would you happen to remember the year or what it was about? (I'm REALLY freakin curious to see what they would have screwed up so bad they'd have to pull it) I tried to keep up with in game news on my break, but my eve history is a bit spotty. And I while I may have made a right a$$ of myself in this thread (which I try not to do) I would never be so stupid that I'd want rigs on freighters.
It was when White Noise was torching the old NC I believe, no idea on the date. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
69
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 04:56:00 -
[1736] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:baltec1 wrote:
There was a super carriers change that they had to pull.
In the end, if you want rigs then you will have these nerfs.
Oh, would you happen to remember the year or what it was about? (I'm REALLY freakin curious to see what they would have screwed up so bad they'd have to pull it) I tried to keep up with in game news on my break, but my eve history is a bit spotty. And I while I may have made a right a$$ of myself in this thread (which I try not to do) I would never be so stupid that I'd want rigs on freighters. It was when White Noise was torching the old NC I believe, no idea on the date.
Supercap nerf was Winter 2010. Was that the original "Winter is Coming"? Ah the days of putting Supers on the gate with each having 20 sentries assisted to one fast locker. |
Aria Jimbojohnson
University of Caille Gallente Federation
42
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 05:32:00 -
[1737] - Quote
Can people stop replying to Tippia in like, every thread ever? These threads would be 1/2 to 1/3 of the size, and rarely would anything of value be lost. 30 pages of trolololo in every thread gets tiring. |
Aerissa Nolen
XYJAX
26
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 05:47:00 -
[1738] - Quote
Aerissa Nolen wrote:I've been working on a web tool to help wrap my head around these changes. Fairly limited right now but gets some basic info across. Works in IGB as well, does not require trust. http://xyjax.com/optimizer_kronos/index.html
Just a note to anyone who might have looked at this tool earlier -- it has been updated with implants, rigs, and the ability to swap between Rubicon and Kronos data. Just in time for Fozzie to announce something that breaks it all :) Wrap your brain around Kronos freighter changes: http://xyjax.com/optimizer_kronos/ |
handige harrie
Hedion University Amarr Empire
252
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 05:48:00 -
[1739] - Quote
I don't get why CCP won't put heavier negative modifiers on the rigs instead of nerfing the ships themselves, making the use of Rigs have more impact increases choice, since you can also opt to not use rigs and have a jack of all trades, master of none setup. Baddest poster ever |
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
120
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 05:50:00 -
[1740] - Quote
handige harrie wrote:I don't get why CCP won't put heavier negative modifiers on the rigs instead of nerfing the ships themselves, making the use of Rigs have more impact increases choice, since you can also opt to not use rigs and have a jack of all trades, master of none setup. Probably because they don't want to have to buff every other cap ship to make up for what they are trying to do with JUST the Freighter and Jump Freighter. |
|
handige harrie
Hedion University Amarr Empire
252
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 05:58:00 -
[1741] - Quote
No other cap ships use the rigs Freighters or JF's will mainly use (Align time, Increased Cargohold, Hull Hitpoints) and seeing how powerful they are on cap ships when stacked in absolute numbers (removing x second of align time, +xxx K m3 or a massive raw EHP increase) heavier penalties on better base stats wouldn't be too bad imho. Baddest poster ever |
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
120
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 06:12:00 -
[1742] - Quote
All the cap ships CAN use them. Some likely will, like Rorq's. Not to mention all the crazy fits you find in WH's. CCP can't just make chances because they don't feel some caps won't use em. They have to assume every rig of a class can be used on any ship.
Also, most caps still have Large rigs, from before Cap rigs were introduced last year. And CCP does not change your fits when they update it.. It's why people can have everything from Frigates to T3's with Large Rigs, back from when there was just one size. |
Sixx Spades
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
185
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 06:13:00 -
[1743] - Quote
The Rorqual would like a word with you. Using a weapon as a deterrent in a diplomatic situation is only viable when you have proven that you have deployed it in the past and are willing to use it in the future. |
Cardano Firesnake
Les chevaliers de l'ordre Goonswarm Federation
163
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 06:49:00 -
[1744] - Quote
I suppose that the price impact is not important.
The Freighter price will probably not down after the patch but you will have to pay capitals rigs also. And as it is rigs, you will have to destroy them to change the configuration of the freighter or have a freighter for each purpose.
A Charon: 1.39B, Three cargohold optilization I 240M. Another Charon, 1.39B, Three Hull tank rigs I 210M.
Needless to tell about Tech II Rigs.
|
handige harrie
Hedion University Amarr Empire
252
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 06:55:00 -
[1745] - Quote
Why would anyone care how much EHP their rorq has? The EHP of a rorq is less important than the EHP of a freighter in Highsec. If you get caught in a rorq, you're doing something else wrong or if you wanted to be risky, you should have been prepared for it. Max Cargo fit is not prepared for being risky.
In my experience though, all a rorq does is either sit in a POS or sit in station or wait outside a station, so it can dock or jump. In the off chance you do care, you shouldn't fit all Carghold rigs, just as it is now.
The rest of the Caps can still use the rigs without problem, want to increase the Cargohold of you Archon instead of Trimarks/CCC? Go nuts. Just know you have less Hull HP than you would have now. When you want to turn a ship into a hauler, you get hauler penalties. If you want a Dread with the align time of a battleship there should be harsh penalties. Baddest poster ever |
Adrien Crosse
Black Frog Logistics Red-Frog
7
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 07:10:00 -
[1746] - Quote
Rorquals are also due for a full role overhaul and rebalance anyway, little point balancing other things around their current state. |
Dave Stark
5950
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 07:22:00 -
[1747] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Ladies and gentlemen this is your nightly message to let you know that I've caught up to this point in the thread and that we still have not forgotten about you. There's a version two of the design currently posted for the CSM in their internal forums, they've responded largely positively so far. I'm going to let them think about it overnight and if all looks good we'll post the proposal for public feedback tomorrow. Thanks as always!
is that version "leave freighters as they are, and remember that popular suggestions aren't always good suggestions"? |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
69
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 07:35:00 -
[1748] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Ladies and gentlemen this is your nightly message to let you know that I've caught up to this point in the thread and that we still have not forgotten about you. There's a version two of the design currently posted for the CSM in their internal forums, they've responded largely positively so far. I'm going to let them think about it overnight and if all looks good we'll post the proposal for public feedback tomorrow. Thanks as always! is that version "leave freighters as they are, and remember that popular suggestions aren't always good suggestions"?
Dave: They really should lock this thread on your last comment. lol
|
Gregor Parud
514
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 07:38:00 -
[1749] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Ladies and gentlemen this is your nightly message to let you know that I've caught up to this point in the thread and that we still have not forgotten about you. There's a version two of the design currently posted for the CSM in their internal forums, they've responded largely positively so far. I'm going to let them think about it overnight and if all looks good we'll post the proposal for public feedback tomorrow. Thanks as always!
Given that the CSM is largely 0.0 sock puppets we can probably conclude from this that version two has no change whatsoever to diminish Jfreighter performance.
|
Dave Stark
5953
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 07:42:00 -
[1750] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:Dave Stark wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Ladies and gentlemen this is your nightly message to let you know that I've caught up to this point in the thread and that we still have not forgotten about you. There's a version two of the design currently posted for the CSM in their internal forums, they've responded largely positively so far. I'm going to let them think about it overnight and if all looks good we'll post the proposal for public feedback tomorrow. Thanks as always! is that version "leave freighters as they are, and remember that popular suggestions aren't always good suggestions"? Dave: They really should lock this thread on your last comment. lol
no, need to get more posts than tippia.
seriously though, i don't really see what other choices there are. people, rightly, don't want to see their freighters nerfed. alternatively, we can't let a power creep begin.
between those two facts, we have a class of ship that's already well balanced between racial variants, doesn't encroach on another ship's role, and does it's intended role very very well.
there's no reason not to leave them as they are, and in doing so we satisfy the "don't nerf my freighter" side, and the "can't start a power creep" side.
having said that; after seeing the sisi notes and the new jump rigs... we're probably well past the point of no return now. |
|
Dave Stark
5953
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 07:44:00 -
[1751] - Quote
Gregor Parud wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Ladies and gentlemen this is your nightly message to let you know that I've caught up to this point in the thread and that we still have not forgotten about you. There's a version two of the design currently posted for the CSM in their internal forums, they've responded largely positively so far. I'm going to let them think about it overnight and if all looks good we'll post the proposal for public feedback tomorrow. Thanks as always! Given that the CSM is largely 0.0 sock puppets we can probably conclude from this that version two has no change whatsoever to diminish Jfreighter performance.
and who did you vote for? |
Gregor Parud
514
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 07:52:00 -
[1752] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Gregor Parud wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Ladies and gentlemen this is your nightly message to let you know that I've caught up to this point in the thread and that we still have not forgotten about you. There's a version two of the design currently posted for the CSM in their internal forums, they've responded largely positively so far. I'm going to let them think about it overnight and if all looks good we'll post the proposal for public feedback tomorrow. Thanks as always! Given that the CSM is largely 0.0 sock puppets we can probably conclude from this that version two has no change whatsoever to diminish Jfreighter performance. and who did you vote for?
Low seccers |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
70
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 07:54:00 -
[1753] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Dirk MacGirk wrote:Dave Stark wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Ladies and gentlemen this is your nightly message to let you know that I've caught up to this point in the thread and that we still have not forgotten about you. There's a version two of the design currently posted for the CSM in their internal forums, they've responded largely positively so far. I'm going to let them think about it overnight and if all looks good we'll post the proposal for public feedback tomorrow. Thanks as always! is that version "leave freighters as they are, and remember that popular suggestions aren't always good suggestions"? Dave: They really should lock this thread on your last comment. lol no, need to get more posts than tippia. seriously though, i don't really see what other choices there are. people, rightly, don't want to see their freighters nerfed. alternatively, we can't let a power creep begin. between those two facts, we have a class of ship that's already well balanced between racial variants, doesn't encroach on another ship's role, and does it's intended role very very well. there's no reason not to leave them as they are, and in doing so we satisfy the "don't nerf my freighter" side, and the "can't start a power creep" side. having said that; after seeing the sisi notes and the new jump rigs... we're probably well past the point of no return now.
Yeah, we're through the looking glass. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
10016
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 08:04:00 -
[1754] - Quote
Gregor Parud wrote:Low seccers combined with people who have decent ideas and realistic views. You mean realistic views like "freighters and jump freighters don't need to be changed, they're fine as they are"? "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
JanSVK
Benzene Inc. The Explicit Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 09:16:00 -
[1755] - Quote
This is a bad change CCP. I suggest rethink, delay or cancel.
You only achieving one think with this. More grinding.
Thanks.
|
Digger Pollard
Why So Platypus
6
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 09:26:00 -
[1756] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Ladies and gentlemen this is your nightly message to let you know that I've caught up to this point in the thread and that we still have not forgotten about you. There's a version two of the design currently posted for the CSM in their internal forums, they've responded largely positively so far. I'm going to let them think about it overnight and if all looks good we'll post the proposal for public feedback tomorrow. Thanks as always!
Too late, Fozzie, I'm already unsubbed... After all, this isn't first offense. If nobody is going to protect the industry from getting covered in Fozzie, might as well quit preemptively. |
Gregor Parud
516
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 09:34:00 -
[1757] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Gregor Parud wrote:Low seccers combined with people who have decent ideas and realistic views. You mean realistic views like "freighters and jump freighters don't need to be changed, they're fine as they are"?
No I mean "freighters are fine in and of themselves, the problem is that they make use of Jump bridges which should be nerfed just as jump capable ships (and thus Jfreighters) should be nerfed". We need more separation because that helps local null sec industry and lowers the focus on high sec industry (this will of course also require a substantial buff to null in this regard).
Anything with jump or bridging capability (BO excluded) needs to be toned down dramatically. |
Oxide Ammar
123
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 09:46:00 -
[1758] - Quote
Gregor Parud wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Gregor Parud wrote:Low seccers combined with people who have decent ideas and realistic views. You mean realistic views like "freighters and jump freighters don't need to be changed, they're fine as they are"? No I mean "freighters are fine in and of themselves, the problem is that they make use of Jump bridges which should be nerfed just as jump capable ships (and thus Jfreighters) should be nerfed". We need more separation because that helps local null sec industry and lowers the focus on high sec industry (this will of course also require a substantial buff to null in this regard). Anything with jump or bridging capability (BO excluded) needs to be toned down dramatically. Freighters, being given rig slots and thus having to be rebalanced because of it, is an entirely different issue and discussion.
So they need also to nerf rorqual ? if they did that I'm sure people will camp around CCP HQ with pitchforks and torches |
Digger Pollard
Why So Platypus
6
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 10:08:00 -
[1759] - Quote
Oxide Ammar wrote:So they need also to nerf rorqual ? if they did that I'm sure people will camp around CCP HQ with pitchforks and torches I believe this was stated to be the goal: "To make it feasible to have Rorqual on grid when mining". Knowing the way Fozzie does things, it'll be just made impossible to have it off-grid so the only feasible way will be having it on grid, where it'll be a sitting duck, just like any freighter in hisec, waiting to be nuked. |
Gregor Parud
516
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 10:39:00 -
[1760] - Quote
Digger Pollard wrote:Oxide Ammar wrote:So they need also to nerf rorqual ? if they did that I'm sure people will camp around CCP HQ with pitchforks and torches I believe this was stated to be the goal: "To make it feasible to have Rorqual on grid when mining". Knowing the way Fozzie does things, it'll be just made impossible to have it off-grid so the only feasible way will be having it on grid, where it'll be a sitting duck, just like any freighter in hisec, waiting to be nuked.
Well, perhaps you'll have to switch to a less autistic mining setup then, using more scouts, defences and defenders. If you want afk mining go to high se... oh wait, that doesn't work either. |
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1567
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 10:49:00 -
[1761] - Quote
Digger Pollard wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Ladies and gentlemen this is your nightly message to let you know that I've caught up to this point in the thread and that we still have not forgotten about you. There's a version two of the design currently posted for the CSM in their internal forums, they've responded largely positively so far. I'm going to let them think about it overnight and if all looks good we'll post the proposal for public feedback tomorrow. Thanks as always! Too late, Fozzie, I'm already unsubbed... After all, this isn't first offense. If nobody is going to protect the industry from getting covered in Fozzie, might as well quit preemptively.
why post about it? just go. no one cares. 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" |
Senarian Tyme
Serenity Rising LLC Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
83
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 11:31:00 -
[1762] - Quote
I saw in here someone suggesting not touching the Freighter, but tweaking the rigs instead. I like this idea however as it was quickly pointed out that could have adverse effects with other capitals.
How about instead you leave the core freighter stats as they are on the live servers, but when the rig slots are granted, the freighters/JFs also get a new role bonus as well: 400% increase in all rig penalties. (Or even a role "bonus" which mitigates rig gains) That way a standard freighter could continue as it currently is, but then rigs would still allow customization, but just at significantly increased penalty costs. (or reduce gains)
Historically this approach would seem odd, but now with the mordus ships entering the fray with both missile velocity increases and flight time nerfs to achieve a desired effect, the freighters wouldn't be alone at least. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6431
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 11:53:00 -
[1763] - Quote
As to the people trying to say that this should all be scrapped.
While I agree freighters *should* have remained the same, at this juncture I highly doubt they will. CCP has proved many times in the past that they have no problem throwing good development after bad.
And in this case I wouldn't even call it bad. This was well thought out and fairly clearly math hammered out to a pretty good degree, the exception being the early typos and the jump freighter agility nerf, which I feel was not warranted. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
George Gouillot
Eleutherian Guard Villore Accords
16
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 12:02:00 -
[1764] - Quote
Ranamar wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Ladies and gentlemen this is your nightly message to let you know that I've caught up to this point in the thread and that we still have not forgotten about you. There's a version two of the design currently posted for the CSM in their internal forums, they've responded largely positively so far. I'm going to let them think about it overnight and if all looks good we'll post the proposal for public feedback tomorrow. Thanks as always! Is there any chance we're getting jump rigs? I might consider something other than cargo rigs if there was a fuel reduction one that got me better fuel/cargo than expanders. At the very least, it would provide an option for JFs that isn't either cargo or reducing the time spent warping to a hisec gate.
No. But we will get jump containers that will directly jump from one hangar into another one. Base range of 10 LY, capacity 1 mln cubic meters. They will be introduced in Kronos and rebalanced in Crius as people on forums are demanding to get rigs for them. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
423
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 12:35:00 -
[1765] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Digger Pollard wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Ladies and gentlemen this is your nightly message to let you know that I've caught up to this point in the thread and that we still have not forgotten about you. There's a version two of the design currently posted for the CSM in their internal forums, they've responded largely positively so far. I'm going to let them think about it overnight and if all looks good we'll post the proposal for public feedback tomorrow. Thanks as always! Too late, Fozzie, I'm already unsubbed... After all, this isn't first offense. If nobody is going to protect the industry from getting covered in Fozzie, might as well quit preemptively. why post about it? just go. no one cares.
Well you should care, but you are too up your self to understand that if Eve keeps going this way then the only people left in Eve will be gankers, griefers, scammers, meta-gamers, power gamers and people who have invested too long in the game to let go of it, all those looking for immersive gameplay without being at the whim of the above will be in Elite Dangerous or Star Citizen (with their PvP bar set to no PvP...). In fact it might be fun for me just to keep this toon subbed and laugh at how irrelevant you all become as you troll each other..., now who would win in a troll battle between tibbia, Dave stark and Jenn aSide, the thought amuses me greatly... Don't be a turd and follow the herd Instead be a Hero at Hub Zero |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22100
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 12:42:00 -
[1766] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Well you should care, but you are too up your self to understand that if Eve keeps going this way then the only people left in Eve will be gankers, griefers, scammers, meta-gamers, power gamers and people who have invested too long in the game to let go of it, all those looking for immersive gameplay without being at the whim of the above will be in Elite Dangerous or Star Citizen (with their PvP bar set to no PvP...). In fact it might be fun for me just to keep this toon subbed and laugh at how irrelevant you all become as you troll each other..., now who would win in a troll battle between tibbia, Dave stark and Jenn aSide, the thought amuses me greatly... A couple of problems with that: first is that, without other players to bounce against, those games will never offer even a fraction of the immersion that EVE does. You kind of have to ask why people who don't want to engage with other players are in an MMO to begin withGǪ
The second is that the troll fights you're hoping for won't happen for a very simple reason: none of the people you mention troll. Hell, one of them doesn't even exist. Just because they ask piercing questions and post insightful comments doesn't mean they troll GÇö it just means that the person they respond to might not have thought things through fully and get frustrated when their idea falls apart under closer scrutiny. 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 12:45:00 -
[1767] - Quote
Sniper Smith wrote:I like the lowslot idea.
Other than the fact that it's cheaper, it's also more versatile, and allows you to change your freighter for the task.. re-rigging really isn't an option with Capital Rigs :p
I mean I need to move a LOT of crap.. Cargo.. On the way back I'm not moving much, but it's worth a fair bit.. Tank.. Gotta get it done faster ? Agility..
I won't miss the loss of warpspeed rigs as an option.. though I think adding a warpspeed low-slot item, would open up a lot of gameplay options.. if the penalty was right..
I don't think anyone is really going to miss them so long as they are % based. on a freighter that only does 1.37 AU warp with 2 t2 Hyperspatial velocity optimizers you'll do a whopping 50% more so now you'll be doing a whole 2.055 AU warp! AWWW yeah now we're moving! lol |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22101
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 12:50:00 -
[1768] - Quote
Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:I don't think anyone is really going to miss them so long as they are % based. on a freighter that only does 1.37 AU warp with 2 t2 Hyperspatial velocity optimizers you'll do a whopping 50% more so now you'll be doing a whole 2.055 AU warp! AWWW yeah now we're moving! lol Oh, I don't know. I'd say that if anything it makes more of a difference in practical term for slow ships. I mean, on a cruiser that skips past a system in 15 seconds, reducing that to 10 won't make much difference GÇö one sip of tea less. On a freighter that takes a minute and a half to cross a system, reducing that to a minute is a huge gain in terms of how much you can transport (it's the core business after all) in a given timeframe, not to mention how much less painful it is to make those long hauls.
The absolute speed change from that percentage might not be anything to write home about, but the absolute time saving can get pretty huge pretty fast. 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. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
10018
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 13:04:00 -
[1769] - Quote
Gregor Parud wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Gregor Parud wrote:Low seccers combined with people who have decent ideas and realistic views. You mean realistic views like "freighters and jump freighters don't need to be changed, they're fine as they are"? No I mean "freighters are fine in and of themselves, the problem is that they make use of Jump bridges which should be nerfed just as jump capable ships (and thus Jfreighters) should be nerfed". We need more separation because that helps local null sec industry and lowers the focus on high sec industry (this will of course also require a substantial buff to null in this regard). Anything with jump or bridging capability (BO excluded) needs to be toned down dramatically. Freighters, being given rig slots and thus having to be rebalanced because of it, is an entirely different issue and discussion. Both nullsec and highsec industry will still benefit from ease of movement of materials and goods between them, especially now that goods and material will flow both ways. For the first time ever it may be profitable to produce some things in null and sell them in high, just as it is and will still profitable to produce some things in high and sell in null.
There's no pressing need for a jump drive nerf at all. "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
13
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 13:06:00 -
[1770] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Ramona Quimby wrote:Instead they're being nerfed to please Goons and Gankers.
Stop nerfing hi-sec and buffing null-sec. You realise, of course, that this change has every potential to create problems for goons and gankers; that they weren't part of the groups who advocated this change; and that this hits nullsec harder than it does highsec. Mag's wrote:No not really. Tippia is his usual logical self. Whereas Valterra is, well, highly illogical and prone to large memory lapses as well as complete removal from reality in one instance. I think he might be referring to our appearance, except that Valterra is a beat-up old Civire who can't even dress herself properly and who lacks my fabulous ass.
I think you are going to need a judge for said comparison. Alright alright i'll take one for the team and do it... lol |
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1568
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 13:06:00 -
[1771] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:
Well you should care, but you are too up your self to understand that if Eve keeps going this way then the only people left in Eve will be gankers, griefers, scammers, meta-gamers, power gamers
u mean the ppl that actually play this game?
if u want a non-PvP game like starcitizen then why did u join a PvP MMO in the first place? why are u in a game where ganking, greifing, scamming, meta-gaming and power gaming is not just ok, its applauded. 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" |
Gregor Parud
517
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 13:16:00 -
[1772] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Gregor Parud wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Gregor Parud wrote:Low seccers combined with people who have decent ideas and realistic views. You mean realistic views like "freighters and jump freighters don't need to be changed, they're fine as they are"? No I mean "freighters are fine in and of themselves, the problem is that they make use of Jump bridges which should be nerfed just as jump capable ships (and thus Jfreighters) should be nerfed". We need more separation because that helps local null sec industry and lowers the focus on high sec industry (this will of course also require a substantial buff to null in this regard). Anything with jump or bridging capability (BO excluded) needs to be toned down dramatically. Freighters, being given rig slots and thus having to be rebalanced because of it, is an entirely different issue and discussion. Both nullsec and highsec industry will still benefit from ease of movement of materials and goods between them, especially now that goods and material will flow both ways. For the first time ever it may be profitable to produce some things in null and sell them in high, just as it is and will still profitable to produce some things in high and sell in null. There's no pressing need for a jump drive nerf at all.
Yes there is, you just don't want one... difference. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
10018
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 13:26:00 -
[1773] - Quote
Oh I guess that settles it then, Gregor Parud the NPC alt created October of last year understands the necessity of nerfing jump drives and CCP should listen to his wisdom garnered from his extensive experience on the subject. "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
Adrien Crosse
Black Frog Logistics Red-Frog
7
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 13:26:00 -
[1774] - Quote
Gregor Parud wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Gregor Parud wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Gregor Parud wrote:Low seccers combined with people who have decent ideas and realistic views. You mean realistic views like "freighters and jump freighters don't need to be changed, they're fine as they are"? No I mean "freighters are fine in and of themselves, the problem is that they make use of Jump bridges which should be nerfed just as jump capable ships (and thus Jfreighters) should be nerfed". We need more separation because that helps local null sec industry and lowers the focus on high sec industry (this will of course also require a substantial buff to null in this regard). Anything with jump or bridging capability (BO excluded) needs to be toned down dramatically. Freighters, being given rig slots and thus having to be rebalanced because of it, is an entirely different issue and discussion. Both nullsec and highsec industry will still benefit from ease of movement of materials and goods between them, especially now that goods and material will flow both ways. For the first time ever it may be profitable to produce some things in null and sell them in high, just as it is and will still profitable to produce some things in high and sell in null. There's no pressing need for a jump drive nerf at all. Yes there is, you just don't want one... difference.
You're right - there is.
But a straight numbers nerf does nothing to address that - a straight numbers nerf just pisses people off.
Everyone who uses jump freighters now will keep on using them and just roll the additional cost down the chain to whoever may sit farther down, be that buyers for industrialists, customers for Black Frog or whoever else.
A nerf to jump freighters can only make sense if it comes coupled with deeper mechanics changes that offer viable, fun alternatives to using them, because escorted freighter runs aren't that, and depending on titan bridging for freighters isn't helping the "power projection bad" or "smaller groups in null good" mantras either.
|
Digger Pollard
Why So Platypus
7
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 13:45:00 -
[1775] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Dracvlad wrote:
Well you should care, but you are too up your self to understand that if Eve keeps going this way then the only people left in Eve will be gankers, griefers, scammers, meta-gamers, power gamers
u mean the ppl that actually play this game? if u want a non-PvP game like starcitizen then why did u join a PvP MMO in the first place? why are u in a game where ganking, greifing, scamming, meta-gaming and power gaming is not just ok, its applauded.
With such a poor, insignificant and one-dimensional combat pvp side, I doubt it's possible to call eve "PvP MMO". So basically you want to remove everyone who's only pvping on market, which is a lot more engaging than inferior combat pvp. What did they tell about "nerf everyone's playstyle except mine"? Oh, I remember - "HTFU". If you can only do combat pvp and can't engage on market, you suck, period. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6431
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 13:45:00 -
[1776] - Quote
Adrien Crosse wrote: You're right - there is.
But a straight numbers nerf does nothing to address that - a straight numbers nerf just pisses people off.
Everyone who uses jump freighters now will keep on using them and just roll the additional cost down the chain to whoever may sit farther down, be that buyers for industrialists, customers for Black Frog or whoever else.
A nerf to jump freighters can only make sense if it comes coupled with deeper mechanics changes that offer viable, fun alternatives to using them, because escorted freighter runs aren't that, and depending on titan bridging for freighters isn't helping the "power projection bad" or "smaller groups in null good" mantras either.
I'll go ahead and ask this one again.
How do you make hauling fun?
Because the last few people have said things like "well make it so I can't get ganked", or "make freighters better than before", which is not an answer, just a wishlist you will never achieve.
So how do you make hauling fun? If you can't, then the answer is that it will never be fun. But whether it can or it can't, it MUST be balanced. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Digger Pollard
Why So Platypus
7
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 13:48:00 -
[1777] - Quote
Gregor Parud wrote:Digger Pollard wrote:Oxide Ammar wrote:So they need also to nerf rorqual ? if they did that I'm sure people will camp around CCP HQ with pitchforks and torches I believe this was stated to be the goal: "To make it feasible to have Rorqual on grid when mining". Knowing the way Fozzie does things, it'll be just made impossible to have it off-grid so the only feasible way will be having it on grid, where it'll be a sitting duck, just like any freighter in hisec, waiting to be nuked. Well, perhaps you'll have to switch to a less autistic mining setup then, using more scouts, defences and defenders. If you want afk mining go to high se... oh wait, that doesn't work either.
You're absolutely right. Currently, since Fozzie went bull-in-the-china-shop over mining in Odyssey, there is no mining setup which works, aside from being 40 systems deep in blue donut. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1569
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 14:00:00 -
[1778] - Quote
Digger Pollard wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:Dracvlad wrote:
Well you should care, but you are too up your self to understand that if Eve keeps going this way then the only people left in Eve will be gankers, griefers, scammers, meta-gamers, power gamers
u mean the ppl that actually play this game? if u want a non-PvP game like starcitizen then why did u join a PvP MMO in the first place? why are u in a game where ganking, greifing, scamming, meta-gaming and power gaming is not just ok, its applauded. With such a poor, insignificant and one-dimensional combat pvp side, I doubt it's possible to call eve "PvP MMO". So basically you want to remove everyone who's only pvping on market, which is a lot more engaging than inferior combat pvp. What did they tell about "nerf everyone's playstyle except mine"? Oh, I remember - "HTFU". If you can only do combat pvp and can't engage on market, you suck, period.
thats it, use the butthurt. i love how u call combat one dimensional and then centre ur argument around one part of the game.
dnt mind that ganking is market PvP too. just ignore that many freighter pilots are PvP'ers too.
just stay in that small world of urs. bolt the doors, nail the windows shut. close ur eyes, cover ur ears and dnt let the bad ppl in. 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" |
Gregor Parud
517
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 14:05:00 -
[1779] - Quote
Adrien Crosse wrote:You're right - there is.
But a straight numbers nerf does nothing to address that - a straight numbers nerf just pisses people off.
Everyone who uses jump freighters now will keep on using them and just roll the additional cost down the chain to whoever may sit farther down, be that buyers for industrialists, customers for Black Frog or whoever else.
A nerf to jump freighters can only make sense if it comes coupled with deeper mechanics changes that offer viable, fun alternatives to using them, because escorted freighter runs aren't that, and depending on titan bridging for freighters isn't helping the "power projection bad" or "smaller groups in null good" mantras either.
"Fun" is mostly used when people actually mean "easy" to cover up that they mean exactly that, but you're right that it should be balanced elsewhere. The thing is that you're looking at it from the current situation, asses the changes and then go "yup, that's bad" but when the change happens it also changes the landscape and when null sec industry gets a proper boost (which it should) there simply is less need. The changes FORCE people to start doing industry locally, which is good because it helps with populating null, beyond the empty borefest it is atm.
What people need to learn and understand is the difference between short term and long term. Most GOOD design decisions are short term bad because they make everyone rage like a ************, frantically trying to cling to the status quo, while in the long run being the best choice for the game. This is one of those; the whole null sec, industry, jump drives thing is CAUSING the stagnant null gameplay (which is only enjoyed by grind/carebears). People have been asking CCP for years to change it (and for good reason) but to change it fundamentally and properly it's going to be a short term mess and there'll be a whole lot of things that will become more difficult (because they were part of the problem) but in the end it'll be worth it.
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Oh I guess that settles it then, Gregor Parud the NPC alt created October of last year understands the necessity of nerfing jump drives and CCP should listen to his wisdom garnered from extensive experience on the subject.
Apparently yes, because on this subject you're quite biased it seems. Also, if people have to resort to calling out a character's age you just know they ran out of arguments.
Power projection as we currently have it is bad because it makes the game world smaller, while allowing large groups to adapt way too quickly. See the blue donut. |
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
13
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 14:07:00 -
[1780] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:I don't think anyone is really going to miss them so long as they are % based. on a freighter that only does 1.37 AU warp with 2 t2 Hyperspatial velocity optimizers you'll do a whopping 50% more so now you'll be doing a whole 2.055 AU warp! AWWW yeah now we're moving! lol Oh, I don't know. I'd say that if anything it makes more of a difference in practical term for slow ships. I mean, on a cruiser that skips past a system in 15 seconds, reducing that to 10 won't make much difference GÇö one sip of tea less. On a freighter that takes a minute and a half to cross a system, reducing that to a minute is a huge gain in terms of how much you can transport (it's the core business after all) in a given timeframe, not to mention how much less painful it is to make those long hauls. The absolute speed change from that percentage might not be anything to write home about, but the absolute time saving can get pretty huge pretty fast.
Jesus you like to play devil advocate..... the only problem with that though is this rig would be less beneficial even from the time stand point you mentioned due to how much time these things spend in accel and more specifically deceleration. Ever watched that speed bar? i swear i have spent half a system in decel before lol . |
|
Gregor Parud
517
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 14:11:00 -
[1781] - Quote
Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:Tippia wrote:Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:I don't think anyone is really going to miss them so long as they are % based. on a freighter that only does 1.37 AU warp with 2 t2 Hyperspatial velocity optimizers you'll do a whopping 50% more so now you'll be doing a whole 2.055 AU warp! AWWW yeah now we're moving! lol Oh, I don't know. I'd say that if anything it makes more of a difference in practical term for slow ships. I mean, on a cruiser that skips past a system in 15 seconds, reducing that to 10 won't make much difference GÇö one sip of tea less. On a freighter that takes a minute and a half to cross a system, reducing that to a minute is a huge gain in terms of how much you can transport (it's the core business after all) in a given timeframe, not to mention how much less painful it is to make those long hauls. The absolute speed change from that percentage might not be anything to write home about, but the absolute time saving can get pretty huge pretty fast. Jesus you like to play devil advocate..... the only problem with that though is this rig would be less beneficial even from the time stand point you mentioned due to how much time these things spend in accel and more specifically deceleration. Ever watched that speed bar? i swear i have spent half a system in decel before lol .
No he just applies basic logic and reasoning. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22104
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 14:14:00 -
[1782] - Quote
Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:Jesus you like to play devil advocate..... the only problem with that though is this rig would be less beneficial even from the time stand point you mentioned due to how much time these things spend in accel and more specifically deceleration. Ever watched that speed bar? i swear i have spent half a system in decel before lol . Sure, but the new warp speed mechanics help that a lot GÇö had this been a year ago, it would have made fsck-all difference unless you were jumping through 200 AU systems. These days, you'll see a (beneficial) difference in jumps one tenth that long. It might not be much at that point, but it's there.
Still, yes. For most distances, I'm guessing that a mix of warp speed and agility will give the fastest travel, but I wouldn't discount the benefit you can get out of warp speed alone. 33% off makes a significant difference in absolute terms for something as slug-like as a freighter. 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. |
Sipphakta en Gravonere
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
608
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 14:18:00 -
[1783] - Quote
Gregor Parud wrote:Power projection as we currently have it is bad because it makes the game world smaller, while allowing large groups to adapt way too quickly. See the blue donut.
Yeah, you are right, sov holding corporations/alliances are way too safe and there is no conflict about sov. Just ask TEST, erm AAA, no, wait Solar , damn, IRC ,no, not those, EMP, **** it, any NPC corp member, they will confirm the blue donut. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Adrien Crosse
Black Frog Logistics Red-Frog
7
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 14:21:00 -
[1784] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Adrien Crosse wrote: You're right - there is.
But a straight numbers nerf does nothing to address that - a straight numbers nerf just pisses people off.
Everyone who uses jump freighters now will keep on using them and just roll the additional cost down the chain to whoever may sit farther down, be that buyers for industrialists, customers for Black Frog or whoever else.
A nerf to jump freighters can only make sense if it comes coupled with deeper mechanics changes that offer viable, fun alternatives to using them, because escorted freighter runs aren't that, and depending on titan bridging for freighters isn't helping the "power projection bad" or "smaller groups in null good" mantras either.
I'll go ahead and ask this one again. How do you make hauling fun? Because the last few people have said things like "well make it so I can't get ganked", or "make freighters better than before", which is not an answer, just a wishlist you will never achieve. So how do you make hauling fun? If you can't, then the answer is that it will never be fun. But whether it can or it can't, it MUST be balanced.
Thats a loaded question - just like "how do you make mining fun? (without making it tedious to those who do it as a profession)", and I can't answer it, as I'm not a game designer and haven't spent much time thinking about it because its fine to me as it is.
One thing that isn't particularly fun is being at the receiving end of a turkey shoot, with the only way to really avoid it is to plan ahead and do ones best to not have it happen in the first place.
A possible, albeit brainfarty and not well thought out, solution would be to make ganks more frequent and less costly to the ganker, but give haulers means to defend themselves and come out ahead if they're smart, lucky, somewhat skillful, or a combination of the three.
That wouldn't just make hauling more exciting than it is, but also promote ganking as a less niche profession that requires skill rather than numbers.
This idea, or any mechanics change of similar magnitude, is a monstrous thing to balance, but I think its whats necessary to affect the game in the way they want.
Numbers nerfs are in this case nothing but low hanging fruits that may be easy to implement, but ultimately aren't likely to change much in the long term.
|
Valterra Craven
247
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 14:23:00 -
[1785] - Quote
Gregor Parud wrote:The changes FORCE people to start doing industry locally, which is good because it helps with populating null, beyond the empty borefest it is atm. .
I'm not going to lie, I haven't been to null since 2008. That was before JF's and I think slightly before jump bridges. I remember the freighter conveys we had, at least until BoB built its first couple of titans. But you know what wasn't any different? The amount of people in Null. Seriously I remember having to coordinate three different NPC stations worth of t2 comp production 24/7 and that was just for BNC.E. You know how many people real people it took to do that? Less than 15 (alts and such). People keep talking about force projection like its the reason that no one is in null or its the reason more industry doesn't happen in null. Cept the thing is, I was around when those things didn't exist and you know what? Nothing was different. While thats a lie, one thing was different, people own less space.
But I am being a bit disingenuous. The big difference between t2 comps and normal manufacturing is that it doesn't require actual effort to acquire the raw mats. I'm sure things would have been different had mats not magically appeared from our POSes every hour. Big difference between having to have actual people mine ore and ice... |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
10362
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 14:29:00 -
[1786] - Quote
Hey everyone the Op has now been updated with a revised version of the design. As many of you were anticipating, we will be achieving the goal of customizability through low slots instead of rig slots. Big thanks to everyone who has provided reasoned feedback in the thread and special thanks to the CSM.
The most significant issues raised in the thread about the previous version of the design are:
- The permanence of customizability that relies completely on rigs. As the only classes to have rig slots alone with no fitting slots, Freighters and Jump Freighters would have allowed customization towards a player's most common use cases, but would still lack the very important ability to adjust fittings in response to changing needs and environments.
- The relative lack of interesting choices for Jump Freighter pilots. Due to the very unique situation of Jump Freighters, they did not receive very significant benefits from any rigs other than cargohold optimization. This is partially an issue with the lack of gameplay around JF use and their near complete safety when used optimally, but it also reflected a lack of good options.
To deal with the first issue, we are making the significant change of providing the goal of customizability through low slots rather than rig slots. Keeping this path balanced requires a few extra tricks but we believe that it will provide a more interesting set of gameplay choices for freighter pilots to make on an everyday basis. All Freighters and Jump Freighters will receive 3 low slots, and not receive any rig slots. They will have very restrictive powergrid and cpu totals, and a special role bonus that allows the use of Reinforced Bulkhead modules.
In Kronos we are also adding a new set of low-slot warp speed enhancing modules that can be obtained through low-sec exploration. These modules will increase warp speed by a flat addition of 0.2, 0.25 or 0.3 au/s each. We expect that these will be popular modules for use on Freighters.
To help address the lack of interesting options for Jump Freighters, we are planning to introduce a set of jump fuel conservation modules in the Crius release in July. These modules will not be available in Kronos.
So we expect that most Freighter and Jump Freighter pilots will use their three low slots to mix and match the following modules to meet their needs:
- Expanded Cargoholds
- Reinforced Bulkheads
- Hyperspatial Accelerators (warp speed modules)
- Inertia Stabilizers
- Overdrive Injector Systems
- (For certain armor tanking fits) Adaptive Nano Platings
- (For Jump Freighters) Capacitor Power Relays
- (For Jump Freighters after the Crius release) Jump Fuel Conservation Modules
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.
The base EHP of all Freighters and Jump Freighters is being increased (since Expanded Cargoholds affect freighter hp more than cargo rigs do) and more emphasis is being placed on armor and shield than before (although all Freighters still gain the majority of their hitpoints from hull).
Let us know what you think! Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Vetium
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 14:30:00 -
[1787] - Quote
Wow ... I can see a high activity of freighter gankers here ... it seems they are highly emotionally connected to this topic.
Anyway ... I'm just here to voice my disapproval of this change (not that anybody cares, I know). I can't see any value added to the game, just costs of freighters will higher. That's it.
So, I will wait for modular t3 freighters. |
Adrien Crosse
Black Frog Logistics Red-Frog
7
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 14:30:00 -
[1788] - Quote
Gregor Parud wrote:Adrien Crosse wrote:You're right - there is.
But a straight numbers nerf does nothing to address that - a straight numbers nerf just pisses people off.
Everyone who uses jump freighters now will keep on using them and just roll the additional cost down the chain to whoever may sit farther down, be that buyers for industrialists, customers for Black Frog or whoever else.
A nerf to jump freighters can only make sense if it comes coupled with deeper mechanics changes that offer viable, fun alternatives to using them, because escorted freighter runs aren't that, and depending on titan bridging for freighters isn't helping the "power projection bad" or "smaller groups in null good" mantras either.
What people need to learn and understand is the difference between short term and long term. Most GOOD design decisions are short term bad because they make everyone rage like a ************, frantically trying to cling to the status quo, while in the long run being the best choice for the game. This is one of those; the whole null sec, industry, jump drives thing is CAUSING the stagnant null gameplay (which is only enjoyed by grind/carebears). People have been asking CCP for years to change it (and for good reason) but to change it fundamentally and properly it's going to be a short term mess and there'll be a whole lot of things that will become more difficult (because they were part of the problem) but in the end it'll be worth it.
Emphasis mine.
I agree with you, but I don't think opening a wound in terms of numbers nerfs and then leaving it there bleeding until some day perhaps one gets around to apply some band-aid and a long term fix that goes well with it isn't a particularly great course of action.
The problem with the change in its current form is that it doesn't force anyone to do anything locally. It just makes importing slightly more expensive.
Edit: Disregard post, need to think through the new changes - thanks Fozzie :) |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
10362
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 14:30:00 -
[1789] - Quote
I want to take this opportunity to remind people that pre-patch market speculation is never guaranteed and CCP takes no responsibility for any isk lost from speculation. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6431
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 14:31:00 -
[1790] - Quote
Adrien Crosse wrote: Thats a loaded question - just like "how do you make mining fun? (without making it tedious to those who do it as a profession)", and I can't answer it, as I'm not a game designer and haven't spent much time thinking about it because its fine to me as it is.
It's not a loaded question at all. You specifically said you think there should be "deeper mechanics that offer viable, fun alternatives".
Which is completely asinine if you ask me. There is no "deeper mechanic" for hauling, it's "Get Stuff from point A to point B." That's it, the end. There's no room for "deeper mechanics".
Quote: One thing that isn't particularly fun is being at the receiving end of a turkey shoot, with the only way to really avoid it is to plan ahead and do ones best to not have it happen in the first place.
Welcome to EVE.
As for the rest, you keep talking in generalities, which are less than worthless right now. I get it, numbers make you angry. But that's what it's come down to right now.
You can talk about "more skillful" all you want, but this is not a flight sim. You don't get to man your turrets to shoot down the ebil pirates.
All you are doing is talking in generalities that don't even apply to this game. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
|
Victoria Sin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
630
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 14:31:00 -
[1791] - Quote
I've been trying to understand the reasoning behind these changes and for the life of me I just can't. Someone above said this was asked for. Was it? By whom? Some thick twit on the CSM? Who? Why? Where's the logic here? Are you also boosting the material requirements for the rigs so they aren't so retardedly expensive? No? Ok.
Here's what I've got from the changes so far and I'm including all changes to industry for the upcoming patch too: CCP doesn't want me to play the game.
Ok, no problem.
|
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
13
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 14:32:00 -
[1792] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:Jesus you like to play devil advocate..... the only problem with that though is this rig would be less beneficial even from the time stand point you mentioned due to how much time these things spend in accel and more specifically deceleration. Ever watched that speed bar? i swear i have spent half a system in decel before lol . Sure, but the new warp speed mechanics help that a lot GÇö had this been a year ago, it would have made fsck-all difference unless you were jumping through 200 AU systems. These days, you'll see a (beneficial) difference in jumps one tenth that long. It might not be much at that point, but it's there. Still, yes. For most distances, I'm guessing that a mix of warp speed and agility will give the fastest travel, but I wouldn't discount the benefit you can get out of warp speed alone. 33% off makes a significant difference in absolute terms for something as slug-like as a freighter.
I guess if you're jumping this thing non stop it will be nice. Mine is rather circumstantial. A jump freighter that takes only an hour and a half to make the distance that used to take 2 hours is irrelevant for me at least as i'm still gonna set that sh*t to autopilot then go see a movie lol. |
Dramaticus
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
561
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 14:33:00 -
[1793] - Quote
:masterstroke: The 'do-nothing' member of the GoonSwarm Economic Warfare Cabal
The edge is REALLY hard to see at times but it DOES exist and in this case we were looking at a situation where a new feature created for all of our customers was being virtually curbstomped by five of them |
Gregor Parud
517
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 14:34:00 -
[1794] - Quote
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:Gregor Parud wrote:Power projection as we currently have it is bad because it makes the game world smaller, while allowing large groups to adapt way too quickly. See the blue donut. Yeah, you are right, sov holding corporations/alliances are way too safe and there is no conflict about sov. Just ask TEST, erm AAA, no, wait Solar , damn, IRC ,no, not those, EMP, **** it, any NPC corp member, they will confirm the blue donut.
Power projection is what creates massive coalitions resulting in boring, stagnant gameplay and empty space. Just because there's *some* stuff happening doesn't mean it's not a borefest. If you can't understand this then I don't know what to tell you. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6432
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 14:35:00 -
[1795] - Quote
Lol wow, I get to say it again.
Called it. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Kethry Avenger
We Build Stuff Inc.
125
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 14:37:00 -
[1796] - Quote
I like it.
So any chance for Q-ships in the future?
2-3 highs, with 2 turret/launchers, (large or capital size) 6 mids/lows, racially spread, with about half the fitting of a BS or Dread depending on size gun. ( oh and when not targeted turrets blend in the hull, and ship has role bonus to ship scanners.) |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
970
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 14:37:00 -
[1797] - Quote
So all JF pilots will carry the fuel modules for the jump but otherwise be using alternate options while moving items around HighSec? Lieutenant Turelus Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
I post on my main... shocking I know! |
Xander Phoena
Zebra Corp Gentlemen's Agreement
391
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 14:37:00 -
[1798] - Quote
Hopefully the swap from rigs to low slots will keep some of the doubters happy. The flexibility this provides should make for a far more interesting time for those of you wondering how to fit your freighters as opposed to simply putting in T2 rigs and never changing it.
CSM9 (particularly but not exclusively the likes of Mynnna, Corbexx, Steve Ronuken and Sugar Kyle) have worked real hard with Fozzie on getting these numbers right. Looking forward to hearing your feedback. www.crossingzebras.com |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1423
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 14:37:00 -
[1799] - Quote
good thing i didn't already start building capital rigs :D
wts: cheap capital rig BPOs GRRR Goons |
BadAssMcKill
ElitistOps
785
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 14:39:00 -
[1800] - Quote
FOZZIE YOU DID SOMETHING SMART
KEEP UP THE GOOD JOB
A++++ . |
|
Azami Nevinyrall
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
1900
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 14:40:00 -
[1801] - Quote
Ok, these changes I'm happy with!
Now, can we get the CPU to 30 to put a DCU II on there? Then I'll happily buy one and use it alot! I hope everyone voted in the CSM elections! Thank you to those who actually supported my campaign! Even if I don't get elected in, I hope that the CSM that do, and Devs actually use my ideas somewhere! |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6432
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 14:42:00 -
[1802] - Quote
Azami Nevinyrall wrote:Ok, these changes I'm happy with!
Now, can we get the CPU to 30 to put a DCU II on there? Then I'll happily buy one and use it alot!
It was done this way to specifically avoid you being able to double your tank with one module. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Silvetica Dian
Manson Family Advent of Fate
1045
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 14:43:00 -
[1803] - Quote
Gilbaron wrote:good thing i didn't already start building capital rigs :D
wts: cheap capital rig BPOs
I bought one and started the copying but no great harm done. Unwound a bunch of market orders before i even posted here. No real harm done there either. Will be nice to switch between cargo, warp speed and tank as needed. TY CCP, CSM and also Tippia for her tireless work in showing that bulkheads were underpowered and 0 CPU was fine for them. Money at its root is a form of rationing. When the richest 85 people have as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion (50% of humanity) it is clear where the source of poverty is. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/20/trickle-down-economics-broken-promise-richest-85 |
Brutor Brutor
Non Merchant corporation 0 tax pure capitalism
10
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 14:43:00 -
[1804] - Quote
Helicopter Fozzie strikes again!
What the hell is going on with you mann?
What is with these radical changes every day then 180's the next?
Cant you just do small balance adjustments on say, assault frigs? |
Victoria Sin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
630
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 14:43:00 -
[1805] - Quote
Adrien Crosse wrote:Rorquals are also due for a full role overhaul and rebalance anyway, little point balancing other things around their current state.
Yes they are. Here's what I think CCP will do to the Rorqual based on how their other ideas have been going recently:
(1)
The Rorqual will have its fleet hanger, ore hold and cargo bay reduced in capacity so they can only fit 1 unit of veldspar but the option to fit up to 1 capital rigs to increase the size to 2 veldspar will be provided. Also note the price of these rigs will be two trillion isk each.
(2)
You won't be able to dock the Rorqual or warp it to zero and it can only be logged in if you're in an asteroid belt in a system that has at least 3 logged out cloaky hot-dropping campers with dual cynos.
(3)
A new "auto-eject" feature will be provided for the pilot. When in the Rorqual, the pilot has 30 seconds to siege it. If he doesn't, he's automatically ejected from the ship and auto-piloted to Yong. Note that (2) applies here as well - he can't get into the ship unless there are at least 3 logged out cloaky hot-droppers in system at that precise moment.
(4)
All stats for Rorqual shields will be set to zero and reduced to 1% resist across the board. Also see (3) and (2). You can only use the shield booster if you don't fit one and it only works if there's nobody shooting you.
(5)
That's enough CCP Rorqual rebalancing ideas from me. |
El Space Mariachi
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
92
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 14:43:00 -
[1806] - Quote
thanks for the confirmation you have no idea what you're doing and are literally just shitting out ideas and seeing what sticks wrt game balance Fozzie
I thought Rise was the dumb one, don't go down this path PLEASE . |
Zifrian
Licentia Ex Vereor Black Core Alliance
1490
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 14:44:00 -
[1807] - Quote
Ok, I like this more than the rigs. The customization is much better and easier. Great change. GÇ£Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain - and most fools do. GÇ¥ - Dale Carnegie
Maximze your Industry Potential! - Download EVE Isk per Hour! |
Valterra Craven
247
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 14:45:00 -
[1808] - Quote
Gregor Parud wrote: Power projection is what creates massive coalitions resulting in boring, stagnant gameplay and empty space. Just because there's *some* stuff happening doesn't mean it's not a borefest. If you can't understand this then I don't know what to tell you.
No, power projection has nothing to do with empty space. Null was just as empty before power projection existed and it will be just as empty if it doesn't exist. |
Dave stark
5956
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 14:45:00 -
[1809] - Quote
inb4 "i can't fit a DCU II to my freighter" whines. |
Xander Phoena
Zebra Corp Gentlemen's Agreement
391
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 14:45:00 -
[1810] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Azami Nevinyrall wrote:Ok, these changes I'm happy with!
Now, can we get the CPU to 30 to put a DCU II on there? Then I'll happily buy one and use it alot! It was done this way to specifically avoid you being able to double your tank with one module.
This.
You aren't getting DCUs on a freighter. www.crossingzebras.com |
|
Kuda Timberline
Alea Iacta Est Universal Brave Collective
3
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 14:49:00 -
[1811] - Quote
This is a great change!
Thanks Fozzie! |
TheMercenaryKing
StarFleet Enterprises Intrepid Crossing
208
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 14:50:00 -
[1812] - Quote
Love the new update, but one question, when will damage controls become passive mods? |
Valterra Craven
247
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 14:50:00 -
[1813] - Quote
Xander Phoena wrote:Hopefully the swap from rigs to low slots will keep some of the doubters happy. The flexibility this provides should make for a far more interesting time for those of you wondering how to fit your freighters as opposed to simply putting in T2 rigs and never changing it.
CSM9 (particularly but not exclusively the likes of Mynnna, Corbexx, Steve Ronuken and Sugar Kyle) have worked real hard with Fozzie on getting these numbers right. Looking forward to hearing your feedback.
I like this better but I still don't like the fact that armor can be tanked somewhat (resistance plates) and shields can not. This wouldn't have been a big deal had you leave HP values in hull so every could tank roughly equally, but since you guys moved such a large chunk of HP to shields and armor this seems to be an unfair advantage for armor based races.
I wish i knew how to edit EFT files to create fits based off this to see just what the difference is. |
Ben Hatton
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
9
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 14:51:00 -
[1814] - Quote
Horaaaaaaaaay!!!! Thanks Fozzie and CSM. While I'll lose a decent sum on the speculation I did, I'm still happy with the way its going forward and much rather this solution and loose some isk than the old one.
Anyone in need of 50 T1 Cap Cargo Ops? haha |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6433
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 14:51:00 -
[1815] - Quote
TheMercenaryKing wrote:Love the new update, but one question, when will damage controls become passive mods?
You can't use them on a freighter, and hopefully never. I don't want mine to be nerfed to compensate for the thumbless monkeys who can't figure out how to make one extra mouseclick per jump. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Gregor Parud
518
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 14:51:00 -
[1816] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Gregor Parud wrote: Power projection is what creates massive coalitions resulting in boring, stagnant gameplay and empty space. Just because there's *some* stuff happening doesn't mean it's not a borefest. If you can't understand this then I don't know what to tell you.
No, power projection has nothing to do with empty space. Null was just as empty before power projection existed and it will be just as empty if it doesn't exist.
Of course it does, power projection in all its forms is the exact reason why it's mostly empty.
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
305
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 14:51:00 -
[1817] - Quote
Vetium wrote:Wow ... I can see a high activity of freighter gankers here ... it seems they are highly emotionally connected to this topic. Anyway ... I'm just here to voice my disapproval of this change (not that anybody cares, I know). I can't see any value added to the game, just costs of freighters will higher. That's it. So, I will wait for modular t3 freighters. PS: hm, this update just came in, so my immediate thoughts are - with regards to low slots: hurray for armor tanking freighters and boohoo for shield tanking freighters - how about a Capital Ancillary Armor repairer then, that should make the life of gankers a little more difficult
Someone didn't look at the PG and CPU on those Freighters... |
Victoria Sin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
630
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 14:52:00 -
[1818] - Quote
Xander Phoena wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Azami Nevinyrall wrote:Ok, these changes I'm happy with!
Now, can we get the CPU to 30 to put a DCU II on there? Then I'll happily buy one and use it alot! It was done this way to specifically avoid you being able to double your tank with one module. This. You aren't getting DCUs on a freighter.
Yes. CCP wants to retain as many Goon alts in Catalysts as it can, because industry sucks.
|
Valterra Craven
247
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 14:53:00 -
[1819] - Quote
Gregor Parud wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Gregor Parud wrote: Power projection is what creates massive coalitions resulting in boring, stagnant gameplay and empty space. Just because there's *some* stuff happening doesn't mean it's not a borefest. If you can't understand this then I don't know what to tell you.
No, power projection has nothing to do with empty space. Null was just as empty before power projection existed and it will be just as empty if it doesn't exist. Of course it does, power projection in all its forms is the exact reason why it's mostly empty.
Then explain why Null was just as empty from 2005-2007 when power projection didn't exist. |
Axe Coldon
Coldon Enterprises Axion Bionics
41
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 14:54:00 -
[1820] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone the Op has now been updated with a revised version of the design. As many of you were anticipating, we will be achieving the goal of customizability through low slots instead of rig slots. Big thanks to everyone who has provided reasoned feedback in the thread and special thanks to the CSM. The most significant issues raised in the thread about the previous version of the design are: - The permanence of customizability that relies completely on rigs. As the only classes to have rig slots alone with no fitting slots, Freighters and Jump Freighters would have allowed customization towards a player's most common use cases, but would still lack the very important ability to adjust fittings in response to changing needs and environments.
- The relative lack of interesting choices for Jump Freighter pilots. Due to the very unique situation of Jump Freighters, they did not receive very significant benefits from any rigs other than cargohold optimization. This is partially an issue with the lack of gameplay around JF use and their near complete safety when used optimally, but it also reflected a lack of good options.
To deal with the first issue, we are making the significant change of providing the goal of customizability through low slots rather than rig slots. Keeping this path balanced requires a few extra tricks but we believe that it will provide a more interesting set of gameplay choices for freighter pilots to make on an everyday basis. All Freighters and Jump Freighters will receive 3 low slots, and not receive any rig slots. They will have very restrictive powergrid and cpu totals, and a special role bonus that allows the use of Reinforced Bulkhead modules. In Kronos we are also adding a new set of low-slot warp speed enhancing modules that can be obtained through low-sec exploration. These modules will increase warp speed by a flat addition of 0.2, 0.25 or 0.3 au/s each. We expect that these will be popular modules for use on Freighters. To help address the lack of interesting options for Jump Freighters, we are planning to introduce a set of jump fuel conservation modules in the Crius release in July. These modules will not be available in Kronos. So we expect that most Freighter and Jump Freighter pilots will use their three low slots to mix and match the following modules to meet their needs: - Expanded Cargoholds
- Reinforced Bulkheads
- Hyperspatial Accelerators (warp speed modules)
- Inertia Stabilizers
- Overdrive Injector Systems
- (For certain armor tanking fits) Adaptive Nano Platings
- (For Jump Freighters) Capacitor Power Relays
- (For Jump Freighters after the Crius release) Jump Fuel Conservation Modules
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. The base EHP of all Freighters and Jump Freighters is being increased (since Expanded Cargoholds affect freighter hp more than cargo rigs do) and more emphasis is being placed on armor and shield than before (although all Freighters still gain the majority of their hitpoints from hull). Let us know what you think!
I like it. If there must be change, this is the better way to go then rigs. I am especially intrigued with jump fuel conservation. modules. Not running a full load, throw those babies on there. What no mid or high slots but I guess a cloaked JF is too much for people to handle.
Looking forward to stats so we can see how much we can buff ehp on a normal freighter if we don't need max cargo.
Thats what I get for speculating and making a bunch of t2 cap cargo rigs.
|
|
Dramaticus
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
561
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 14:55:00 -
[1821] - Quote
Null is mostly empty because of most of the space is inherently **** The 'do-nothing' member of the GoonSwarm Economic Warfare Cabal
The edge is REALLY hard to see at times but it DOES exist and in this case we were looking at a situation where a new feature created for all of our customers was being virtually curbstomped by five of them |
Valterra Craven
247
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 14:55:00 -
[1822] - Quote
Xander Phoena wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Azami Nevinyrall wrote:Ok, these changes I'm happy with!
Now, can we get the CPU to 30 to put a DCU II on there? Then I'll happily buy one and use it alot! It was done this way to specifically avoid you being able to double your tank with one module. This. You aren't getting DCUs on a freighter.
What about a role bonus for CPU on PDU's?
This way you could fit some shield tanking mods like the resistance plats for armor? |
Sephira Galamore
Inner Beard Society Affirmative.
336
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 14:56:00 -
[1823] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Gregor Parud wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Gregor Parud wrote: Power projection is what creates massive coalitions resulting in boring, stagnant gameplay and empty space. Just because there's *some* stuff happening doesn't mean it's not a borefest. If you can't understand this then I don't know what to tell you.
No, power projection has nothing to do with empty space. Null was just as empty before power projection existed and it will be just as empty if it doesn't exist. Of course it does, power projection in all its forms is the exact reason why it's mostly empty. Then explain why Null was just as empty from 2005-2007 when power projection didn't exist. Only part of the reason, but.. http://eve-offline.net/?server=tranquility |
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
13
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 14:59:00 -
[1824] - Quote
Xander Phoena wrote:Hopefully the swap from rigs to low slots will keep some of the doubters happy. The flexibility this provides should make for a far more interesting time for those of you wondering how to fit your freighters as opposed to simply putting in T2 rigs and never changing it.
CSM9 (particularly but not exclusively the likes of Mynnna, Corbexx, Steve Ronuken and Sugar Kyle) have worked real hard with Fozzie on getting these numbers right. Looking forward to hearing your feedback.
Have not done the calculations yet but preliminary looks pretty good. This is much better for the flexibility CCP was looking for. |
Gumpy Bitterhawk
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
6
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 14:59:00 -
[1825] - Quote
THANK YOU MYNNNA, THANK YOU FOZZIE |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11693
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:00:00 -
[1826] - Quote
Victoria Sin wrote:Dramaticus wrote:Null is mostly empty because of most of the space is inherently **** Provi is mostly populated and its the shittest space in the whole of Eve. It's not the space that's the problem, it's the blue dohnut, the renting concept and the unenlightened blue-dohnut attitude towards other players who "aren't one of us" that's the problem.
No, its the space. Most of our space is near worthless, hence our not bothering with investing in it Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Retar Aveymone
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
378
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:00:00 -
[1827] - Quote
love these changes, much more interesting (and much more customizable) than rigs |
Alexis Nightwish
State War Academy Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:00:00 -
[1828] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. As we announced at the Fanfest keynote, we are rebalancing Freighters and Jump Freighters in the Kronos release. The biggest change in this rebalance is the addition of customizability to a class that has previously been entirely static. We originally approached this through rig slots, but a few valid concerns were raised in this thread and we've made some significant adjustments to the plan to address them. The CSM has been a very significant help in this process. The most significant issues raised in the thread are: - The permanence of customizability that relies completely on rigs. As the only classes to have rig slots alone with no fitting slots, Freighters and Jump Freighters would have allowed customization towards a player's most common use cases, but would still lack the very important ability to adjust fittings in response to changing needs and environments.
- The relative lack of interesting choices for Jump Freighter pilots. Due to the very unique situation of Jump Freighters, they did not receive very significant benefits from any rigs other than cargohold optimization. This is partially an issue with the lack of gameplay around JF use and their near complete safety when used optimally, but it also reflected a lack of good options.
To deal with the first issue, we are making the significant change of providing the goal of customizability through low slots rather than rig slots. Keeping this path balanced requires a few extra tricks but we believe that it will provide a more interesting set of gameplay choices for freighter pilots to make on an everyday basis. All Freighters and Jump Freighters will receive 3 low slots, and not receive any rig slots. They will have very restrictive powergrid and cpu totals, and a special role bonus that allows the use of Reinforced Bulkhead modules. In Kronos we are also adding a new set of low-slot warp speed enhancing modules that can be obtained through low-sec exploration. These modules will increase warp speed by a flat addition of 0.2, 0.25 or 0.3 au/s each. We expect that these will be popular modules for use on Freighters. To help address the lack of interesting options for Jump Freighters, we are planning to introduce a set of jump fuel conservation modules in the Crius release in July. These modules will not be available in Kronos. So we expect that most Freighter and Jump Freighter pilots will use their three low slots to mix and match the following modules to meet their needs: - Expanded Cargoholds
- Reinforced Bulkheads
- Hyperspatial Accelerators (warp speed modules)
- Inertia Stabilizers
- Overdrive Injector Systems
- (For certain armor tanking fits) Adaptive Nano Platings
- (For Jump Freighters) Capacitor Power Relays
- (For Jump Freighters after the Crius release) Jump Fuel Conservation Modules
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. The base EHP of all Freighters and Jump Freighters is being increased (since Expanded Cargoholds affect freighter hp more than cargo rigs do) and more emphasis is being placed on armor and shield than before (although all Freighters still gain the majority of their hitpoints from hull). This is SO much better. Thank you! ^^
|
Victoria Sin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
630
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:00:00 -
[1829] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote: That, or craven cowards like you aren't allowed to be invincible with a 1 million isk investment.
Yes, I'm so cowardly. I regularly jump and fly around in a ship that costs the same as 3 carriers and a dread, that has no modules on it and is full to the brim with lots of really expensive materials! So obviously it should be possible for 10 Goon alts in Catalysts with 750,000 skillpoints to totally gank me anywhere they like.
|
Tyr Dolorem
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:00:00 -
[1830] - Quote
A step in the right direction, but i feel that the charon and fenrir are at a disadvantage considering that a large amount of ehp has been moved to shields without the ability to fit shield tanking modules. Still disappointed with agility nerf on jump freighters. |
|
Axe Coldon
Coldon Enterprises Axion Bionics
41
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:00:00 -
[1831] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:I want to take this opportunity to remind people that pre-patch market speculation is never guaranteed and CCP takes no responsibility for any isk lost from speculation.
LOL yeah. Buyer beware or something.
I will use my lifetime supply of t2 cap cargo rigs eventually. I like to have 1 on rorqs |
Valterra Craven
247
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:00:00 -
[1832] - Quote
Arya Regnar wrote:TheMercenaryKing wrote:Love the new update, but one question, when will damage controls become passive mods? Never.
Actually devs have expressed that they have thought about it and it might be possible in the future. This question doesn't however directly mean you'd be able to fit them to freighters as you'd still have to get around the fitting costs... |
Jarnis McPieksu
494
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:01:00 -
[1833] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:I want to take this opportunity to remind people that pre-patch market speculation is never guaranteed and CCP takes no responsibility for any isk lost from speculation.
I'll wipe my tears into the pile of ISKies (~3bil) I made through T2 salvage purchase/sale instead of the theoretical potential 4-5bil had there been a solid T2 capital rig market with the patch and will somehow manage
(anyone want to buy some Capital Cargohold I BPCs? cheap! ) |
Dramaticus
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
563
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:01:00 -
[1834] - Quote
Victoria Sin wrote:Dramaticus wrote:Null is mostly empty because of most of the space is inherently **** Provi is mostly populated and its the shittest space in the whole of Eve. It's not the space that's the problem, it's the blue dohnut, the renting concept and the unenlightened blue-dohnut attitude towards other players who "aren't one of us" that's the problem.
Providence is **** space that no one outside of Amarr roleplayers has ever cared about but it has one advantage: location
To survive in 0.0 you need two things. Supercaps(or friends with supercaps) and most importantly, logistics. Logistics into Providence is hella easy whereas someone living in Omist should just shoot themselves The 'do-nothing' member of the GoonSwarm Economic Warfare Cabal
The edge is REALLY hard to see at times but it DOES exist and in this case we were looking at a situation where a new feature created for all of our customers was being virtually curbstomped by five of them |
Grarr Dexx
Snuff Box
418
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:03:00 -
[1835] - Quote
yeah, you guys basically just redeemed yourselves there |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6433
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:03:00 -
[1836] - Quote
Victoria Sin wrote:Dramaticus wrote:Null is mostly empty because of most of the space is inherently **** Provi is mostly populated and its the shittest space in the whole of Eve. It's not the space that's the problem, it's the blue dohnut, the renting concept and the unenlightened blue-dohnut attitude towards other players who "aren't one of us" that's the problem.
Yeah, Provi totally doesn't exist at the sufferance of the other nations of nullsec.
In fact, isn't PL testing the fences right now?
And as for the "unenlightened attitude", it can't possibly be that "other players" are whiny, entitled, spoonfed little freaks who don't belong. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3295
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:03:00 -
[1837] - Quote
Just a note, if people want to play around with the numbers, EveHQ has the ability to make custom ships, very easily. (load up the ship fitter, then use the HFQ editor, copy one of them, and fiddle with the numbers. Including the role bonuses.)
Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Jattila Vrek
Green Visstick High
12
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:03:00 -
[1838] - Quote
21-25% increased cargo space is power creep, especially in combination with the option to change travel speed when carrying less cargo. |
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
13
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:03:00 -
[1839] - Quote
Tippia wrote:So if I'm reading these numbers correctly, you've mainly moved some HP and cargo around compared to before, and reduced the JF agility nerf, is that about right? Things like the resist changes and skill bonuses are still the same as far as I can tell, and it would be nice if I didn't have to spot check every item in my spreadsheet.
Ahh good you're already on this? Sweet i'm just gonna sit back and let you work out the excel charts then... Ping me when you're done and i'll take a gander lol. |
Valterra Craven
247
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:04:00 -
[1840] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Just a note, if people want to play around with the numbers, EveHQ has the ability to make custom ships, very easily. (load up the ship fitter, then use the HFQ editor, copy one of them, and fiddle with the numbers. Including the role bonuses.)
Any thoughts about a role bonus for PDU's....? |
|
Dave Stark
5957
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:04:00 -
[1841] - Quote
Jattila Vrek wrote:21-25% increased cargo space is power creep, especially in combination with the option to change travel speed when carrying less cargo. not when you look at the other stats once you've increased your cargo. |
Sipphakta en Gravonere
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
608
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:04:00 -
[1842] - Quote
Victoria Sin wrote:Yes, I'm so cowardly. I regularly jump and fly around in a ship that costs the same as 3 carriers and a dread, that has no modules on it and is full to the brim with lots of really expensive materials! So obviously it should be possible for 10 Goon alts in Catalysts with 750,000 skillpoints to totally gank me anywhere they like.
It's impossible to suicide gank a Freighter or Jump Freighter with only 10 catalysts. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Gregor Parud
518
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:05:00 -
[1843] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Then explain why Null was just as empty from 2005-2007 when power projection didn't exist.
Frankly, it's rather embarrassing I even have to explain it to you.[/quote]
Charts without proper interpretation are meaningless. You would need to compare the ratio of total players active at any given time to players that live primarily in null and then those that lived other places. I bet the ratios are the same now as they were then.[/quote]
Given that we have more subs and a much higher PCU while "it's just as empty at it was back then", as you put it, the logical conclusion is that it's not what you think/hope it is. |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
460
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:05:00 -
[1844] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Note the change in the Jump Freighter HP bonus, which now only applies to their man tank and hull. If real men hull tank, then isn't every freighter's man tank its hull? |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6435
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:05:00 -
[1845] - Quote
Victoria Sin wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote: That, or craven cowards like you aren't allowed to be invincible with a 1 million isk investment.
Yes, I'm so cowardly. I regularly jump and fly around in a ship that costs the same as 3 carriers and a dread, that has no modules on it and is full to the brim with lots of really expensive materials! So obviously it should be possible for 10 Goon alts in Catalysts with 750,000 skillpoints to totally gank me anywhere they like.
Yes it should be possible, in fact it should be moreso than it is currently.
Because pricetag doesn't mean you, by yourself, should be immune to the actions of ten other people.
Pricetag is not a balancing factor, and you don't get immunity in EVE. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Valterra Craven
247
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:06:00 -
[1846] - Quote
Gregor Parud[ wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Then explain why Null was just as empty from 2005-2007 when power projection didn't exist. Valterra Craven wrote:Charts without proper interpretation are meaningless. You would need to compare the ratio of total players active at any given time to players that live primarily in null and then those that lived other places. I bet the ratios are the same now as they were then. Given that we have more subs and a much higher PCU while "it's just as empty at it was back then", as you put it, the logical conclusion is that it's not what you think/hope it is.
Well like I said, I haven't been to 0.0 since 2008. I still bet with PROPER study the ratios would be nearly the same. |
Myst Valkyria
Red Frog Freight Red-Frog
13
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:06:00 -
[1847] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
PROVIDENCE
Amarr Freighter Bonus per level: +5% Cargo Capacity +5% Maximum Velocity
Role Bonus: 100% reduction in CPU requirements for Reinforced Bulkheads
Slot layout: 0H, 0M, 3(+3)L; Fittings: 3(+2) PWG, 1 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 10000(+5000) / 46000(+22000) / 100000(-12500) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time / warp speed): 70 / 0.0625 / 900,000,000 / 107.22s / 1.37 Cargo Capacity: 435000(-300000)m3
CHARON
Caldari Freighter Bonus per level: +5% Cargo Capacity +5% Maximum Velocity
Role Bonus: 100% reduction in CPU requirements for Reinforced Bulkheads
Slot layout: 0H, 0M, 3(+3)L; Fittings: 3(+2) PWG, 1 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 50000(+44000) / 15000(-5000) / 77500(-28750) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time / warp speed): 60 / 0.0625 / 960,000,000 / 114.37s / 1.37 Cargo Capacity: 465000(-320000)m3
OBELISK
Gallente Freighter Bonus per level: +5% Cargo Capacity +5% Maximum Velocity
Role Bonus: 100% reduction in CPU requirements for Reinforced Bulkheads
Slot layout: 0H, 0M, 3(+3)L; Fittings: 3(+2) PWG, 1 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 14000(+10687) / 40000(+17500) / 110000(-10000) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time / warp speed): 65 / 0.0625 / 940,000,000 / 111.99s / 1.37 Cargo Capacity: 440000(-310000)m3
FENRIR
Minmatar Freighter Bonus per level: +5% Cargo Capacity +5% Maximum Velocity
Role Bonus: 100% reduction in CPU requirements for Reinforced Bulkheads
Slot layout: 0H, 0M, 3(+3)L; Fittings: 3(+2) PWG, 1 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 48000(+42375) / 22000(+750) / 65000(-35000) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time / warp speed): 80 / 0.0625 / 820,000,000 / 97.69s / 1.37 Cargo Capacity: 435000(-285000)m3
Is it me or do these align times seem off? And by off I mean really long. Almost two minutes to align in a Charon with no skills? That can't be right... |
Victoria Sin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
630
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:08:00 -
[1848] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Victoria Sin wrote:Dramaticus wrote:Null is mostly empty because of most of the space is inherently **** Provi is mostly populated and its the shittest space in the whole of Eve. It's not the space that's the problem, it's the blue dohnut, the renting concept and the unenlightened blue-dohnut attitude towards other players who "aren't one of us" that's the problem. No, its the space. Most of our space is near worthless, hence our not bothering with investing in it
Ok, you're trolling. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
10386
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:09:00 -
[1849] - Quote
Myst Valkyria wrote: Is it me or do these align times seem off? And by off I mean really long. Almost two minutes to align in a Charon with no skills? That can't be right...
The listed align times are with no skills applying. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Marcus Iunius Brutus
NerdRage Inc.
40
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:09:00 -
[1850] - Quote
Single-crystal Superalloy I-beam price crash in 3... 2... 1... People with buy orders at 1M ISK that are at work now probably cry. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22106
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:11:00 -
[1851] - Quote
Myst Valkyria wrote:Is it me or do these align times seem off? And by off I mean really long. Almost two minutes to align in a Charon with no skills? That can't be right... No, it's about right. What you have to remember is that align times decrease pretty much linearly with agility bonuses, and by the time you get into freighters (and especially JFs), you've accumulated a lot of agility bonuses.
For freighters, you can pretty much cut them in half by default due to the skill prereqs and sensible training levels and how those skills also affect alignment; for JFs, you'll get just over one third. 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. |
Zakarumit CZ
Zakarum Industries Exiliar Syndicate
183
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:12:00 -
[1852] - Quote
Those changes look very interesting. Looking forward to fly those fittable monsters |
Myst Valkyria
Red Frog Freight Red-Frog
13
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:12:00 -
[1853] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Myst Valkyria wrote: Is it me or do these align times seem off? And by off I mean really long. Almost two minutes to align in a Charon with no skills? That can't be right...
The listed align times are with no skills applying.
I understand that, but the current align time is for example a Fenrir is 71 seconds with no skills, implants, etc. In your post it's 97.69s. Is that intentional? |
Mario Putzo
Welping and Dunking.
914
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:12:00 -
[1854] - Quote
Should have stuck with rig slots. |
Arthur Aihaken
Erebus Solia
3612
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:14:00 -
[1855] - Quote
1. With this change, are hyperspacial rigs still going to be stacking penalized going forward? 2. Instead of a special role bonus, why not just remove the CPU requirements for reinforced bulkheads? 3. What about the addition of a single rig slot in addition to the 3 low slots? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6435
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:15:00 -
[1856] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:1. With this change, are hyperspacial rigs still going to be stacking penalized going forward? 2. Instead of a special role bonus, why not just remove the CPU requirements for reinforced bulkheads? 3. What about the addition of a single rig slot in addition to the 3 low slots?
I can answer number 2 for you straight away.
The Orca. That's why. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Chris Thiesere
IonTek LLC
10
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:15:00 -
[1857] - Quote
This is soo much better than the rigs |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22106
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:19:00 -
[1858] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:1. With this change, are hyperspacial rigs still going to be stacking penalized going forward? 2. Instead of a special role bonus, why not just remove the CPU requirements for reinforced bulkheads? 3. What about the addition of a single rig slot in addition to the 3 low slots? I can answer number 2 for you straight away. The Orca. That's why. The Orca doesn't particularly care about the CPU requirement for bulkheads. Its only real fitting restriction is the grid required for an MWD.
Victoria Sin wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Pricetag is not a balancing factor, and you don't get immunity in EVE.
Yes, clearly it is. T2 is more expensive than T1. T3 is more expensive than T2. Your expensive Super has a lot of HP and ewar immunity, etc. etc. Wrong way around. Price is not a balacing factor GÇö it's a balancing product. What this means is that you can't counterbalance overp-erforming items by giving them a price tag. People will just eat the price and go with the bigger effect. Conversely, no matter how cheap, people won't use crap items.
So rather than trying to make price +ù performance = total package, you set a price on a separate sliding scale that exists in parallel with the sliding scale of performance. 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. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
10392
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:19:00 -
[1859] - Quote
Myst Valkyria wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Myst Valkyria wrote: Is it me or do these align times seem off? And by off I mean really long. Almost two minutes to align in a Charon with no skills? That can't be right...
The listed align times are with no skills applying. I understand that, but the current align time is for example a Fenrir is 71 seconds with no skills, implants, etc. In your post it's 97.69s. Is that intentional?
You're correct, it was a mistake I made when typing the post. Should be fixed now. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
130
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:19:00 -
[1860] - Quote
With the updated changes, I do not hate this. I actually am in support of it. Have my 1 - 2% increased Rhea cargo going out, 3 x inertia stabs when coming back through high-sec (from experience, you never has as much stuff coming back as you do going out). This also saves me a good 3 - 4B as I will not have to replace my High Grade Ascendancy implants with High Grade Nomads. I take back all the hate I gave you so far in this thread Fozzie . |
|
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
461
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:20:00 -
[1861] - Quote
I like the new plan.
I particularly like the part where it allows every freighter pilot to access the full extent of the new functionality at only modest cost. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
529
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:20:00 -
[1862] - Quote
Cool. The stats are still only able to achieve a compensation instead of an improvement over the current state; however, the compensation is not ridiculously expensive anymore. I can at least live a bit better with that. |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
461
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:22:00 -
[1863] - Quote
Allison A'vani wrote:This also saves me a good 3 - 4B as I will not have to replace my High Grade Ascendancy implants with High Grade Nomads. I think those High Grade Nomads would have cost you a lot more than 3-4B.
|
Alexis Nightwish
State War Academy Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:22:00 -
[1864] - Quote
Tyr Dolorem wrote:A step in the right direction, but i feel that the charon and fenrir are at a disadvantage considering that a large amount of ehp has been moved to shields without the ability to fit shield tanking modules. Still disappointed with agility nerf on jump freighters. I agree to a point, but the Charon can hold the most, and the Fenrir has the lowest mass, so I think this provides some balance against the tankiness of the other two. I much prefer options in ship choice to homogenization of the hulls. |
Scorpio DK
FireStar Inc Evictus.
2
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:23:00 -
[1865] - Quote
when will the changes be on sisi ?
if they are not already not at home so cant check right now |
Missss Deathwhisper
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
2
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:24:00 -
[1866] - 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%.
Why does Freigthers with Expanded Cargoholds gain a huge boost to cargo while Jump Freigthers with Expanded Cargoholds gain almost nothing? |
Myst Valkyria
Red Frog Freight Red-Frog
13
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:24:00 -
[1867] - Quote
Also, I think that the 3 low slots gives us a lot more flexibility and potential. Thank you for not digging your heals in with the rigs!
I'd personally like to see a bonus to fitting a Tech 2 Damage Control Unit for the freighters and jump freighters. It would really help with mitigations, especially in the hull. It would give us more choice in fitting the freighters.
Another thing that I think would be good for JFs is the ability to cloak in between jumps (for trips that that require more then one jump). Perhaps there could be a special low slot module that could be equipped for them. |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
130
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:24:00 -
[1868] - Quote
Bad Bobby wrote:Allison A'vani wrote:This also saves me a good 3 - 4B as I will not have to replace my High Grade Ascendancy implants with High Grade Nomads. I think those High Grade Nomads would have cost you a lot more than 3-4B.
Probably, I was using per-speculation costs. |
Midori Tsu
Evolution Northern Coalition.
133
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:24:00 -
[1869] - Quote
How will jump freighters be able to fit CPRs? they won't seem to have enough cpu for it... |
Marcus Gord
Stormcrows
53148
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:24:00 -
[1870] - Quote
looks better, i'll have to wait till i'm home and can check some numbers to pass judgement though. only an hour left.... You can't take the sky from me
".....Storm'd at with shot and shell, Boldly they rode and well....." |
|
Arthur Aihaken
Erebus Solia
3612
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:24:00 -
[1871] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:You're correct, it was a mistake I made when typing the post. Should be fixed now. Any chance you might be able to comment on any stacking penalties with the new warp speed enhancement modules - either with each other or with respect to the hyperspacial rigs? And whether or not hyperspacial rigs will be stacking penalized going forward in Kronos. Thanks. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Jarnis McPieksu
494
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:24:00 -
[1872] - Quote
Solstice Project wrote:Obviously, any market changes occurring between CSM evaluation and public release are completely coincidental.
SISI already had a version of the client earlier today where Jump Freighters no longer had rigs and suddenly had a "100% reduction in CPU requirements for reinforced bulkheads". No lowslots either but the fact that they had this bizzarro-bonus...
Some made the speculative call that this pointed towards lowslot-based design and reacted.
I waited for the official word and paid ~0.5 bil for that but it is okay... |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
130
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:25:00 -
[1873] - Quote
Missss Deathwhisper wrote: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%.
Why does Freigthers with Expanded Cargoholds gain a huge boost to cargo while Jump Freigthers with Expanded Cargoholds gain almost nothing?
Due to the Jump Drive, I think fozzie is reluctant to let them get any significant buff. |
Rainbow Eyes
Sora no Otoshimano
6
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:25:00 -
[1874] - Quote
Are you serious? Then you have to give, instead of the low slots for the average Caldari/Minmatar or they will not demand, given the fact that there will be less protected from gank in higsec. You realy must give med slots modules for warp speed and cargo bay or it was imbalance between armor/shield tank. I think idea with rigs was a better. |
Dav Varan
Spiritus Draconis Drunk 'n' Disorderly
178
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:25:00 -
[1875] - Quote
Now that youv'e crossed the Rubicon.
How about real fittings to add gameplay in addition to crossin gfingers to freighter piloting.
|
Trespasser
S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS.
34
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:25:00 -
[1876] - Quote
if your going to give them low slots, then revert your HP changes and allow them to fit a damage control.
if someone wants to fit a Damage control and 2 bulkheads in the lows, they lose alot of space but they gain alot of survivability. This seems like a fair trade off to me. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
10396
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:25:00 -
[1877] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:In Kronos we are also adding a new set of low-slot warp speed enhancing modules that can be obtained through low-sec exploration. These modules will increase warp speed by a flat addition of 0.2, 0.25 or 0.3 au/s each. We expect that these will be popular modules for use on Freighters. 1. Are these stacking penalized with each other and/or stacking penalized with hyperspacial rigs? 2. Are the three variants T1, T2 and Faction - or something else?
More information about these modules can be found here. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Dave Stark
5959
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:26:00 -
[1878] - Quote
Trespasser wrote:if your going to give them low slots, then revert your HP changes and allow them to fit a damage control.
if someone wants to fit a Damage control and 2 bulkheads in the lows, they lose alot of space but they gain alot of survivability. This seems like a fair trade off to me.
no, because that just results in a really obscene hp nerf to everyone else. |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
130
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:29:00 -
[1879] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:In Kronos we are also adding a new set of low-slot warp speed enhancing modules that can be obtained through low-sec exploration. These modules will increase warp speed by a flat addition of 0.2, 0.25 or 0.3 au/s each. We expect that these will be popular modules for use on Freighters. 1. Are these stacking penalized with each other and/or stacking penalized with hyperspacial rigs? 2. Are the three variants T1, T2 and Faction - or something else? More information about these modules can be found here.
Is there any chance that we may see faction / dead-space expanded cargoholds and Inertia Stabs in the future? I am pretty sure that with these changes there will be a significant demand for them if they were added to the game. |
Victoria Sin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
632
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:30:00 -
[1880] - Quote
Dramaticus wrote: To survive in 0.0 you need two things. Supercaps(or friends with supercaps) and most importantly, logistics. Logistics into Providence is hella easy whereas someone living in Omist should just shoot themselves
That's true but again it's not beyond the wit of a large organisation to make it easier. But anyway CCP have decided to make it even worse by dumping on Jump Freighters and fuel.
|
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
10396
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:30:00 -
[1881] - Quote
Allison A'vani wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:In Kronos we are also adding a new set of low-slot warp speed enhancing modules that can be obtained through low-sec exploration. These modules will increase warp speed by a flat addition of 0.2, 0.25 or 0.3 au/s each. We expect that these will be popular modules for use on Freighters. 1. Are these stacking penalized with each other and/or stacking penalized with hyperspacial rigs? 2. Are the three variants T1, T2 and Faction - or something else? More information about these modules can be found here. Is there any chance that we may see faction / dead-space expanded cargoholds and Inertia Stabs in the future? I am pretty sure that with these changes there will be a significant demand for them if they were added to the game.
I won't rule it out. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6437
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:31:00 -
[1882] - Quote
Victoria Sin wrote:Dramaticus wrote: To survive in 0.0 you need two things. Supercaps(or friends with supercaps) and most importantly, logistics. Logistics into Providence is hella easy whereas someone living in Omist should just shoot themselves
That's true but again it's not beyond the wit of a large organisation to make it easier. But anyway CCP have decided to make it even worse by dumping on Jump Freighters and fuel.
Yeah, because they're really overpowered at present. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
461
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:32:00 -
[1883] - Quote
Allison A'vani wrote:Bad Bobby wrote:Allison A'vani wrote:This also saves me a good 3 - 4B as I will not have to replace my High Grade Ascendancy implants with High Grade Nomads. I think those High Grade Nomads would have cost you a lot more than 3-4B. Probably, I was using pre-speculation costs. Market speculation on high grade nomads would be pretty difficult to achieve. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
646
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:33:00 -
[1884] - Quote
will the new jump fuel modules be limited to jump freighters only? |
Victoria Sin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
632
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:33:00 -
[1885] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote: What you want is a Jump Freighter to not be able to die to catalysts, you said it yourself. You think it's unfair because catalysts are cheaper. You're wrong, what you want is for you to never die because your ship is more expensive. Not only is your cowardice disgusting and your entitlement repulsive, but it's also contrary to any concept of ship balance and one of the most harmful things possible to new players.
You can try to muddle the issue, but you will fail.
No, no Goonie, I didn't say I didn't want a load of catalysts to be able to kill my Jump Freighter. I definitely did not say that. If I remember correctly and I could be wrong because I wrote it ages ago (like 10 minutes or something) and that's a very long time, was that this 6 billion isk ship should have much better defensive capabilities than it does at present and that it should not die to a relatively small number of very low skilled Goon alts in Catalysts, hence fitting a DCII is not unreasonable.
I think if you read back that is in fact what I said. And you do realise that when you talk about "new players" what you mean is the brand new high-sec ganking alt some bitter-vet just spawned, don't you?
Terrible. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22107
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:34:00 -
[1886] - Quote
Holy hell, those base EHP valuesGǪ Yeah, gankers will really have to hope that people go hog wild with the expanders. 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. |
Arthur Aihaken
Erebus Solia
3612
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:34:00 -
[1887] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:More information about these modules can be found here. Appreciated, thanks. As for the stacking penalization for hyperspacial rigs in Kronos - is this proceeding? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Brothers of Tangra
24
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:36:00 -
[1888] - Quote
you have started in the first post the use of capacitor power relays on jf's when they don't have enough cpu to fit one T2 one, is there any reasoning behind this? |
Valterra Craven
247
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:36:00 -
[1889] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
I won't rule it out.
Have you ruled out a role bonus so that PDU's can be fitted so that shield based freighters can have at least one mod they can use to tank to put them on parity with armor based freighters?
Even a t2 PDU is only a little more than half what a t2 resistance plate does... I don't see how the cap recharge, or cap bonuses affect anything (might benefit armor ships too) and giving a ship with 3 grid a 15% bonus should still be just 3 grid with rounding. That only leaves shield regen and well I don't think that matters too much in any situation these ships would be under fire...
So that's +15% to shield HP (if you fit three) while the Layered Platting t2 can get armor up to 24%... |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
10400
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:37:00 -
[1890] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:More information about these modules can be found here. Appreciated, thanks. As for the stacking penalization for hyperspacial rigs in Kronos - is this proceeding?
Yes. If anything had changed we would have updated the appropriate thread. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
|
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
5304
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:37:00 -
[1891] - Quote
Tippia wrote:...gankers will really have to hope that people go hog wild with the expanders.
People almost always do.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6437
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:40:00 -
[1892] - Quote
Victoria Sin wrote: No, no Goonie, I didn't say I didn't want a load of catalysts to be able to kill my Jump Freighter. I definitely did not say that. If I remember correctly and I could be wrong because I wrote it ages ago (like 10 minutes or something) and that's a very long time, was that this 6 billion isk ship should have much better defensive capabilities than it does at present and that it should not die to a relatively small number of very low skilled Goon alts in Catalysts, hence fitting a DCII is not unreasonable.
I think if you read back that is in fact what I said. And you do realise that when you talk about "new players" what you mean is the brand new high-sec ganking alt some bitter-vet just spawned, don't you?
Terrible.
I love how you think I'm a Goon. It shows a lot of your mentality if you don't think it's possible anyone can disagree with you in honesty.
No, by the way. That non combat ship should not have better defenses, and you should not be immune to the actions of a whole bunch of people just because your ship costs more than their ships. Asking to double your tank for a 1 million isk module is not reasonable.
What you're asking for is to have new players handcuffed by pricetags just because your entitlement tells you that you should never have to die.
Pathetic. "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
1570
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:41:00 -
[1893] - Quote
just realised the amount of shield and armour tanks given and with the low slots naturally giving resistance options to the provi and obe, the fenrir is looking hard done to.
- add 2 CPU to resistance plating? - speed buff? capacity buff to obe level? - low slot shield mods that can only be fit to freighters? 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" |
Angelina Duvolle
Homeworld Technologies
37
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:42:00 -
[1894] - Quote
I've been pretty critical of the original changes, and to be honest did not believe they would be revised in this manner.
I appreciate Fozzie being willing to take a second look at this, and the CSM for working on it with him. Mynnna gets a gold star imho.
My biggest complaint was the cost restricting customization, and lack of useful rigs These changes do a good job of sorting those issues.
Fozzy; Are CPR cpu requirements going to be lowered? Any chance of a role reduction for pds's for the shield freighters?
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6437
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:42:00 -
[1895] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:just realised the amount of shield and armour tanks given and with the low slots naturally giving resistance options to the provi and obe, the fenrir is looking hard done to.
- add 2 CPU to resistance plating? - speed buff? capacity buff to obe level? - low slot shield mods that can only be fit to freighters?
I agree here. The Fenrir is the clear loser here, and the Providence the clear winner. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Valterra Craven
247
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:43:00 -
[1896] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote: - low slot shield mods that can only be fit to freighters?
PDU!!!!!! |
Stalence
Caldari Colonial Defense Ministry Templis CALSF
19
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:45:00 -
[1897] - Quote
I think the change from rigs to low slots are an incredibly positive one that actually allows for interesting gameplay rather than set-it and forget it for your most common use case.
My only caution is that this also sounds like it heavily favors the armor-based hulls over the shield-based hulls. I've seen some discussion already about this but haven't run any numbers myself. I just hope the issue doesn't get lost in the noise and that the final EHP are either relatively balanced or that less EHP results in some other gain like slightly more cargo space? |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1570
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:45:00 -
[1898] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote: - low slot shield mods that can only be fit to freighters?
PDU!!!!!!
if thats a power dag, then cpu may be a bit of an issue... 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" |
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
293
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:46:00 -
[1899] - Quote
Now, we're talking, Fozzie. |
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
13
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:48:00 -
[1900] - Quote
So after doing some more excel fun.... It looks pretty good. with 2 t2 expanded cargoholds and a t2 bulkhead you can get pretty sufficient cargo with a decent tank. My only real concern is what has been stated before with the slight imbalance given to the two armored ships vs shield tanks. I wouldn't expect them to be equal but given the set up i just listed for example the fenrir and charon are sitting in the 124 - 135 ehp while the providence is somewhere in the 165-180 ehp and the still tanky obelisk is in the 170 - 185 range. 40k ehp seems like a rather large gap especially when you consider this gap is only amplified after skills are taken into consideration.
Again let me reiterate before Tippia comes in throwing her DA card, not looking for them to be equal but at the current set up i see the price in provies and especially obe's going up. i mean have you seen the ehp of the new obe with 3 bulkheads??? 200 + ehp before even taking skills into account holy hell! |
|
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective
1172
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:48:00 -
[1901] - Quote
And this is why at the end of the day Fozzie is a hero :D Signature Tanking - Best Tanking. Beware the french guy!
|
Hiryu Jin
Enterprise Estonia Northern Coalition.
32
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:49:00 -
[1902] - Quote
Did you guys (ccp) get bored one day and decide to troll the **** out of everyone?
|
Jattila Vrek
Green Visstick High
12
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:49:00 -
[1903] - Quote
If the 0,3 AU/s warp speed accellerators are affordable (although I doubt it), then there will be little reason to fit an Inertial Stabilizer, except on very short warps. This module may also be usefull on an Orca. For subcaps this module is quite underwhelming. |
Cielle Tische
Who Armed the Carebears CAStabouts
6
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:49:00 -
[1904] - Quote
Mmmmmm... I actually liked the Rigs idea better, and for one specific reason.
I could live with spending a couple hundred mil to get my cargo back up to what it is now (and actually higher) at the expensive of armor. T1 Capital Cargo Rigs == 15% Cargo, -10(5)% armor. I could live with 160m for three of those
I'm not sure, however, if I can live with Cargo Expanders. T2 Expanded Cargohold == +27.5% Cargo, -20% Structure. That's just too much tank loss for something that relies on structure tank.
OBELISK - CURRENT Shield: 5,313 Armor: 22,500 Structure: 120,000 (RHP: 147,813) Cargo-Skillless: 750,000 Cargo-Skilled: 937,500
OBELISK - RIGGED (3x cargo) Shield: 14,000 Armor: 34,295 Structure: 110,000 (RHP: 158,295) Cargo-Skillless: 669,185.00 Cargo-Skilled: 836,481.25
OBELISK - LOWS (3x expanders) Shield: 14,000 Armor: 40,000 Structure: 56,320 (RHP: 110,320) Cargo: 911,975.625 Cargo-Skilled: 1,139,969.53125
OBELISK - LOWS (2x expander + 1x bulk) Shield: 14,000 Armor: 40,000 Structure: 88,000 (RHP: 142,000) Cargo: 715,275.00 Cargo-Skilled: 894,093.75
Now then on top of that... Bulkheads were mentioned as being changed to reduce cargo instead of velocity, which then moots the point of trying to use one to counter the expanders' penalty. (Calculations above using currently listed freighter changes and currently ingame modules). Basically what I'm saying is... I think certain things need to be taken into consideration before these changes are made final. As long as Bulkheads don't take out of cargo, I think it'll be fine, because people who want "as close to now" can just do the 2x expander 1x bulk method, but if it does, it'll end up cutting that down to 795,743.43 cargo, which is far substandard compared to now. Developer of www.eveidb.com - Relational EVE database! [Still under construction] |
Valterra Craven
247
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:50:00 -
[1905] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote: - low slot shield mods that can only be fit to freighters?
PDU!!!!!! if thats a power dag, then cpu may be a bit of an issue...
yes, which is why I'm arguing for a role bonus to cpu fitting just like they did with bulkheads! |
Digger Pollard
Why So Platypus
7
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:51:00 -
[1906] - Quote
So we still cannot have old capacity and EHP back, and it's still a nerf. But I guess it's a bit less of a nerf, at least concerning Jita-bound freighters, they can now be somewhat more resilient towards easymode ganking, while being fit for capacity in general use hauling away from gank systems. But in the meantime, Obelisk is useless for the latter and Charon is useless for the former, with Fenrir being untankable without losing his prized agility, the title of The Freighter goes from Obelisk to Providence.
P.S. If the bulkheads are really changed to take out cargo, then the nerf is too massive and I prefer staying unsubbed. |
Takanuro
Kill-Switch Engage
112
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:51:00 -
[1907] - Quote
Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:So after doing some more excel fun.... It looks pretty good. with 2 t2 expanded cargoholds and a t2 bulkhead you can get pretty sufficient cargo with a decent tank. My only real concern is what has been stated before with the slight imbalance given to the two armored ships vs shield tanks. I wouldn't expect them to be equal but given the set up i just listed for example the fenrir and charon are sitting in the 124 - 135 ehp while the providence is somewhere in the 165-180 ehp and the still tanky obelisk is in the 170 - 185 range. 40k ehp seems like a rather large gap especially when you consider this gap is only amplified after skills are taken into consideration.
Again let me reiterate before Tippia comes in throwing her DA card, not looking for them to be equal but at the current set up i see the price in provies and especially obe's going up. i mean have you seen the ehp of the new obe with 3 bulkheads??? 200 + ehp before even taking skills into account holy hell!
I was thinking the Providence with a couple of A-Type Adaptive Nano Platings would offer a pretty reasonable armor tank in future? I don't have the tools to theory craft it though. Yes, we're going to die, but you're coming with us!
|
Barbara Nichole
Cryogenic Consultancy
606
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:52:00 -
[1908] - Quote
Quote:GÇó The permanence of customizability that relies completely on rigs. not a real issue.
Quote:GÇó The relative lack of interesting choices for Jump Freighter pilots. yes, well I was hoping for some new cap rigs.
Quote:They will have very restrictive powergrid and cpu totals this is why I did not want slots. It's not completely bad.. but I am a little disappointed. Please do not use this change as an opportunity to leave freighters in a worse spot then they were before the change.. that's all I can ask at this point.
-á-á- remove the cloaked from local; free intel is the real problem, not-á "afk" cloaking-á-
[IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG] |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
2407
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:53:00 -
[1909] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Lara Divinity wrote:so basicly i have been training for a month for somthing that is now gonna get nerfed like hell n dont even feel like buyin nomore bcos of it There was a reason for you to invest in the skill books and start training, right? That reason will not go away with the patch. Whatever problem you were having that you thought you would need a freighter to solve, you'll still need a freighter to solve. Just keep plugging away at those skills GÇö the needs and solutions will remain the same as always.
This is so true. People will still be using freighters no matter what since they will still be the only class to move large amounts of material with some degree of protection/safety.
These changes may in fact help. If you are moving lots of expensive stuff, but not going to be filling up your cargo hold then you'll want to go for tank. If you are going to be moving lots of inexpensive stuff, then you may end up going for cargo space.
The cargo space nerf is, IMO, a weak argument. Nobody (with half a brain) fills up their obelisk with more than about 700 million in cargo anyways. Unless you are moving vast amounts of veldspar, you will rarely fill a freighter up. So taking even a big hit on the cargo space is not something most people will be crying over. Now having the ability to add more tank means you can move your stuff with even more safety/protection (although not 10%).
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence So Local Chat vanished, now what? |
Kaius Fero
46
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:55:00 -
[1910] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Victoria Sin wrote: No, no Goonie, I didn't say I didn't want a load of catalysts to be able to kill my Jump Freighter. I definitely did not say that. If I remember correctly and I could be wrong because I wrote it ages ago (like 10 minutes or something) and that's a very long time, was that this 6 billion isk ship should have much better defensive capabilities than it does at present and that it should not die to a relatively small number of very low skilled Goon alts in Catalysts, hence fitting a DCII is not unreasonable.
I think if you read back that is in fact what I said. And you do realise that when you talk about "new players" what you mean is the brand new high-sec ganking alt some bitter-vet just spawned, don't you?
Terrible.
I love how you think I'm a Goon. It shows a lot of your mentality if you don't think it's possible anyone can disagree with you in honesty. No, by the way. That non combat ship should not have better defenses, and you should not be immune to the actions of a whole bunch of people just because your ship costs more than their ships. Asking to double your tank for a 1 million isk module is not reasonable. What you're asking for is to have new players handcuffed by pricetags just because your entitlement tells you that you should never have to die. Pathetic. Fuk yeah, I like it! How about you and you buddies get down to Somalia, buy some cheap ass speed boats and start ganking those carebear american freighters? Then send us some selfie's from the captain cabin? Now that would be cool! And don't forget to send a GF in local! |
|
Midori Tsu
Evolution Northern Coalition.
133
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:58:00 -
[1911] - Quote
is it intended that the JFs won't be able to put on a single T2 CPR? |
Ammzi
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
1774
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:00:00 -
[1912] - Quote
Azami Nevinyrall wrote:Can you, at least on the JF....maybe on the Freighter....put a little more wiggle room with the CPU to fit a DCU?
At least on the JF, which is extremely expensive! It should have ALOT more tanking abilities then it's T1 counterpart. With it's already smaller cargohold, players will be deciding to pick Cargohold expanders...which reduce tank, as we already know. Or go full tank and loose precious cargo space.
It's a good balance!
No - not unless hull is going to be cut by 60 %. DC is way too overpowered on a freighter. You are already looking at very high ehp post kronos. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1571
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:00:00 -
[1913] - Quote
Azami Nevinyrall wrote:Can you, at least on the JF....maybe on the Freighter....put a little more wiggle room with the CPU to fit a DCU?
....
It's a good balance!
FFS. READ.
Xander Phoena wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Azami Nevinyrall wrote:Ok, these changes I'm happy with!
Now, can we get the CPU to 30 to put a DCU II on there? Then I'll happily buy one and use it alot! It was done this way to specifically avoid you being able to double your tank with one module. This. You aren't getting DCUs on a freighter. 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" |
Lyn Fel
Black Frog Logistics Red-Frog
55
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:02:00 -
[1914] - Quote
Just trained Astronautics Rigging IV on 6 characters... Can I has my SP back? |
Hiryu Jin
Enterprise Estonia Northern Coalition.
32
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:02:00 -
[1915] - Quote
so instead of a kick in the balls, we're supposed to be happy with a punch to face? |
Valterra Craven
247
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:03:00 -
[1916] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:You aren't getting DCUs on a freighter.
My kingdom for a PDU instead? |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6437
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:03:00 -
[1917] - Quote
Ammzi wrote:Azami Nevinyrall wrote:Can you, at least on the JF....maybe on the Freighter....put a little more wiggle room with the CPU to fit a DCU?
At least on the JF, which is extremely expensive! It should have ALOT more tanking abilities then it's T1 counterpart. With it's already smaller cargohold, players will be deciding to pick Cargohold expanders...which reduce tank, as we already know. Or go full tank and loose precious cargo space.
It's a good balance! No - not unless hull is going to be cut by 60 %. DC is way too overpowered on a freighter. You are already looking at very high ehp post kronos.
Well, unless you use cargo mods anyway.
Now the price to get your old cargo numbers back is a higher hitpoint loss than before, since cargo modules cost structure, where rigs cost armor. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3297
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:07:00 -
[1918] - Quote
Ncc 1709 wrote:you have started in the first post the use of capacitor power relays on jf's when they don't have enough cpu to fit one T2 one, is there any reasoning behind this?
The Meta 4 cap relay has a base CPU requirement of 3.
This is reduced by energy Grid upgrades to 2.25 (if you have it at 5. 25% reduction)
All the JF have a CPU of 5. Which is increased to 6.25 by CPU Management 5.
So you'll be able to fit 2, no problem.
And if you want to get fancy, take a look at the Type E CPR. Which has a CPU requirement of 1. Now, it's only a 10% bonus, but it'll neatly drop into that space. Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
5243
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:07:00 -
[1919] - Quote
Hiryu Jin wrote:so instead of a kick in the balls, we're supposed to be happy with a punch to face? Yes. The Paradox |
Azami Nevinyrall
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
1903
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:08:00 -
[1920] - Quote
Ammzi wrote:Azami Nevinyrall wrote:Can you, at least on the JF....maybe on the Freighter....put a little more wiggle room with the CPU to fit a DCU?
At least on the JF, which is extremely expensive! It should have ALOT more tanking abilities then it's T1 counterpart. With it's already smaller cargohold, players will be deciding to pick Cargohold expanders...which reduce tank, as we already know. Or go full tank and loose precious cargo space.
It's a good balance!
Ammzi wrote:No - not unless hull is going to be cut by 60% I never knew you were a Dev? (Only Devs can say no to something, not a player, get over yourself.)
Ammzi wrote:DC is way too overpowered on a freighter. You are already looking at very high ehp post kronos. I was reffering to the JF with a "Maybe" on the Freighter.
Simply because of the cost difference between the two ships and how easy it is to gank both of them.
I hope everyone voted in the CSM elections! Thank you to those who actually supported my campaign! Even if I don't get elected in, I hope that the CSM that do, and Devs actually use my ideas somewhere! |
|
Ammzi
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
1775
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:08:00 -
[1921] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Ammzi wrote:Azami Nevinyrall wrote:Can you, at least on the JF....maybe on the Freighter....put a little more wiggle room with the CPU to fit a DCU?
At least on the JF, which is extremely expensive! It should have ALOT more tanking abilities then it's T1 counterpart. With it's already smaller cargohold, players will be deciding to pick Cargohold expanders...which reduce tank, as we already know. Or go full tank and loose precious cargo space.
It's a good balance! No - not unless hull is going to be cut by 60 %. DC is way too overpowered on a freighter. You are already looking at very high ehp post kronos. Well, unless you use cargo mods anyway. Now the price to get your old cargo numbers back is a higher hitpoint loss than before, since cargo modules cost structure, where rigs cost armor.
So you'd like 1 DCU and 2 cargo expanders right? A magnificent one-touch double your EHP button and 800k cargo. Why would any freighter fit anything else?
Azami Nevinyrall wrote:Ammzi wrote:No - not unless hull is going to be cut by 60% I never knew you were a Dev? (Only Devs can say no to something, not a player, get over yourself.)
Really? I am just discussing with you, way to throw a tantrum. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6437
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:10:00 -
[1922] - Quote
Ammzi wrote: So you'd like 1 DCU and 2 cargo expanders right? A magnificent one-touch double your EHP button and 800k cargo. Why would any freighter fit anything else?
I've been vehemently arguing against giving freighters anymore CPU, because giving them a DCU would be rampantly overpowered. And I am rubbing my hands in glee thinking of the fools who will triple cargo rig these things and chop their hitpoints in half. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Dave Stark
5960
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:11:00 -
[1923] - Quote
Hiryu Jin wrote:so instead of a kick in the balls, we're supposed to be happy with a punch to face? by popular demand, no less. |
Silvetica Dian
Manson Family Advent of Fate
1045
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:12:00 -
[1924] - Quote
Victoria Sin wrote:Dramaticus wrote: To survive in 0.0 you need two things. Supercaps(or friends with supercaps) and most importantly, logistics. Logistics into Providence is hella easy whereas someone living in Omist should just shoot themselves
That's true but again it's not beyond the wit of a large organisation to make it easier. But anyway CCP have decided to make it even worse by dumping on Jump Freighters and fuel.
It ain't true. Been living in null for over a year and rarely see supercaps. Certainly don't need them. JF and carriers however are very helpful and i wish i could fly a carrier No matter how many supers the others get they will never capture our npc stations. Money at its root is a form of rationing. When the richest 85 people have as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion (50% of humanity) it is clear where the source of poverty is. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/20/trickle-down-economics-broken-promise-richest-85 |
Azami Nevinyrall
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
1903
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:12:00 -
[1925] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Ammzi wrote: So you'd like 1 DCU and 2 cargo expanders right? A magnificent one-touch double your EHP button and 800k cargo. Why would any freighter fit anything else?
I've been vehemently arguing against giving freighters anymore CPU, because giving them a DCU would be rampantly overpowered. And I am rubbing my hands in glee thinking of the fools who will triple cargo rig these things and chop their hitpoints in half. 99% of players will do this, just so they don't have to do as much runs....which means ganks will increase, and so will the tears! I hope everyone voted in the CSM elections! Thank you to those who actually supported my campaign! Even if I don't get elected in, I hope that the CSM that do, and Devs actually use my ideas somewhere! |
Gregor Parud
518
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:14:00 -
[1926] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Gregor Parud[ wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Then explain why Null was just as empty from 2005-2007 when power projection didn't exist. Valterra Craven wrote:Charts without proper interpretation are meaningless. You would need to compare the ratio of total players active at any given time to players that live primarily in null and then those that lived other places. I bet the ratios are the same now as they were then. Given that we have more subs and a much higher PCU while "it's just as empty at it was back then", as you put it, the logical conclusion is that it's not what you think/hope it is. Well like I said, I haven't been to 0.0 since 2008. I still bet with PROPER study the ratios would be nearly the same.
So what you're saying is "I made **** up, I haven't even seen it first hand AND I can't use and apply basic logic", duly noted.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22108
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:14:00 -
[1927] - Quote
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). 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. |
Kyt Thrace
Lightspeed Enterprises Fidelas Constans
430
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:14:00 -
[1928] - Quote
CCP best troll, I am just laughing at all the people that bought all that salvage to make T1 & T2 capital cargo rigs & now they are no longer needed. R.I.P. Vile Rat |
Ammzi
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
1775
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:15:00 -
[1929] - Quote
Azami Nevinyrall wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Ammzi wrote: So you'd like 1 DCU and 2 cargo expanders right? A magnificent one-touch double your EHP button and 800k cargo. Why would any freighter fit anything else?
I've been vehemently arguing against giving freighters anymore CPU, because giving them a DCU would be rampantly overpowered. And I am rubbing my hands in glee thinking of the fools who will triple cargo rig these things and chop their hitpoints in half. 99% of players will do this, just so they don't have to do as much runs....which means ganks will increase, and so will the tears!
There's no need to protect the ~lesser intelligent~ against their own mistakes. They will learn in time, and if they don't that's their problem. It's EVE afterall. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1571
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:15:00 -
[1930] - Quote
Azami Nevinyrall wrote:Ammzi wrote:No - not unless hull is going to be cut by 60% I never knew you were a Dev? (Only Devs can say no to something, not a player, get over yourself.)
and whos the pompous snout who thinks they're too good to take the feedback of their peers? 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" |
|
XxRTEKxX
That Escalated Quickly Nerfed Alliance Go Away
118
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:15:00 -
[1931] - Quote
This new change sounds much better than the last proposal. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
647
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:15:00 -
[1932] - Quote
Azami Nevinyrall wrote:Ammzi wrote:No - not unless hull is going to be cut by 60% I never knew you were a Dev? (Only Devs can say no to something, not a player, get over yourself.) This is a public thread for players to discuss amomngst others. Suck it up.
Azami Nevinyrall wrote:Ammzi wrote:DC is way too overpowered on a freighter. You are already looking at very high ehp post kronos. I was reffering to the JF with a "Maybe" on the Freighter. Simply because of the cost difference between the two ships and how easy it is to gank both of them. Thats a terrible reason why. More money does not necessarily mean more safety. You spend more money for the jump drive and a bit of extra tank. There is no reason to ask to almost double your HP on top of that. |
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
293
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:16:00 -
[1933] - Quote
Lyn Fel wrote:Just trained Astronautics Rigging IV on 6 characters... Can I has my SP back?
As soon as I get High Energy Physics IV sp refunded. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
647
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:19:00 -
[1934] - Quote
anyone know what the align speed on a fenrir with 3 inertia stabilizers is? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22110
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:22:00 -
[1935] - Quote
Rowells wrote:anyone know what the align speed on a fenrir with 3 inertia stabilizers is? ~21 seconds at all V. 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. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1571
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:23:00 -
[1936] - 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
looking at that. EHP could be nerfed a bit. triple cargo expanded freighters dont seem to suffer very much in the way of EHP 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" |
Marcus Gord
Stormcrows
53193
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:24:00 -
[1937] - 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
for providing those numbers of tank/vs cargo, i love you.
now i can see that i'm rather happy with these new, revised changes. You can't take the sky from me
".....Storm'd at with shot and shell, Boldly they rode and well....." |
iskflakes
915
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:25:00 -
[1938] - Quote
I liked the rig changes, but I like these changes more.
+1 - |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
10018
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:26:00 -
[1939] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:To help address the lack of interesting options for Jump Freighters, we are planning to introduce a set of jump fuel conservation modules in the Crius release in July. These modules will not be available in Kronos. Will these modules be made exclusive to jump freighters or will other caps be able to use them? "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
72
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:27:00 -
[1940] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone the Op has now been updated with a revised version of the design. As many of you were anticipating, we will be achieving the goal of customizability through low slots instead of rig slots. Big thanks to everyone who has provided reasoned feedback in the thread and special thanks to the CSM.
Let us know what you think!
No mid slot for a web? So now I can't have two freighters that can web each other from gate to gate? Great. Oh well, it'll have to do. LOL
I think this is a much more sensible solution. Limited mods provide actual flexibility.
Now everyone say, "Thank you Fozzie" |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22111
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:27:00 -
[1941] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:looking at that. EHP could be nerfed a bit. triple cargo expanded freighters dont seem to suffer very much in the way of EHP The thing is that they have almost universally gotten significant increases in non-hull tanking, on top of fairly small adjustments to account for bulkheads. And yes, some of those changes could (and should) probably be dialled back a bit. 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. |
Chase Paladin
Zan Industries ZADA ALLIANCE
6
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:29:00 -
[1942] - Quote
Better than before but still resembles Taint
... the slow blade penetrates the shield... but look down. We'd have joined each other in death. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6438
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:30:00 -
[1943] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:looking at that. EHP could be nerfed a bit. triple cargo expanded freighters dont seem to suffer very much in the way of EHP The thing is that they have almost universally gotten significant increases in non-hull tanking, on top of fairly small adjustments to account for bulkheads. And yes, some of those changes could (and should) probably be dialled back a bit.
I agree. The armor and shield buffs need to be scaled back. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
122
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:30:00 -
[1944] - Quote
Awesome job CCP Fozzie, thanks for listening :)
It's not uber-expensive, and I can change my freighter each trip to suit the situation.. Tank, Cargo, or speed :) |
Grarr Dexx
Snuff Box
418
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:31:00 -
[1945] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:I want to take this opportunity to remind people that pre-patch market speculation is never guaranteed and CCP takes no responsibility for any isk lost from speculation.
Learned my lesson after training High Energy Physics 4. |
Ammzi
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
1777
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:31:00 -
[1946] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:looking at that. EHP could be nerfed a bit. triple cargo expanded freighters dont seem to suffer very much in the way of EHP The thing is that they have almost universally gotten significant increases in non-hull tanking, on top of fairly small adjustments to account for bulkheads. And yes, some of those changes could (and should) probably be dialled back a bit.
The base ehp is so ridiculously higher in Kronos. I mean a vanilla kronos fenrir is gonna be able to tank more than a TQ obelisk.
That's a bit worrying. |
Aerissa Nolen
XYJAX
29
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:33:00 -
[1947] - Quote
http://xyjax.com/optimizer_kronos/
Has been updated to replace rigs with cargo expander mods and the new base stats. Other mods to come "soon" as I get a chance to tinker. Wrap your brain around Kronos freighter changes: http://xyjax.com/optimizer_kronos/ |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22111
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:36:00 -
[1948] - Quote
Ammzi wrote:Tippia wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:looking at that. EHP could be nerfed a bit. triple cargo expanded freighters dont seem to suffer very much in the way of EHP The thing is that they have almost universally gotten significant increases in non-hull tanking, on top of fairly small adjustments to account for bulkheads. And yes, some of those changes could (and should) probably be dialled back a bit. The base ehp is so ridiculously higher in Kronos. I mean a vanilla kronos fenrir is gonna be able to tank more than a TQ obelisk. That's a bit worrying. I'm hoping that I've gotten some of the resists wrong, so I'm double-checking those right nowGǪ 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. |
KIller Wabbit
The Scope Gallente Federation
580
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:38:00 -
[1949] - Quote
Say bye-bye small null corps.
I'll check back in a couple of years to see if CCP has stopped doing boneheaded things. CCP Punkturis-á "I want to get in on the goodposter circle jerk!"
|
na'Vi Ronuken
Louis Nothing And Nobody
11
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:39:00 -
[1950] - Quote
i'm going to fit a dmg control and be 100% UNGANKABLE. |
|
Azami Nevinyrall
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
1905
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:39:00 -
[1951] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:Azami Nevinyrall wrote:Ok, these changes I'm happy with!
Now, can we get the CPU to 30 to put a DCU II on there? Then I'll happily buy one and use it alot! No, you get no DCU and you'll live with it because the tradeoff would be to nerf the structure into the ground. And if you need a freighter to get the job done, you'll be happily buying one anyway. Or I'll continue using my tanked Orca like I've been doing for the past 3 years...
I don't mind making extra trips if it means my product has a higher chance of actually making it to market and not in a killmail... I hope everyone voted in the CSM elections! Thank you to those who actually supported my campaign! Even if I don't get elected in, I hope that the CSM that do, and Devs actually use my ideas somewhere! |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6440
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:40:00 -
[1952] - Quote
Azami Nevinyrall wrote:Dirk MacGirk wrote:Azami Nevinyrall wrote:Ok, these changes I'm happy with!
Now, can we get the CPU to 30 to put a DCU II on there? Then I'll happily buy one and use it alot! No, you get no DCU and you'll live with it because the tradeoff would be to nerf the structure into the ground. And if you need a freighter to get the job done, you'll be happily buying one anyway. Or I'll continue using my tanked Orca like I've been doing for the past 3 years... I don't mind making extra trips if it means my product has a higher chance of actually making it to market and not in a killmail...
Has the concept of "you don't have to fill the cargohold" ever occurred to you? "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3297
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:40:00 -
[1953] - Quote
Worried about your jump freighter? Send it along with a battlecruiser providing armor or shield resist boosts. Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Luscius Uta
86
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:40:00 -
[1954] - Quote
Low slots are so much better than rigs, since they actually give Freighters viable customization options, and without increasing their price drastically.
I'm still a bit unsatisfied with inability to fit a Damage Control though, as it's obvious that CCP wanted to please Freighter gankers with that one. Remember it's an active module, so it won't save people from ganks if they autopilot their Freighters. However this is still somewhat countered with massive boosts to Shield and Armour Hitpoints, as Freighters will now actually have a chance to be saved from ganks if they have are being escorted by Logi or two. Can't wait the next Burn Jita to see how it'll turn out! Highsec is for casuals. |
Dave Stark
5960
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:40:00 -
[1955] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Worried about your jump freighter? Send it along with a battlecruiser providing armor or shield resist boosts. which battlecruiser has a jump drive? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22114
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:41:00 -
[1956] - Quote
Azami Nevinyrall wrote:Or I'll continue using my tanked Orca like I've been doing for the past 3 years...
I don't mind making extra trips if it means my product has a higher chance of actually making it to market and not in a killmail... Providence: 350k EHP + 383k m-¦ Ark: 577k EHP(!) + 118k m-¦
Any of these strike your fancy? 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. |
Retar Aveymone
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
379
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:41:00 -
[1957] - Quote
KIller Wabbit wrote:Say bye-bye small null corps.
I'll check back in a couple of years to see if CCP has stopped doing boneheaded things. im curious, what part of small null corps do you (with your expensive npc corp experience) think is hurt by this? they can now get back to old performance for like 3m isk, and can buy mods to decrease fuel use when unloaded or not completely full
sounds great |
Azami Nevinyrall
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
1905
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:42:00 -
[1958] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Azami Nevinyrall wrote:Dirk MacGirk wrote:Azami Nevinyrall wrote:Ok, these changes I'm happy with!
Now, can we get the CPU to 30 to put a DCU II on there? Then I'll happily buy one and use it alot! No, you get no DCU and you'll live with it because the tradeoff would be to nerf the structure into the ground. And if you need a freighter to get the job done, you'll be happily buying one anyway. Or I'll continue using my tanked Orca like I've been doing for the past 3 years... I don't mind making extra trips if it means my product has a higher chance of actually making it to market and not in a killmail... Has the concept of "you don't have to fill the cargohold" ever occurred to you? I don't even fill my Orca...
I'd like to know where you got the intel that said I do... I hope everyone voted in the CSM elections! Thank you to those who actually supported my campaign! Even if I don't get elected in, I hope that the CSM that do, and Devs actually use my ideas somewhere! |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
641
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:42:00 -
[1959] - Quote
The new changes sound like a good replacement for rigs, especially for Jump Freighters. Good looking out.
Regarding the gulf between Kronos and Crius and the lack of options for Jump Freighters, in reality, there's actually a reason to fit warp speed lowslots for a Jump Freighter. When you're doing runs between lowsec and highsec, warp speed matters a lot now. Ever since Rubicon, the speed at which you can do these trips is constrained heavily by warp speed. My logistics route's lowsec / highsec border has distances such that I can only get three jumps per cyno, and that is only if I am paying attention and do not miss a single action or session timer. With warp speed lowslots, I can fit for those when I'm making my (empty) run back to highsec and save some time.
This was technically possible in the rig slot scenario by fitting warp speed rigs, but it would not have been compelling enough to do in place of cargo rigs, given the expense of capital rigs and the inability to remove rigs without destroying them. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Nex Killer
Drunk3n Industry
64
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:43:00 -
[1960] - Quote
Fozzie can you still look into lower the amount of Capital Cargo Bays needed to build a freighter because they're losing so much of their base cargo. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22114
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:43:00 -
[1961] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Worried about your jump freighter? Send it along with a battlecruiser providing armor or shield resist boosts. No, I'm frankly worried about the exact opposite. The tank they can provide right out the gate right now is a bit sillyGǪ 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. |
Aerissa Nolen
XYJAX
29
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:44:00 -
[1962] - Quote
Can CCP confirm that it is intentional for Providence and Fenrir to now have the same base cargo capacity? Wrap your brain around Kronos freighter changes: http://xyjax.com/optimizer_kronos/ |
Azami Nevinyrall
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
1905
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:44:00 -
[1963] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Azami Nevinyrall wrote:Or I'll continue using my tanked Orca like I've been doing for the past 3 years...
I don't mind making extra trips if it means my product has a higher chance of actually making it to market and not in a killmail... 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... I hope everyone voted in the CSM elections! Thank you to those who actually supported my campaign! Even if I don't get elected in, I hope that the CSM that do, and Devs actually use my ideas somewhere! |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
641
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:44:00 -
[1964] - Quote
KIller Wabbit wrote:Say bye-bye small null corps.
I'll check back in a couple of years to see if CCP has stopped doing boneheaded things. I am genuinely interested in the cognitive dissonance that has generated this conclusion. Lowslots on freighters and JFs kills small null corps? This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
72
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:44:00 -
[1965] - Quote
Gregor Parud wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Gregor Parud wrote: Power projection is what creates massive coalitions resulting in boring, stagnant gameplay and empty space. Just because there's *some* stuff happening doesn't mean it's not a borefest. If you can't understand this then I don't know what to tell you.
No, power projection has nothing to do with empty space. Null was just as empty before power projection existed and it will be just as empty if it doesn't exist. Of course it does, power projection in all its forms is the exact reason why it's mostly empty.
You need to get a grip on the 0.0 sock puppet stuff and your bad information related to force projection and why space is empty. Worthless space is worthless. Can't help that there is so much of it in between areas of usefulness. But also, what you see as empty, isn't in fact empty. I'm quite certain there is a POS there quietly milking some vital moon. The poor workers inside that POS don't take kindly to you overlooking their contribution to the nullsec war chest. But maybe if you say 0.0 and force projection and bad a few more times, you may make yourself right. |
Dave Stark
5960
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:45:00 -
[1966] - Quote
Azami Nevinyrall wrote:I don't even fill my Orca...
I'd like to know where you got the intel that said I do... so you have no need for a freighter, that means these changes won't worry you in the slightest. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22114
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:45:00 -
[1967] - Quote
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! 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. |
Azami Nevinyrall
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
1905
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:47:00 -
[1968] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Azami Nevinyrall wrote:I don't even fill my Orca...
I'd like to know where you got the intel that said I do... so you have no need for a freighter, that means these changes won't worry you in the slightest.
If I get a higher tank, then I'll have a need for one!
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! Sensible?
**** that!
Paranoid is more the word I'm thinking of! I hope everyone voted in the CSM elections! Thank you to those who actually supported my campaign! Even if I don't get elected in, I hope that the CSM that do, and Devs actually use my ideas somewhere! |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
72
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:48:00 -
[1969] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Azami Nevinyrall wrote:Dirk MacGirk wrote:Azami Nevinyrall wrote:Ok, these changes I'm happy with!
Now, can we get the CPU to 30 to put a DCU II on there? Then I'll happily buy one and use it alot! No, you get no DCU and you'll live with it because the tradeoff would be to nerf the structure into the ground. And if you need a freighter to get the job done, you'll be happily buying one anyway. Or I'll continue using my tanked Orca like I've been doing for the past 3 years... I don't mind making extra trips if it means my product has a higher chance of actually making it to market and not in a killmail... Has the concept of "you don't have to fill the cargohold" ever occurred to you?
It never occurs to them. That is what is great for the gankers with this change. Significantly increase the cargo capacity and more people will put even more value into their ships. For the rest of us, we'll use the best option for the task at hand.
Like I said, if he really needed a freighter to haul loads that will only fit in a freighter, he would have done so regardless of the changes. Orcas can't move everything. Different ships for different needs. |
Claudine va Tefairevoir
Pangalactic Frontline Supply Agency
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:50:00 -
[1970] - Quote
675kEHP on an Anshar with 3 bulkheads ?
That doubles the amount of value that can be hauled through Hi-Sec with an acceptable risk. Besides Ore and Minerals the tanking abilities have always been the limiting factor to hauling, not the cargohold.
Though I will personally benefit from the changes, I do not like them - no ship should ever be that close to ungankable as the JF are after these changes. |
|
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
647
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:50:00 -
[1971] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Worried about your jump freighter? Send it along with a battlecruiser providing armor or shield resist boosts. which battlecruiser has a jump drive? apparently some people actually fly through gates with their jf
surprising, i know |
Axe Coldon
Coldon Enterprises Axion Bionics
41
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:50:00 -
[1972] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Worried about your jump freighter? Send it along with a battlecruiser providing armor or shield resist boosts.
Should we be worried a CSM member thinks BC's can jump..or does he know something we don't know.
You can escort a JF with a carrier though. And it is done occasionally. |
Grarr Dexx
Snuff Box
418
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:51:00 -
[1973] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Worried about your jump freighter? Send it along with a battlecruiser providing armor or shield resist boosts. which battlecruiser has a jump drive?
which jf gets shot at after jumping? |
Celly S
Concord Attraction Services The Ditanian Alliance
270
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:52:00 -
[1974] - Quote
Kat Ayclism wrote:These changes are ******* stupid. Can you stop just changing things to change things? It does not validate your work to be screwing up the things that are right when there's other ships that actually need the rebalancing efforts.
Also, again these changes are at cross odds with the supposed intent to make localized production more possible in null- YOU STILL WILL ALWAYS HAVE TO IMPORT/EXPORT.
So your solution? LOL EVERYTHING USES MORE FUEL AND ALL THE JFS CAN HOLD LESS AND ARE LESS AGILE
Stop swinging around like a 5yo in the dark with a baseball bat. This isn't quality balancing, it's dogshit
They are doing it to make most of them more vulnerable (depending on how the pilot fits the ship) and create moar pew-pew and even stated as much in the OP when they said (about JFs) "and their near complete safety when used optimally" there are so many things in these upcoming releases that just make players be forced to put more and more assets in harm's way.
not to say that to a point that isn't a good thing, but beyond that point it becomes burdensome on everyone.
just my take on it.
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. |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
816
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:53:00 -
[1975] - Quote
why is the fenrir so much faster and mobile than the other 3? especially since gallente are meant to be the most agile Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Dave Stark
5961
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:54:00 -
[1976] - Quote
Grarr Dexx wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Worried about your jump freighter? Send it along with a battlecruiser providing armor or shield resist boosts. which battlecruiser has a jump drive? which jf gets shot at after jumping? the one that left his battlecruiser behind, i guess? |
Warr Akini
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
114
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:55:00 -
[1977] - Quote
Celly S wrote:They are doing it to make most of them more vulnerable (depending on how the pilot fits the ship) and create moar pew-pew and even stated as much in the OP when they said (about JFs) "and their near complete safety when used optimally"
Again, "vulnerable" is a relative term. Your "best" downside is 3% loss of EHP and your worst is only 20%, where you stand to gain 75% in EHP. As mentioned above, a 675K EHP ship in highsec is just about ludicrous.
|
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
647
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:55:00 -
[1978] - Quote
I really want a jf now. I doubt ill use it often but i want it.
Maybe use it as bait or something. |
Wulfy Johnson
NorCorp Security
43
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:55:00 -
[1979] - Quote
Thanks Fozzie for weeding trough this trolltread and seeing the low slot lobbying, and thanx to Mynna for providing numbers that made sense.
That said, some base stats of the different factions could use some tweaking towards better balance as there is gaps that favours one.
(P.S., a little more tweaking and we could have full out fittings on these ships. Charon is how i'd picture an actual warmachine in space to look like.) |
Dave Stark
5961
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:55:00 -
[1980] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:why is the fenrir so much faster and mobile than the other 3? especially since gallente are meant to be the most agile because it's the minmatar that are meant to be the most agile... |
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1571
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:55:00 -
[1981] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:why is the fenrir so much faster and mobile than the other 3? especially since gallente are meant to be the most agile
its the only redeeming feature of the fenrir. if anything, it could get some more agility and speed. 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" |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
10018
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:56:00 -
[1982] - Quote
Nex Killer wrote:Fozzie can you still look into lower the amount of Capital Cargo Bays needed to build a freighter because they're losing so much of their base cargo. Traditionally lowering build costs has always, always been a Bad IdeaGäó because of patch speculation, market manip, etc.
This may not be the case coming up due to the loss of perfect reprocessing but still I doubt they will do so. I don't see why they should. "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
Dave Stark
5961
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:56:00 -
[1983] - Quote
Azami Nevinyrall wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Azami Nevinyrall wrote:I don't even fill my Orca...
I'd like to know where you got the intel that said I do... so you have no need for a freighter, that means these changes won't worry you in the slightest. If I get a higher tank, then I'll have a need for one! then you should have been flying a JF for a long time. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
10448
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:02:00 -
[1984] - Quote
Aerissa Nolen wrote:Can CCP confirm that it is intentional for Providence and Fenrir to now have the same base cargo capacity?
This is intentional, yes. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
74
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:02:00 -
[1985] - Quote
Grarr Dexx wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Worried about your jump freighter? Send it along with a battlecruiser providing armor or shield resist boosts. which battlecruiser has a jump drive? which jf gets shot at after jumping?
The dumb ones, but they exist.
I'm pretty sure he was referencing those going gate to gate in hisec., which also happens and isn't dumb. Faster align, more tank, etc. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3298
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:02:00 -
[1986] - Quote
Axe Coldon wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Worried about your jump freighter? Send it along with a battlecruiser providing armor or shield resist boosts. Should we be worried a CSM member thinks BC's can jump..or does he know something we don't know. You can escort a JF with a carrier though. And it is done occasionally.
Actually, I was thinking for the event where jump freighters are most vulnerable. Going gate to gate in highsec. Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6442
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:03:00 -
[1987] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Aerissa Nolen wrote:Can CCP confirm that it is intentional for Providence and Fenrir to now have the same base cargo capacity? This is intentional, yes.
How did you guys arrive at the numbers for the shield and armor increases?
They seem a fair bit high to me. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
423
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:05:00 -
[1988] - Quote
Fozzie, I would just like to congratulate you for doing the right thing, you did listen to the right people on this, I will now eat my previous hard words, nice one! Don't be a turd and follow the herd Instead be a Hero at Hub Zero |
Buzz Dura
Epsilon Lyr Mordus Angels
9
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:06:00 -
[1989] - Quote
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4606434#post4606434
Buzz Dura wrote:CCP if youwant to choose between several setup to carry more load, more tank or more speed etc why don't you forget about rigs and add low slots instead. Rigs are expensive refit !
I should gamble today !! |
Celly S
Concord Attraction Services The Ditanian Alliance
270
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:09:00 -
[1990] - Quote
Warr Akini wrote:Celly S wrote:They are doing it to make most of them more vulnerable (depending on how the pilot fits the ship) and create moar pew-pew and even stated as much in the OP when they said (about JFs) "and their near complete safety when used optimally" Again, "vulnerable" is a relative term. Your "best" downside is 3% loss of EHP and your worst is only 20%, where you stand to gain 75% in EHP. As mentioned above, a 675K EHP ship in highsec is just about ludicrous.
o/
I did allow for the pilot's fitting preferences, however, if we look at your numbers, based on the percentages you mentioned, is it not correct to expect the pilot who tanks their ship more to have to make more trips to convey the same amount of product?, doesn't this mean more fuel, more time, and more exposure?, if tanked less, they are more vulnerable and likely have more cargo onboard.
Rig costs + fuel costs + multiple trips to accomplish the same thing (when tanked) equates to more work, more costs, higher prices, and with the back-end being nerfed as well in terms of industry, does that not also mean more time mining, less return on processing (not everyone has max skills and an implant, ect ect) more danger/exposure for them and in return higher prices that are passed on to the freighter pilot? Of course the guy who fits for cargo amount loses ehp and becomes an easier target, even if it is only 3% less, it's still less.
Don't get me wrong, I see and understand your point, I'm just looking at the entire picture...
ty for the reply. 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
74
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:09:00 -
[1991] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Aerissa Nolen wrote:Can CCP confirm that it is intentional for Providence and Fenrir to now have the same base cargo capacity? This is intentional, yes. How did you guys arrive at the numbers for the shield and armor increases? They seem a fair bit high to me.
But at least you said "fair". And come on, shield and armor ain't saving you when the bad men come. Should you be chosen, chances are you've been scanned and were deemed both worthwhile and killable. The best tank is to make yourself the lesser of their possible targets through what you choose to carry onboard. The fit and tank is secondary. |
Silvetica Dian
Manson Family Advent of Fate
1045
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:09:00 -
[1992] - Quote
KIller Wabbit wrote:Say bye-bye small null corps.
I'll check back in a couple of years to see if CCP has stopped doing boneheaded things.
We will be fine. Ty for worrying though Money at its root is a form of rationing. When the richest 85 people have as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion (50% of humanity) it is clear where the source of poverty is. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/20/trickle-down-economics-broken-promise-richest-85 |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
74
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:10:00 -
[1993] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Aerissa Nolen wrote:Can CCP confirm that it is intentional for Providence and Fenrir to now have the same base cargo capacity? This is intentional, yes. How did you guys arrive at the numbers for the shield and armor increases? They seem a fair bit high to me. But at least you said "fair". And come on, shield and armor ain't saving you when the bad men come. Should you be chosen, chances are you've been scanned and were deemed both worthwhile and killable. The best tank is to make yourself the lesser of their possible targets through what you choose to carry onboard. The fit and actual tank is secondary.
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3532
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:12:00 -
[1994] - Quote
TheMercenaryKing wrote:Love the new update, but one question, when will damage controls become passive mods?
That indeed is a good question. |
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
10018
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:13:00 -
[1995] - Quote
So what, freighters and JF got more base tank. That's probably going to lead to an increase in ganking if anything as pilots get cocky and take even less care with their cargo.
It's going to impart a sense of invincibility that won't in reality exist. "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
Dave Stark
5962
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:13:00 -
[1996] - 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. only if you're going to answer it. |
Warr Akini
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
119
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:15:00 -
[1997] - Quote
Celly S wrote:Is it not correct to expect the pilot who tanks their ship more to have to make more trips to convey the same amount of product?, doesn't this mean more fuel, more time, and more exposure?, if tanked less, they are more vulnerable and likely have more cargo onboard.
Trimming your quote down a bit.
From the business perspective, you're absolutely right - less cargo means more time spent, more "labor cost" (of course equates to zero for many), but using the term exposure indicates a misunderstanding of how ganking actually works. In order to carry out a successful gank of this magnitude, you have to pass a certain threshold of damage and bring that damage to bear generally in one sitting, especially when it comes to jump freighters. So, a 3% drop in your target's EHP means you have to bring the same amount of guys more or less, whereas a 75% boost in your target's EHP means you have to bring nearly double the amount of guys you brought for the same target pre-patch. It doesn't matter how exposed said target is - the only really relevant thing in the end is its EHP on the ganking side. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
10451
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:16:00 -
[1998] - 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.
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. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
10019
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:17:00 -
[1999] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:To help address the lack of interesting options for Jump Freighters, we are planning to introduce a set of jump fuel conservation modules in the Crius release in July. These modules will not be available in Kronos. Will these modules be made exclusive to jump freighters or will other caps be able to use them? Because if it's the latter you're basically just giving capital ships reduced fuel consumption in certain circumstances. Of course that could be mitigated by making them really big (e.g. 4,000 m3 like other capital mods) so you can't refit them without sacrificing huge portions of your fleet hangar. "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1572
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:18:00 -
[2000] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Aerissa Nolen wrote:Can CCP confirm that it is intentional for Providence and Fenrir to now have the same base cargo capacity? This is intentional, yes. How did you guys arrive at the numbers for the shield and armor increases? They seem a fair bit high to me. But at least you said "fair". And come on, shield and armor ain't saving you when the bad men come. Should you be chosen, chances are you've been scanned and were deemed both worthwhile and killable. The best tank is to make yourself the lesser of their possible targets through what you choose to carry onboard. The fit and tank is secondary.
ur logic works for lone buffer freighters.
but the provi and obe have fleet options the charon and fenrir dnt thanks to the combination of low slots and tank shift to shield and armour.
Armour freighter, resistance plating, damnation, guardians
O_o
as much as i love how this promotes fleeting and escorting. the shield freighters lack an equivalent. [edit] And it means that freighters sacrifice less when fitting for full cargo. 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" |
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
641
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:20:00 -
[2001] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:To help address the lack of interesting options for Jump Freighters, we are planning to introduce a set of jump fuel conservation modules in the Crius release in July. These modules will not be available in Kronos. Will these modules be made exclusive to jump freighters or will other caps be able to use them? Because if it's the latter you're basically just giving capital ships reduced fuel consumption when they travel in groups. Of course that could be mitigated by making them really big (e.g. 4,000 m3 like other capital mods) so you can't refit them without sacrificing huge portions of your fleet hangar. This is a really interesting way to "balance" fuel consumption low-slot modules against other caps/blackops BS. Hopefully we get a feedback thread for these; there's a couple of potential issues I would like to bring up and/or be pre-empted on, but this is not the thread for it. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Valterra Craven
247
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:20:00 -
[2002] - Quote
Gregor Parud wrote:
So what you're saying is "I made **** up, I haven't even seen it first hand AND I can't use and apply basic logic", duly noted.
No, what I'm saying is that based on prior evidence I've extrapolated the data. |
Ammzi
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
1778
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:20:00 -
[2003] - Quote
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
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
10455
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:21:00 -
[2004] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:To help address the lack of interesting options for Jump Freighters, we are planning to introduce a set of jump fuel conservation modules in the Crius release in July. These modules will not be available in Kronos. Will these modules be made exclusive to jump freighters or will other caps be able to use them? Because if it's the latter you're basically just giving capital ships reduced fuel consumption in certain circumstances. Of course that could be mitigated by making them really big (e.g. 4,000 m3 like other capital mods) so you can't refit them without sacrificing huge portions of your fleet hangar.
More information on these modules will be given at a later point. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
10019
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:23:00 -
[2005] - Quote
That's fair. "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
Dave Stark
5962
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:25:00 -
[2006] - Quote
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.
i hope not, damage controls are already a very powerful module, i don't think clicking once per session change in exchange for such a powerful module is much to ask.
nor do i want to see it nerfed because people are lazy. |
addelee
Hellfire Cult The East India Co.
90
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:25:00 -
[2007] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: To help address the lack of interesting options for Jump Freighters, we are planning to introduce a set of jump fuel conservation modules in the Crius release in July. These modules will not be available in Kronos.
I like the overall changes but I have a real issue with the above. I think it's more the way that Fozzy is selling this rather than the change itself as there will only be 1 option in reality.
The term "interesting option" isn't interesting when you cross this over with the other changes.
JF's are having their fuel usage increase by 50% in kronos. Now unless these modules actually save more than the 50% then every single JF pilot will be running with them. This restricts the "options" to 1.
However, this presents another problem as if the modules can achieve better than 50% reduction, what's the point in the other change to fuel.
I'm not saying the changes are wrong, but if I were CCP, I'd maybe step back and actually think about what they're attempting to achieve rather than throwing out some dubious idea's.
Edit:
I guess you could go for fuel price vs cargo space. That's 2 options I guess but it just feels maybe the module has come about from the backlash on the fuel increase.
Can we also assume that the jump fuel conservation modules are usable on all ships fitted with a jump drive? (i.e. travel fit carriers) |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
817
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:25:00 -
[2008] - Quote
on JF tank bonuses i'm glad you listened on removing off racial HP bonuses.... a little dissapointed you left the hull HP bonus on them all though.. how about something like this?
Gal 10% hull HP bonus
Cal 10% shield HP bonus
Amarr 10% armour HP bonus
Minmatar 5% shield HP and 5% armour HP bonus Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
10457
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:27:00 -
[2009] - Quote
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. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Bagrat Skalski
Poseidaon
1628
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:28:00 -
[2010] - Quote
Fozzie have seen my old post. When weapons, technology, and economies mature faster than the leadership culture entrusted with them, disaster ensues. http://i.minus.com/ibeZ0sJewvDMBN.gif |
|
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
817
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:28:00 -
[2011] - Quote
perhaps now with hull HP rigs making some gal ships hull tanker with hull HP bonuses could be something too look into.. mind you adding some genuine remote hull repping ability might be needed .. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
ELena Starduster
Leap Technologies
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:29:00 -
[2012] - Quote
Now give us a low slot for Shield resist and we will be happy ;) |
Valterra Craven
247
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:29:00 -
[2013] - 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.
So still no comment on getting a role bonus on t1 freighters to at least to be able to fit a PDU? |
Vincintius Agrippa
F L O O D
41
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:30:00 -
[2014] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Dracvlad wrote:
Well you should care, but you are too up your self to understand that if Eve keeps going this way then the only people left in Eve will be gankers, griefers, scammers, meta-gamers, power gamers
u mean the ppl that actually play this game? if u want a non-PvP game like starcitizen then why did u join a PvP MMO in the first place? why are u in a game where ganking, greifing, scamming, meta-gaming and power gaming is not just ok, its applauded.
Whoa whoa whoa, Whats all this talk of eve being a pvp mmo? Despite what most people think, eve isn't Unreal tournament Online in space. It is a sandbox game where you can do whatever you want. Non pvp players are the backbone of eve actually and make up a significant amount of subscriptions. Non pvp players, also known by the derogative term care bare(s) are provide for most of the things in eve except directly blowing someone else up.
If this game was solely based on pvp then we would not have no industry, no pi, we'd have nothing actually.
We'd be the online version of HOMEWORLD. |
Hiryu Jin
Enterprise Estonia Northern Coalition.
34
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:30:00 -
[2015] - Quote
how about we just leave freighters and jf's the way they are and everyone can save themselves some trouble. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
5244
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:31:00 -
[2016] - Quote
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. **** yeah! The Paradox |
addelee
Hellfire Cult The East India Co.
90
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:31:00 -
[2017] - 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.
Ok, but it doesn't address the actual real question I asked. What are you trying to achieve with these changes? I edited and I guess you could go for a fuel vs cargo space which is actually a good move imo.
Will the modules be restricted to just JF's or can any jump capable ship be able to use them?
|
Arronicus
X-Prot Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere
981
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:31:00 -
[2018] - Quote
Perfect. This is an excellent revision to the giant rigslot blunder. Please keep it like this. With rigs, there was too much permanence, where if the situation called for a different setup, rigs had to be destroyed and replaced, whereas in this way we actually have flexibility. Thankyou. |
Celly S
Concord Attraction Services The Ditanian Alliance
270
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:33:00 -
[2019] - Quote
Warr Akini wrote: Trimming your quote down a bit.
From the business perspective, you're absolutely right - less cargo means more time spent, more "labor cost" (of course equates to zero for many), but using the term exposure indicates a misunderstanding of how ganking actually works. In order to carry out a successful gank of this magnitude, you have to pass a certain threshold of damage and bring that damage to bear generally in one sitting, especially when it comes to jump freighters. So, a 3% drop in your target's EHP means you have to bring the same amount of guys more or less, whereas a 75% boost in your target's EHP means you have to bring nearly double the amount of guys you brought for the same target pre-patch. It doesn't matter how exposed said target is - the only really relevant thing in the end is its EHP on the ganking side.
o/ No worries, I (because my main lives outside of concord's sphere of influence) figure that any time a ship is in space it's exposed to the possibility of receiving damage and, yes, I understand fairly well how ganking works :) (including concord's mechanics) to a point. of course, the higher ehp fits will have more survivability, I don't doubt that a bit, hence the multiple trip/higher costs part of the equation. The instalock nado with arties in sufficient numbers will still alpha a freighter or JF that's not "max tanked" at a positive isks efficiency for a 1.6 b or especially for a 6 to 8 billion isk ship +modules and cargo. ibn the end though, the EHP will be the deciding factor.
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. |
Vincintius Agrippa
F L O O D
41
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:33:00 -
[2020] - Quote
Marlona Sky 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. **** yeah!
I love your nereus videos, quite awesome in fact. |
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
10019
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:34:00 -
[2021] - Quote
Dave Stark 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. i hope not, damage controls are already a very powerful module, i don't think clicking once per session change in exchange for such a powerful module is much to ask. nor do i want to see it nerfed because people are lazy. I'd like them to be passive, if only for the fact that 30 seconds is a long time to wait for one to cycle when I want to pull it off my ship to refit something else. "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
Klarion Sythis
Collapsed Out Shadow Cartel
290
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:35:00 -
[2022] - Quote
Hey guys, this one time I mentioned something vaguely similar that nobody read, so here I am to take credit for it. |
Dave Stark
5962
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:36:00 -
[2023] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Dave Stark 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. i hope not, damage controls are already a very powerful module, i don't think clicking once per session change in exchange for such a powerful module is much to ask. nor do i want to see it nerfed because people are lazy. I'd like them to be passive, if only for the fact that 30 seconds is a long time to wait for one to cycle when I want to pull it off my ship to refit something else. i'd be fine with lowering the cycle time.
i just honestly think that you should have to press a button to get a bonus as powerful as the damage control's is. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1572
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:39:00 -
[2024] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote: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. So still no comment on getting a role bonus on t1 freighters to at least to be able to fit a PDU?
let the PDU go. it'll never balance against resistance and layered plating. 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" |
Warr Akini
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
120
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:39:00 -
[2025] - 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.
I see you picking up low-hanging fruit, and I'm not usually a big fan of F5'ing forums at 2:30am, so can I get you to comment that you've seen the EHP/cargo tables and/or can comment on those implications re: the new EHP tradeoff, whether that's now or later?
EDIT: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4622776#post4622776 this post |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
5244
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:40:00 -
[2026] - Quote
Vincintius Agrippa wrote:I love your nereus videos, quite awesome in fact. Thanks! The Paradox |
Sipphakta en Gravonere
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
608
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:41:00 -
[2027] - Quote
Celly S wrote: The instalock nado with arties in sufficient numbers will still alpha a freighter or JF that's not "max tanked" at a positive isks efficiency for a 1.6 b or especially for a 6 to 8 billion isk ship +modules and cargo. ibn the end though, the EHP will be the deciding factor.
What does ISK efficiency have to do with ganking?
(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Captain Finklestein
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:43:00 -
[2028] - Quote
This is some weird ****.
The Charon and Fenrir can shield tank or hull tank. The Obelisk and Providence can only hull tank.
The shields should not be strong enough to shield tank. They should be strong enough to make logi support feasible, but no larger. This is what should set apart the races; the ability to logi with shield vs. armour.
|
addelee
Hellfire Cult The East India Co.
90
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:44:00 -
[2029] - Quote
Oooooh; I've a nice conspiracy theory that's spawned out of this. I've just noticed the bonus '-10% jump fuel requirements' for JF's.
So essentially, the fuel changes effect all capital size ships and above except JF's. If you pick most large scale battles, they've involved these ships and if you also look at said battles, the servers cannot cope and either get hit with 95% TiDi or they just crash. Either way, not good press. Part of this was the drone problem and this has been fixed in the super cap nerf and drone 'rebalancing'.
But ship numbers are high as well and no one likes to lose titans and supers as they take so long to build due to nullsec bottlenecks and the sheer cost and time of them. So sub-caps turn up to defend their larger brothers/sisters.
If fuel prices are increased, in theory, less jump capable ships will be fielded as it costs that must more to go to war (wars are already expensive). If less caps are being fielded, less large scale war will happen and the less the servers will crash and the less bad press goes out.
Is that what we're attempting to achieve in all this? |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1572
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:45:00 -
[2030] - Quote
Vincintius Agrippa wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:Dracvlad wrote:
Well you should care, but you are too up your self to understand that if Eve keeps going this way then the only people left in Eve will be gankers, griefers, scammers, meta-gamers, power gamers
u mean the ppl that actually play this game? if u want a non-PvP game like starcitizen then why did u join a PvP MMO in the first place? why are u in a game where ganking, greifing, scamming, meta-gaming and power gaming is not just ok, its applauded. Whoa whoa whoa, Whats all this talk of eve being a pvp mmo? Despite what most people think, eve isn't Unreal tournament Online in space. It is a sandbox game where you can do whatever you want. Non pvp players are the backbone of eve actually and make up a significant amount of subscriptions. Non pvp players, also known by the derogative term care bare(s) are provide for most of the things in eve except directly blowing someone else up. If this game was solely based on pvp then we would not have no industry, no pi, we'd have nothing actually. We'd be the online version of HOMEWORLD.
whoa whoa whoa, u have absolutely no idea what ur talking about.
PvP players mine too. PvP players market trade too. PvP players mission too. PvP players use freighters too. PvP player manufacture too.
no, the game does not depend on carebears for anything. they are no back bone for anything. This is a PvP game. u should look up the definition of PvP. 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" |
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
703
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:46:00 -
[2031] - Quote
damage controls probably shouldn't even exist |
Sipphakta en Gravonere
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
608
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:46:00 -
[2032] - Quote
addelee wrote:Oooooh; I've a nice conspiracy theory that's spawned out of this. I've just noticed the bonus '-10% jump fuel requirements' for JF's.
It's been there since JF first were introduced, as far as I know. It's no new bonus.
(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Silvetica Dian
Manson Family Advent of Fate
1046
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:46:00 -
[2033] - Quote
Vincintius Agrippa wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:Dracvlad wrote:
Well you should care, but you are too up your self to understand that if Eve keeps going this way then the only people left in Eve will be gankers, griefers, scammers, meta-gamers, power gamers
u mean the ppl that actually play this game? if u want a non-PvP game like starcitizen then why did u join a PvP MMO in the first place? why are u in a game where ganking, greifing, scamming, meta-gaming and power gaming is not just ok, its applauded. Whoa whoa whoa, Whats all this talk of eve being a pvp mmo? Despite what most people think, eve isn't Unreal tournament Online in space. It is a sandbox game where you can do whatever you want. Non pvp players are the backbone of eve actually and make up a significant amount of subscriptions. Non pvp players, also known by the derogative term care bare(s) are provide for most of the things in eve except directly blowing someone else up. If this game was solely based on pvp then we would not have no industry, no pi, we'd have nothing actually. We'd be the online version of HOMEWORLD.
Every activity in eve is a form of pvp and effects other players including mining, missioning and hauling. When people talk of pvp in eve they are not just talking about violence but also the market. Money at its root is a form of rationing. When the richest 85 people have as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion (50% of humanity) it is clear where the source of poverty is. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/20/trickle-down-economics-broken-promise-richest-85 |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
5244
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:47:00 -
[2034] - Quote
Captain Finklestein wrote:This is some weird ****.
The Charon and Fenrir can shield tank or hull tank. The Obelisk and Providence can only hull tank.
The shields should not be strong enough to shield tank. They should be strong enough to make logi support feasible, but no larger. This is what should set apart the races; the ability to logi with shield vs. armour.
I would not be opposed to seeing zero cap recharge rate on all capital ships. The Paradox |
Valterra Craven
247
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:48:00 -
[2035] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Valterra Craven wrote: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. So still no comment on getting a role bonus on t1 freighters to at least to be able to fit a PDU? let the PDU go. it'll never balance against resistance and layered plating.
You mean it will never be as powerful as either of those fitting choices that armor freighters get?
I'll be fine with dropping it as long as as they revert the changes to HP and just put everything back in hull where it should be. |
Celly Smunt
Concord Attraction Services The Ditanian Alliance
270
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:48:00 -
[2036] - Quote
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote: What does ISK efficiency have to do with ganking?
ummm... Ok, not to sound like an arse, but you really ask that didn't you? for those who gank for profit, you can't stay in business very long if you're spending more than you're making.
LOL 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. |
addelee
Hellfire Cult The East India Co.
90
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:49:00 -
[2037] - Quote
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:addelee wrote:Oooooh; I've a nice conspiracy theory that's spawned out of this. I've just noticed the bonus '-10% jump fuel requirements' for JF's. It's been there since JF first were introduced, as far as I know. It's no new bonus.
I should have noticed that . You are completely correct. Still, we all like a conspiracy
|
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
13
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:50:00 -
[2038] - Quote
Silvetica Dian wrote:Marcus Iunius Brutus wrote:Single-crystal Superalloy I-beam price crash in 3... 2... 1... People with buy orders at 1M ISK that are at work now probably cry. They were at over 1.4 mill in amarr until i sold mine into them....... none over a mill in amarr any more. i logged out a of a pith penal to log my market alt to sell them and then back to pith penal. got to it just in time.
Already happening lol dodixie is seeing a drop even with the small market for them there. |
Bagrat Skalski
Poseidaon
1628
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:53:00 -
[2039] - Quote
Klarion Sythis wrote:Hey guys, this one time I mentioned something vaguely similar that nobody read, so here I am to take credit for it. Damn right I did. But I could not make those stats myself. I love those changes, When weapons, technology, and economies mature faster than the leadership culture entrusted with them, disaster ensues. http://i.minus.com/ibeZ0sJewvDMBN.gif |
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
13
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:54:00 -
[2040] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Hiryu Jin wrote:so instead of a kick in the balls, we're supposed to be happy with a punch to face? Yes.
You certainly displayed elegance in your answer to his question didn't you.... |
|
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) |
|
Brib Vogt
DC-centre Destiny's Call
45
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:22:00 -
[2071] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote: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.
But why is the maximum velocity modifier of -11% replaced with -10% cargo capacity. Thats my whole point
|
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1084
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:23:00 -
[2072] - Quote
Brib Vogt wrote: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!
If you want the ebst tank, it will still be true unless you don't mind slapping billions worth of tanking module on your space truck. If you go with more decently priced armor tank mods, it will be again a trade-off between less tank than bulkheads for more cargo space.
The best tank will be bulkheads. The best compromise for what you want will depends on what you want. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22117
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:23:00 -
[2073] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote: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.
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) That too. I just noticed the first mismatch without the skills.
48,000 @-á0% -á-á= 48,000 / (1-0.0) = 48,000 EM resist 48,000 @-á50% = 48,000 / (1-0.5) = 96,000 Ex resist 48,000 @-á40% = 48,000 / (1-0.4) = 80,000 Kn resist 48,000 @-á20% = 48,000 / (1-0.2) = 60,000 EM resist 284k / 4 = 71k EHP, +ù 1.25 skill = 88.75k. 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. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
648
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:24:00 -
[2074] - Quote
marly cortez wrote: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 "Other people are getting shiny toys. Why don't I get what I want?" I geuss that's what you're trying to say, but I really can't tell. |
Dersen Lowery
Laurentson INC StructureDamage
1135
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:24:00 -
[2075] - Quote
Arya Regnar wrote:You can forget about ganking anshars alltogether 670k+ ehp. They can still carry well over 100k m3 at that ehp.
That person has made the decision to fly a bomb shelter at the expense of pretty much every other consideration. For ~7 billion ISK, they should get a pretty good bomb shelter.
Put another way, I'm not sure that many jump freighter pilots are going to put up with the extra hassle of a mere 100km3 cargohold just to have a hilariously redundant tank. They're already used to taking measures to avoid getting caught, so they'll fit to the assumption that they're unlikely to get caught. Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6443
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:24:00 -
[2076] - Quote
Brib Vogt wrote: But why is the maximum velocity modifier of -11% replaced with -10% cargo capacity. Thats my whole point
Because velocity isn't a real penalty on a freighter. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Cameron Zero
Red Federation
331
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:24:00 -
[2077] - Quote
WTB A nice, freighter-specific Damage Control module next! "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. GǪ" |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1084
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:26:00 -
[2078] - Quote
Brib Vogt wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote: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. But why is the maximum velocity modifier of -11% replaced with -10% cargo capacity. Thats my whole point
Most likely because velocity on a spacetruck is not a trade off. You only really care about reaching 75% so you can GTFO that grid you are on and go to the next one where you land. Nobody really try to speedtank a hauler so the stat cost for cargo was changed to something that also matter to a hauler instead of something they don't care about. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
648
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:28:00 -
[2079] - Quote
and we can see that we finally have our orca-freighter gap being filled by the surprise contenders of jump freighters. You want to haul super shiny mods in comfort and style? look no further than your nearest anshar. |
Valterra Craven
247
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:31:00 -
[2080] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Brib Vogt wrote: But why is the maximum velocity modifier of -11% replaced with -10% cargo capacity. Thats my whole point
Because velocity isn't a real penalty on a freighter.
That's not technically true. (but this would an extreme example) Lets say you want to afk your freighter with cargo from point a to b. Lets also say that you have a tool that will roughly calculate the amount of time it would take you to afk that distance. You could then set things up in such a way that you could be doing a lot of runs and that would significantly affect your time in the long wrong, especially if you used 3... I could see this mainly affecting people like Red Frog freight if they ran things this way (which they could given all the stipulations they put on you fro cargo value etc) |
|
Blaqe Fonceur
University of Caille Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:32:00 -
[2081] - Quote
Latest update is looking decent, I am a little concerned for the shield based freighters not having access to resist modules like armor based ones.
About reinforced bulkheads, wouldn't removing the CPU cost of the module be a better option than giving a role bonus to freighters. That module is the only one of its kind that requires CPU. Others that perform similar roles, ie. Nanofiber internal structure, expanded cargohold and overdrive injector, do not use any CPU or grid for that matter. In my opinion, rather than giving a role bonus to freighters it would be preferable to remove CPU(and grid?)requirements from reinforced bulkheads, making them fit in with the other modules in their category. |
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
379
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:32:00 -
[2082] - Quote
Dersen Lowery wrote:Arya Regnar wrote:You can forget about ganking anshars alltogether 670k+ ehp. They can still carry well over 100k m3 at that ehp. That person has made the decision to fly a bomb shelter at the expense of pretty much every other consideration. For ~7 billion ISK, they should get a pretty good bomb shelter. They'll still die if caught, it'll just take a damnably long time to kill them. Put another way, I'm not sure that many jump freighter pilots are going to put up with the extra hassle of a mere 100km3 cargohold just to have a hilariously redundant tank. They're already used to taking measures to avoid getting caught, so they'll fit to the assumption that they're unlikely to get caught.
Being ungankable should require effort, alt in a daredevil with FN web on heat or something like that. You can have 674k ehp and be completely afk.
You think having 140k m3 cargo is a tradeoff? Most freighters/jfs aren't loaded.
EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22118
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:35:00 -
[2083] - Quote
Aureus Ahishatsu wrote: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. WeeellGǪ since we're talking about stacking-penalised mods, the maths is like this:
EHP = HP / resonance; Resonance = 1-resist.
15% resist Gëí (1-0.15 =) 85% resonance
Add three of them together and we have a total resonance of:
(1 - 0.15) +ù (1 - 0.15+ù0.87) +ù (1 - 0.15+ù0.57) = 0.675884 resonance (or 32% resist, if you like).
So the new EHP = 1/0.675884 +ù old EHP, or 1.48+ù old EHP GÇö i.e. 3+ù 15% resists GåÆ 48% more EHP. 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. |
Belinda HwaFang
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
11
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:36:00 -
[2084] - Quote
So I see that rigs on freighters and JF been removed, and stats have been updated, and now JF pilots only need a few million ISK to "fix" toward the prenerf levels but...
My head is starting to explode trying to understand all the numbers before, after rig change, and after CSM lobby change.
I'm thinking that while CSM was lobbying you, they had some spreadsheets? Or you have an internal spreadsheet with the hard numbers for each ship in the 3 schemes?
Could we see one of these spreadsheets, suitably sanitized for consumption by us mere mortals?
I'm finding it hard to understand how much the numbers have changed (other than noting the removal of the capital rig costs) without them.
Apologies in advance if I've missed the spreadsheet somewhere in this thread.
-- Fang |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1087
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:37:00 -
[2085] - Quote
Arya Regnar wrote:Dersen Lowery wrote:Arya Regnar wrote:You can forget about ganking anshars alltogether 670k+ ehp. They can still carry well over 100k m3 at that ehp. That person has made the decision to fly a bomb shelter at the expense of pretty much every other consideration. For ~7 billion ISK, they should get a pretty good bomb shelter. They'll still die if caught, it'll just take a damnably long time to kill them. Put another way, I'm not sure that many jump freighter pilots are going to put up with the extra hassle of a mere 100km3 cargohold just to have a hilariously redundant tank. They're already used to taking measures to avoid getting caught, so they'll fit to the assumption that they're unlikely to get caught. Being ungankable should require effort, alt in a daredevil with FN web on heat or something like that. You can have 674k ehp and be completely afk. You think having 140k m3 cargo is a tradeoff? Most freighters/jfs aren't loaded.
Bring more firepower. It's not ungankable. |
Captain StringfellowHawk
Forsaken Reavers Rim Worlds Protectorate
140
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:37:00 -
[2086] - Quote
Cool... so I can push the armor tank on a Freighter... But the shield tankers get Shafted.... :P More Power to gallente ships! |
Axe Coldon
41
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:37:00 -
[2087] - Quote
addelee wrote:Oooooh; I've a nice conspiracy theory that's spawned out of this. I've just noticed the bonus '-10% jump fuel requirements' for JF's.
So essentially, the fuel changes effect all capital size ships and above except JF's. If you pick most large scale battles, they've involved these ships and if you also look at said battles, the servers cannot cope and either get hit with 95% TiDi or they just crash. Either way, not good press. Part of this was the drone problem and this has been fixed in the super cap nerf and drone 'rebalancing'.
But ship numbers are high as well and no one likes to lose titans and supers as they take so long to build due to nullsec bottlenecks and the sheer cost and time of them. So sub-caps turn up to defend their larger brothers/sisters.
If fuel prices are increased, in theory, less jump capable ships will be fielded as it costs that must more to go to war (wars are already expensive). If less caps are being fielded, less large scale war will happen and the less the servers will crash and the less bad press goes out.
Is that what we're attempting to achieve in all this?
Maybe but I can't imagine a 50% increase in fuel cost would deter anyone from bringing their fancy capital. Don't buy the car if you can't afford the gas. Same goes here.
Not all capital pilots get their fuel provided to them. Generally only when they have to refuel along the way because the total distance takes more fuel then they can hold. So I can't see an individual pilot not going to a battle just because he needs more isk for isotopes. He will just rat more (or however he makes isk) between battles.
And we all know the super alliances are filthy rich and won't care the fuel cost...in the cases where they provide the fuel. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced. |
Warr Akini
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
120
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:37:00 -
[2088] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Brib Vogt wrote: But why is the maximum velocity modifier of -11% replaced with -10% cargo capacity. Thats my whole point
Because velocity isn't a real penalty on a freighter. That's not technically true. (but this would an extreme example) Lets say you want to afk your freighter with cargo from point a to b. Lets also say that you have a tool that will roughly calculate the amount of time it would take you to afk that distance. You could then set things up in such a way that you could be doing a lot of runs and that would significantly affect your time in the long wrong, especially if you used 3... I could see this mainly affecting people like Red Frog freight if they ran things this way (which they could given all the stipulations they put on you fro cargo value etc)
I think the point with cargo expanders affecting cargo versus velocity was that CCP preferred to make the reward versus tradeoff balanced and was less concerned with protecting autopiloters/AFKers (which CCP has said several times that active should trump passive wherever possible). |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1087
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:39:00 -
[2089] - 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!
Or you can hull tank for better tank return on your low slots. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22118
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:39:00 -
[2090] - 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! The Gallente ships don't come off that well if you try to armour-tank them, thoughGǪ 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
14
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:40:00 -
[2091] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Tau Cabalander wrote: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.
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) That too. I just noticed the first mismatch without the skills. 48,000 @-á0% -á-á= 48,000 / (1-0.0) = 48,000 base EM EHP 48,000 @-á50% = 48,000 / (1-0.5) = 96,000 base Ex EHP 48,000 @-á40% = 48,000 / (1-0.4) = 80,000 base Kn EHP 48,000 @-á20% = 48,000 / (1-0.2) = 60,000 base Th EHP An average of (284k / 4 =) 71k base EHP, +ù1.25 skill bonus = 88.75k EHP e: e: e: wtf, fiddly little tables. Brib Vogt wrote:But why is the maximum velocity modifier of -11% replaced with -10% cargo capacity. Thats my whole point. It'll be a -11% capacity, actually. And the reason is the same: because it's a trade-off, and because it mirrors the trade you're making with cargo expanders.
Goddamn.... anyone else wishing we got paid for this.... LOL
|
Valterra Craven
248
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:40:00 -
[2092] - Quote
Warr Akini wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Brib Vogt wrote: But why is the maximum velocity modifier of -11% replaced with -10% cargo capacity. Thats my whole point
Because velocity isn't a real penalty on a freighter. That's not technically true. (but this would an extreme example) Lets say you want to afk your freighter with cargo from point a to b. Lets also say that you have a tool that will roughly calculate the amount of time it would take you to afk that distance. You could then set things up in such a way that you could be doing a lot of runs and that would significantly affect your time in the long wrong, especially if you used 3... I could see this mainly affecting people like Red Frog freight if they ran things this way (which they could given all the stipulations they put on you fro cargo value etc) I think the point with cargo expanders affecting cargo versus velocity was that CCP preferred to make the reward versus tradeoff balanced and was less concerned with protecting autopiloters/AFKers (which CCP has said several times that active should trump passive wherever possible).
I know, was just playing devils advocate :) |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
33
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:42:00 -
[2093] - Quote
My main issue now is that you can't shield tank freighter but you can armor tank... |
Vincintius Agrippa
F L O O D
43
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:45:00 -
[2094] - Quote
.[/quote]
whoa whoa whoa, u have absolutely no idea what ur talking about.
PvP players mine too. PvP players market trade too. PvP players mission too. PvP players use freighters too. PvP players manufacture too.
no, the game does not depend on carebears for anything. they are no back bone for anything. This is a PvP game. u should look up the definition of PvP and 'carebear'. (or here)
edit no'2 definition is better
Quote:As an insult, the term applies less to players who merely prefer PVE to PVP and more to individuals who question the basic legitimacy of PVP or who greatly overreact to their avatars' deaths'
Quote:The key perceived difference between 'carebears' and players who simply PvE is their attitude towards PvP encounters. [/quote]
.........And you guys like to pretend that all you do is pvp.
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. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22118
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:46:00 -
[2095] - Quote
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? 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. |
Kalnoch
LazyBoyz Band of Recreational Flyers The East India Co.
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:46:00 -
[2096] - Quote
Really? You cite that JF only had one meaningful rig to use (cargohold) and so you give low slots, well they still really only have one meaningful module, that being cargohold since you decided to go and nerf the crap out of their cargo capacity. Requiring 3 T2 cargo expanders to get back to where you were? That is absolutely insane, way to NOT give me any more customization CCP. 2 cargohold expanders doesn't even get you to the base cargo capacity without ANY skills.
For example, 270,000 base cargo capacity for Nomad, pre patch, which is really 324,000 since you are required to have freighter 4 to fly the thing. Now post patch with same minimum skills you only get 158,400, and with 2 T2 expanders you only get to 257,499.
It should NOT take all 3 of my slots I am now given just to GET BACK to pre patch levels, that is not any sort of added customization ability, that is a nerf to make one of the most expensive ships in the game just that little bit more expensive. I get the trading some space for more speed or faster align time or whatever, but this is just stupid.
The freighter stuff looks just fine though, with 2 expanders you basically get back to where you were. |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
3650
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:46:00 -
[2097] - Quote
Math is hard....
Charon:
Average Shield EHP = 50000 * (0.25 / (1 - 0% EM) + 0.25 / (1 - 20% Th) + 0.25 / (1 - 40% Kin) + 0.25 / (1 - 50% EX)) = 73958.33
Average Armor EHP = 15000 * (0.25 / (1 - 50% EM) + 0.25 / (1 - 45% Th) + 0.25 / (1 - 25% Kin) + 0.25 / (1 - 10% EX)) = 23484.84
Average Hull EHP = 77500 * (0.25 / (1 - 0% EM) + 0.25 / (1 - 0% Th) + 0.25 / (1 - 0% Kin) + 0.25 / (1 - 0% EX)) = 50000
Total Average EHP = 147443.17 (pre-Kronos 146438.13) |
Dave Stark
5963
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:47:00 -
[2098] - 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 maths is hard. |
Dave Stark
5963
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:48:00 -
[2099] - Quote
Kalnoch wrote:Really? You cite that JF only had one meaningful rig to use (cargohold) and so you give low slots, well they still really only have one meaningful module, TIL, 670k ehp isn't meaningful. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
75
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:49:00 -
[2100] - 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.
Mid slots wouldn't help shield tanks because none have the CPU to fit anything that goes in there anyway. They would need not only mid slots, but also a role bonus to -100% CPU for Invuln Field or something.
Maybe that should be a thing. One mid slot for an invuln on Charons and Fens?
I would almost think just changing all freighters to armor is probably the easiest and cleanest option. Unless the shield roleplayers would then get upset that Charons and Fenrirs were not living up to lore. |
|
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. |
|
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1088
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:27:00 -
[2131] - 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.
What if we were not crying and still think taking a ship scanner with you makes sense since it's what you would use to check the tank of any other ship before you ganked it? |
Ines Tegator
Towels R Us
460
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:28:00 -
[2132] - Quote
I approve of the updated stats (EHP especially). That is all. - Mission Overhaul - Bridging the PVP / PVE Gap - -áIf the game stops teaching people to fear lowsec, maybe people will start going there? |
Angelina Duvolle
Homeworld Technologies
38
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:29:00 -
[2133] - Quote
RE: the adaptive nano thing.
They wouldn't be the best tank at all.
That said, you might be hauling something where you don't want to give up all your cargo, or can't due to it's size. In that case, you might throw on some adaptive nano's.
That's a trade-off, cargo for survivability, and it's not a bad thing. |
Wulfy Johnson
NorCorp Security
43
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:33:00 -
[2134] - Quote
Hauling next generation - Move current JF's over to T1, and give us new T2 freighters and JF's with full out fitting capability, and options into roles. |
Daenika
MMO-Mechanics.com
104
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:40:00 -
[2135] - 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
Erm...
Since when to Bulkheads reduce cargo space? I thought that was just istabs. Bulkheads appear to only have 3 effect: increased hull HP, reduced top speed, (slight) increase to inertia.
Are they changing that? Or did you accidentally include the istab cargo reduction in your numbers? |
Valterra Craven
248
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:40:00 -
[2136] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Adaptive Nano Platings are hardly even worth talking about.
Well in the sense that your correction was incorrect it is worth talking about. (Been there done that, same thread even!) |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1089
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:41:00 -
[2137] - Quote
Wulfy Johnson wrote:Hauling next generation - Move current JF's over to T1, and give us new T2 freighters and JF's with full out fitting capability, and options into roles.
And stats nerfed to **** to make sure they are not unbalanced. |
Valterra Craven
248
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:42:00 -
[2138] - Quote
Daenika wrote: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 Erm... Since when to Bulkheads reduce cargo space? I thought that was just istabs. Bulkheads appear to only have 3 effect: increased hull HP, reduced top speed, (slight) increase to inertia. Are they changing that? Or did you accidentally include the istab cargo reduction in your numbers?
Well thats a good point actually. Bulkheads right now have a -11% speed penality... it was the rigs that were changed to hull penalty... my bet is that now that you just pointed it out it gets changed.
|
Dave Stark
5965
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:43:00 -
[2139] - Quote
Daenika wrote: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 Erm... Since when to Bulkheads reduce cargo space? I thought that was just istabs. Bulkheads appear to only have 3 effect: increased hull HP, reduced top speed, (slight) increase to inertia. Are they changing that? Or did you accidentally include the istab cargo reduction in your numbers?
since kronos, see the hp rig thread for details on bulkheads being changed. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22121
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:43:00 -
[2140] - Quote
Daenika wrote:Erm...
Since when to Bulkheads reduce cargo space? I thought that was just istabs. Bulkheads appear to only have 3 effect: increased hull HP, reduced top speed, (slight) increase to inertia.
Are they changing that? Or did you accidentally include the istab cargo reduction in your numbers? They're changing it:
GÇ£We are also going to swap the speed penalty on all reinforced bulkhead modules to an equal percentage cargo capacity penalty. The agility penalty will remain intact at this time.GÇ¥ 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
1089
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:44:00 -
[2141] - Quote
Daenika wrote: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 Erm... Since when to Bulkheads reduce cargo space? I thought that was just istabs. Bulkheads appear to only have 3 effect: increased hull HP, reduced top speed, (slight) increase to inertia. Are they changing that? Or did you accidentally include the istab cargo reduction in your numbers?
They are changing that. I'm pretty sure it was in the original OP but got removed with the new version. |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
33
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:45:00 -
[2142] - Quote
Daenika wrote: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 Erm... Since when to Bulkheads reduce cargo space? I thought that was just istabs. Bulkheads appear to only have 3 effect: increased hull HP, reduced top speed, (slight) increase to inertia. Are they changing that? Or did you accidentally include the istab cargo reduction in your numbers? Changed that weeks ago. Gankers cried about that, so they changed it. :) |
Ines Tegator
Towels R Us
461
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:46:00 -
[2143] - Quote
Tippia wrote:They're changing it: GÇ£We are also going to swap the speed penalty on all reinforced bulkhead modules to an equal percentage cargo capacity penalty. The agility penalty will remain intact at this time.GÇ¥
For the record, I'm completely OK with this change. The limiting factor on cargo in highsec is the Cost/Profit threshold for gankers, not actual cargo space. Raising EHP lets me carry more / more valuable cargo then raw space would. - Mission Overhaul - Bridging the PVP / PVE Gap - -áIf the game stops teaching people to fear lowsec, maybe people will start going there? |
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS type X
158
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:46:00 -
[2144] - Quote
deleted Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6445
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:49:00 -
[2145] - Quote
Walter Hart White wrote: Changed that weeks ago. Gankers cried about that, so they changed it. :)
That, or the CSM pointed out that it needed to be done thanks to the Orca. Which is what Fozzie referenced in the post before the edit. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Vincintius Agrippa
F L O O D
45
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:50:00 -
[2146] - Quote
Shizuken wrote: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.
Is the cap ban before they changed the old aoe doommsdays? if so then i understand. Cant have titans doing supernovas' on the jita undock.
But now, doomsdays are "aimed" weapons.I dont see why not now.
Ofcourse If they did naturally, using doomsdays in hisec would be a criminal offence and youd get alpha'd by concord. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22121
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:51:00 -
[2147] - Quote
Oh, and for those thinking that armour-tanking is a good ideaGǪ
Providence: gives up 17.9% tank for 160k m-¦. Charon: gives up 6.3% tank for 171k m-¦. Obelisk: gives up 15.1% tank for 162k m-¦. Fenrir: gives up 9.8% tank for 160k m-¦. Ark: gives up 23.2% tank for 50k m-¦. Rhea: gives up 4.7% tank for 53k m-¦. Anshar: gives up 16.7% tank for 51k m-¦. Nomad: gives up 7.7% tank for 49k m-¦.
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. |
Vincintius Agrippa
F L O O D
45
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:52:00 -
[2148] - Quote
Celly S wrote: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
Oh, I get your name now lol. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
15622
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:53:00 -
[2149] - Quote
Vincintius Agrippa wrote:Shizuken wrote: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. Is the cap ban before they changed the old aoe doommsdays? if so then i understand. Cant have titans doing supernovas' on the jita undock. But now, doomsdays are "aimed" weapons.I dont see why not now. Ofcourse If they did naturally, using doomsdays in hisec would be a criminal offence and youd get alpha'd by concord.
The capital ban is to stop large powerblocs trivially dominating high sec.
If the ban was removed, then the face of hi-sec would change overnight. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!" |
Ines Tegator
Towels R Us
461
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:58:00 -
[2150] - Quote
Vincintius Agrippa wrote:
Ofcourse If they did naturally, using doomsdays in hisec would be a criminal offence and youd get alpha'd by concord.
It would almost be worth the pain of nullsec alliances wardeccing and extorting everyone in sight just to see a few CONCORD / Titan killmails :P
Almost. - Mission Overhaul - Bridging the PVP / PVE Gap - -áIf the game stops teaching people to fear lowsec, maybe people will start going there? |
|
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
33
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:00:00 -
[2151] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Vincintius Agrippa wrote:Shizuken wrote: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. Is the cap ban before they changed the old aoe doommsdays? if so then i understand. Cant have titans doing supernovas' on the jita undock. But now, doomsdays are "aimed" weapons.I dont see why not now. Ofcourse If they did naturally, using doomsdays in hisec would be a criminal offence and youd get alpha'd by concord. The capital ban is to stop large powerblocs trivially dominating high sec. If the ban was removed, then the face of hi-sec would change overnight. Well make it so you can't assemble capital in hi sec. Done, fixed. That way people can trade ones in stations/hi sec but not fly ones. |
Wulfy Johnson
NorCorp Security
43
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:00:00 -
[2152] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Wulfy Johnson wrote:Hauling next generation - Move current JF's over to T1, and give us new T2 freighters and JF's with full out fitting capability, and options into roles. And stats nerfed to **** to make sure they are not unbalanced.
Of course, but moving into specialization and roles, and options to gimp your probably very expensive ship at your own pleasure. Also gives that line of gameplay more than 2 months of skilltraining.. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1346
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:04:00 -
[2153] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
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.
Sorry Kaarous, but you are plain out wrong here. The only way you don't see an EHP Nerf you see a Cargo Nerf compared to current instead. So it's not an 'EHP Buff'. It's a choice between the 'same' cargo as current (Actually a bit more), and lower EHP, or lower cargo than current but more EHP. That's not 'crying your way to a buff'. That's a balanced situation where the player actually gets some choice over where their ship strengths lie. |
Gevlon Goblin
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
212
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:04:00 -
[2154] - Quote
Many people mentioned that Armor freighters will be ahead of shield ones, but the situation is worse than what a raw EHP calculation would say. Shields have a 0% EM resist hole. In the OP resists were mentioned, but only Nomad gets EM resist. On the other hand the armor has no such resist hole. Any reasonable ganker would open with a few tornadoes with faction EMP L to eat the shield and then the Taloses finish the armor and hull.
My point is that it takes about half as many ships to remove the shield of a Charon than to remove the armor of a Providence.
My blog: greedygoblin.blogspot.com |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6446
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:08:00 -
[2155] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
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.
Sorry Kaarous, but you are plain out wrong here. The only way you don't see an EHP Nerf you see a Cargo Nerf compared to current instead. So it's not an 'EHP Buff'. It's a choice between the 'same' cargo as current (Actually a bit more), and lower EHP, or lower cargo than current but more EHP. That's not 'crying your way to a buff'. That's a balanced situation where the player actually gets some choice over where their ship strengths lie.
Yeah, that's not how it turned out.
It was originally an overall nerf to freighter capabilities.
Much crying ensued.
Now it's not really, and easily circumvented with a few million isk worth of modules.
Granted, I still get what I want, and I was always going to since cargo extenders of any variety take away hitpoints. But the enormous increase to shield and armor hitpoints makes that not anywhere near as painful as they should be, by rights.
IMO, if you can achieve more than one million m3 of cargo, 150k EHP should be your cap under such a circumstance. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Valterra Craven
248
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:08:00 -
[2156] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Oh, and for those thinking that armour-tanking is a good ideaGǪ
Providence: gives up 33.1pp tank for 160k m-¦. Charon: gives up 35.6pp tank for 171k m-¦. Obelisk: gives up 38.8pp tank for 162k m-¦. Fenrir: gives up 26.0pp tank for 160k m-¦. Ark: gives up 18.4pp tank for 50k m-¦. Rhea: gives up 36.7pp tank for 53k m-¦. Anshar: gives up 36.6pp tank for 51k m-¦. Nomad: gives up 27.9pp tank for 49k m-¦.
To clarify: if the providence armour tanks, it gets a 33.1 percentage points lower tank increase (18.2% rather than 51.3%) than if it had chosen to hull tank, but doesn't lose the 30% cargo space that a full hull tank costs.
Based on this it would appear that EHP should likely be adjusted some... It dosn't make sense that the fenrir would get 10pp more tank than a Charon for only losing 9km3, Course the Obelisk looks really bad for some strange reason. Couldn't this be balanced to all of them be around 30% even? |
Yumiko Shaku
Trigger's Broom PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
5
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:09:00 -
[2157] - Quote
Only issue I see is CPU you said yourself in the post that you can see JF's fitting cap power relays, but each CPR is 6cpu with perfect fitting and your giving it a base 5 CPU so even with skills your only gonna be able to fit 1 |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22122
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:09:00 -
[2158] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote:Many people mentioned that Armor freighters will be ahead of shield ones, but the situation is worse than what a raw EHP calculation would say. Shields have a 0% EM resist hole. In the OP resists were mentioned, but only Nomad gets EM resist. On the other hand the armor has no such resist hole. Any reasonable ganker would open with a few tornadoes with Faction EMP L to eat the shield and then the Taloses finish the armor and hull. And for any ship that is trying to armour tank, they'll just open up with Fusion M and hit the armour resist hole. And since the poor sod decided to fit a horrible tank rather than one that protects him, he'll explode very quickly.
Valterra Craven wrote:Based on this it would appear that EHP should likely be adjusted some... It dosn't make sense that the fenrir would get 10pp more tank than a Charon for only losing 9km3, Course the Obelisk looks really bad for some strange reason. Couldn't this be balanced to all of them be around 30% even? Nah. The lesson is simply that, just because you can fit something doesn't mean it's a good idea. The Obelisk looks really bad because it's a particularly bad idea to try to tank it with armour. Conclusion: don't try to armour tank. 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. |
Gaijin Lanis
Astral Silence Surely You're Joking
16
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:13:00 -
[2159] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Vincintius Agrippa wrote:Shizuken wrote: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. Is the cap ban before they changed the old aoe doommsdays? if so then i understand. Cant have titans doing supernovas' on the jita undock. But now, doomsdays are "aimed" weapons.I dont see why not now. Ofcourse If they did naturally, using doomsdays in hisec would be a criminal offence and youd get alpha'd by concord. The capital ban is to stop large powerblocs trivially dominating high sec. If the ban was removed, then the face of hi-sec would change overnight. mmm, no. The only thing caps would be able to shoot at are war targets (as concord would blap them for shooting anything else). Meaning all that would happen is the powerblocs would be able to have a (very public) pissing contest over who can use the trade hubs. Which, if anything, would make jita more interesting, as its the only system/node with a backbone capable of handling a powerbloc fight without 99.9% time dilation.
Not to mention, if you're concerned about powerblocs taking control of the trade hubs, declaring war on anyone not in a NPC corporation, then demanding regular tribute in order to release said war declaration, Marmite collective already does that without capitals. So the only difference is, possibly, marmite collective might have some actual competition. |
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
14
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:14:00 -
[2160] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Oh, and for those thinking that armour-tanking is a good ideaGǪ
Providence: gives up 33.1pp tank for 160k m-¦. Charon: gives up 35.6pp tank for 171k m-¦. Obelisk: gives up 38.8pp tank for 162k m-¦. Fenrir: gives up 26.0pp tank for 160k m-¦. Ark: gives up 18.4pp tank for 50k m-¦. Rhea: gives up 36.7pp tank for 53k m-¦. Anshar: gives up 36.6pp tank for 51k m-¦. Nomad: gives up 27.9pp tank for 49k m-¦.
To clarify: if the providence armour tanks, it gets a 33.1 percentage points lower tank increase (18.2% rather than 51.3%) than if it had chosen to hull tank, but doesn't lose the 30% cargo space that a full hull tank costs.
So have you corrected the chart now for the calculations we talked earlier about? or are they still off? |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22122
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:17:00 -
[2161] - Quote
Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:So have you corrected the chart now for the calculations we talked earlier about? or are they still off? Which ones? 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. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3945
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:17:00 -
[2162] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote:Many people mentioned that Armor freighters will be ahead of shield ones, but the situation is worse than what a raw EHP calculation would say. Shields have a 0% EM resist hole. In the OP resists were mentioned, but only Nomad gets EM resist. On the other hand the armor has no such resist hole. Any reasonable ganker would open with a few tornadoes with faction EMP L to eat the shield and then the Taloses finish the armor and hull.
My point is that it takes about half as many ships to remove the shield of a Charon than to remove the armor of a Providence.
Does it really matter if Armor tanking is better than shield tanking on freighters? Especially since HULL tanking offers the largest "tank increase"? I realize that in RR situations, having higher-resists armor with larger armor buffers is very helpful, but the mechanics of armor reppers healing at the end of the 3-5 s cycle is also a large drawback in suicide gank situations, as these events are < 20s in duration.
|
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1090
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:17:00 -
[2163] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
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.
Sorry Kaarous, but you are plain out wrong here. The only way you don't see an EHP Nerf you see a Cargo Nerf compared to current instead. So it's not an 'EHP Buff'. It's a choice between the 'same' cargo as current (Actually a bit more), and lower EHP, or lower cargo than current but more EHP. That's not 'crying your way to a buff'. That's a balanced situation where the player actually gets some choice over where their ship strengths lie. Yeah, that's not how it turned out. It was originally an overall nerf to freighter capabilities. Much crying ensued. Now it's not really, and easily circumvented with a few million isk worth of modules. Granted, I still get what I want, and I was always going to since cargo extenders of any variety take away hitpoints. But the enormous increase to shield and armor hitpoints makes that not anywhere near as painful as they should be, by rights. IMO, if you can achieve more than one million m3 of cargo, 150k EHP should be your cap under such a circumstance.
Why should it be your cap? Is there any hard evidence that something is broken if this arbitrary line is crossed? |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6446
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:19:00 -
[2164] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote: Why should it be your cap? Is there any hard evidence that something is broken if this arbitrary line is crossed?
It didn't used to be an arbitrary line, actually.
Now that line is 1.3 mil, I believe. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1090
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:21:00 -
[2165] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote: Why should it be your cap? Is there any hard evidence that something is broken if this arbitrary line is crossed?
It didn't used to be an arbitrary line, actually. Now that line is 1.3 mil, I believe.
That does not address why it might be game breaking to achieve more than 150k EHP with 1 mill m3 of cargo. |
Valterra Craven
248
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:23:00 -
[2166] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Based on this it would appear that EHP should likely be adjusted some... It dosn't make sense that the fenrir would get 10pp more tank than a Charon for only losing 9km3, Course the Obelisk looks really bad for some strange reason. Couldn't this be balanced to all of them be around 30% even? Nah. The lesson is simply that, just because you can fit something doesn't mean it's a good idea. The Obelisk looks really bad because it's a particularly bad idea to try to tank it with armour. Conclusion: don't try to armour tank.
But why is fitting a small tank when you want to keep the same level of cargo not a good idea? (I worded this on purpose so as not to setup a two choice only scenario :) )160k m3 is over 25% of your cargo on all these ships, so its not like a mid point between those two options should be right off hand considered bad, unless of course you are on obelisk.
|
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
14
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:23:00 -
[2167] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Gevlon Goblin wrote:Many people mentioned that Armor freighters will be ahead of shield ones, but the situation is worse than what a raw EHP calculation would say. Shields have a 0% EM resist hole. In the OP resists were mentioned, but only Nomad gets EM resist. On the other hand the armor has no such resist hole. Any reasonable ganker would open with a few tornadoes with Faction EMP L to eat the shield and then the Taloses finish the armor and hull. And for any ship that is trying to armour tank, they'll just open up with Fusion M and hit the armour resist hole. And since the poor sod decided to fit a horrible tank rather than one that protects him, he'll explode very quickly. Valterra Craven wrote:Based on this it would appear that EHP should likely be adjusted some... It dosn't make sense that the fenrir would get 10pp more tank than a Charon for only losing 9km3, Course the Obelisk looks really bad for some strange reason. Couldn't this be balanced to all of them be around 30% even? Nah. The lesson is simply that, just because you can fit something doesn't mean it's a good idea. The Obelisk looks really bad because it's a particularly bad idea to try to tank it with armour. Conclusion: don't try to armour tank.
Either that or a crap ton of quake. the kinetic resist ain't exactly good either. with the given resist does better overall than t1 fusion but not as much as RF fusion. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1573
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:24:00 -
[2168] - Quote
still kinda worried about the armour freighters supported with logi and boosts.
provi with 185kehp in armour alone. 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" |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22122
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:24:00 -
[2169] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:But why is fitting a small tank when you want to keep the same level of cargo not a good idea? Because you get better results with an expander/bulkhead combo. 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. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6446
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:24:00 -
[2170] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote: Why should it be your cap? Is there any hard evidence that something is broken if this arbitrary line is crossed?
It didn't used to be an arbitrary line, actually. Now that line is 1.3 mil, I believe. That does not address why it might be game breaking to achieve more than 150k EHP with 1 mill m3 of cargo.
I didn't say it was, I said that was my opinion. My sentence began with "IMO".
That's merely the line I'd draw on the shield and armor buffs they got. Which Fozzie mentioned was only really justified due to cargo expander modules having a larger penalty than cargo rigs.
And I believe they were overbuffed with that change, their shield and armor hitpoints are too high. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
|
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
14
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:25:00 -
[2171] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:So have you corrected the chart now for the calculations we talked earlier about? or are they still off? Which ones?
This chart you originally posted which i thought we agreed was too high?
http://eve.beyondreality.se/pics/Kronos/FreighterCargoTank.png
|
Jatok Reknar
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:25:00 -
[2172] - Quote
Thanks CCP and CSM for listening to our feedback and adjusting the plan. :) I am looking forward to this change now! |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1090
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:26:00 -
[2173] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Tippia wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Based on this it would appear that EHP should likely be adjusted some... It dosn't make sense that the fenrir would get 10pp more tank than a Charon for only losing 9km3, Course the Obelisk looks really bad for some strange reason. Couldn't this be balanced to all of them be around 30% even? Nah. The lesson is simply that, just because you can fit something doesn't mean it's a good idea. The Obelisk looks really bad because it's a particularly bad idea to try to tank it with armour. Conclusion: don't try to armour tank. But why is fitting a small tank when you want to keep the same level of cargo not a good idea? (I worded this on purpose so as not to setup a two choice only scenario :) )160k m3 is over 25% of your cargo on all these ships, so its not like a mid point between those two options should be right off hand considered bad, unless of course you are on obelisk.
If your goal is not to achieve the best tank possible, then fitting armor tank to save a bit of space might be a good idea. It's just not a good one if you want to maximise your tank at all cost. The tipping point of value/m3 where you go from "should use full tank" to "should go cargo" is not all that wide to have "should go medium tank"... It might happen but most case are probably one way or another. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22122
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:26:00 -
[2174] - Quote
The only thing that was too high was the cargo, with half a percent per expander. It's been adjusted.
GǪor, wellGǪ all the numbers are a bit too high, but that's Fozzie's fault and not something I can fix in the tables. 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
14
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:28:00 -
[2175] - Quote
Holy hell this forum is ridiculous at how fast it's going. We're over 109 pages and it's only been up 5 days LOL. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3945
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:28:00 -
[2176] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote: Why should it be your cap? Is there any hard evidence that something is broken if this arbitrary line is crossed?
It didn't used to be an arbitrary line, actually. Now that line is 1.3 mil, I believe. That does not address why it might be game breaking to achieve more than 150k EHP with 1 mill m3 of cargo.
There are several game balance issues at hand:
1.) Cargo limit is set below the repackaged capital ship size. This is to prevent capital ships from being moved into highsec, which would have huge impacts on highsec warfare.
2.) Ships need to be gankable. I know people don't like this, but there is a reason CCP allows suicide ganking. The EHP level of ALL ships is low enough that a group of players may attack and destroy it. The exact Cargo Capacity vs EHP limit is somewhat arbitrary, but they want there to be a real choice in how you fit your ship. Larger Capacity vs lower EHP is a very reasonable tradeoff in the freighter business!
3.) Pragmatically, it is the value of goods you carry vs EHP that determines the profitability (which is the major driver of 75% of freighter ganks). Cargo capacity isn't nearly as important as Cargo Value to for-profit gankers. |
unidenify
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
82
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:29:00 -
[2177] - Quote
So, It is intended to not allow Damage Control on Freighter?
any reason why you feel that it is not allowing? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22122
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:30:00 -
[2178] - Quote
unidenify wrote:So, It is intended to not allow Damage Control on Freighter?
any reason why you feel that it is not allowing? Because it's too powerful and too cheap and generally impossible to balance against without making it a mandatory module. 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. |
Valterra Craven
248
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:31:00 -
[2179] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Because you get better results with an expander/bulkhead combo.
Yes, at significant costs to your ships capability. I mean if you're shield tanking a combat ship its not as if fitting more tank makes your DPS suffer.... (Though you could say that about armor ships in a round about way)
I guess the real question here is how much space do you need to hit the 1-2bil cargo limit. Since most people here were stating that a majority of the time the goods they were moving never filled a freighter up before they hit the cargo cost limit, how much m3 were the using? If it was less space than what you would loose to hull tanking, aka 1-2bil is 150k m3, then sure fit a hull tank, but if 1-2bil goods is closer to say 300k-400k m3 then fit armor? |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1090
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:33:00 -
[2180] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote: Why should it be your cap? Is there any hard evidence that something is broken if this arbitrary line is crossed?
It didn't used to be an arbitrary line, actually. Now that line is 1.3 mil, I believe. That does not address why it might be game breaking to achieve more than 150k EHP with 1 mill m3 of cargo. There are several game balance issues at hand: 1.) Cargo limit is set below the repackaged capital ship size. This is to prevent capital ships from being moved into highsec, which would have huge impacts on highsec warfare. 2.) Ships need to be gankable. I know people don't like this, but there is a reason CCP allows suicide ganking. The EHP level of ALL ships is low enough that a group of players may attack and destroy it. The exact Cargo Capacity vs EHP limit is somewhat arbitrary, but they want there to be a real choice in how you fit your ship. Larger Capacity vs lower EHP is a very reasonable tradeoff in the freighter business! 3.) Pragmatically, it is the value of goods you carry vs EHP that determines the profitability (which is the major driver of 75% of freighter ganks). Cargo capacity isn't nearly as important as Cargo Value to for-profit gankers.
None of these changes makes freighter ungankable unless they somehow have a hidden 100% resist to hull or something... |
|
Valterra Craven
248
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:34:00 -
[2181] - Quote
Also, has anyone run the numbers for what the new baseline is for cargo cost?
Aka if you run with no low slots how much value can you stuff before you get ganked? |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
33
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:35:00 -
[2182] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Also, has anyone run the numbers for what the new baseline is for cargo cost?
Aka if you run with no low slots how much value can you stuff before you get ganked? More than current, for sure. 2.5b I would reckon, practically. Probably around 500m minimum. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22123
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:35:00 -
[2183] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Yes, at significant costs to your ships capability. It would hardly be GÇ£better resultsGÇ¥ then, now would it? No, the costs are not significant. In fact, you'll end up with a better ship with a bulkhead/expander combo than if you try to armour tank the poor thing.
Remember, an expander cancels out a bulkhead but a bulkhead does not cancel out an expander. Put the two together and you get something that's better than you had before. That leaves you a third module to push on in whatever direction you're interested in. 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. |
Vetium
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:36:00 -
[2184] - Quote
110 pages and not.
I hope CCP realizes that it hit a wound here. (and I doubt it's the one of gankers) |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6446
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:37:00 -
[2185] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Also, has anyone run the numbers for what the new baseline is for cargo cost?
Aka if you run with no low slots how much value can you stuff before you get ganked?
Granted, this is napkin math since I'm at work.
No lowslots is about 900 mil.
Triple bulkheads turns into about 2.4 billion. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Cekle Skyscales
X-Prot Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere
49
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:38:00 -
[2186] - Quote
Change the bulkheads cpu bonus to a damage control cpu bonus. |
Sieges
60
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:39:00 -
[2187] - Quote
Seems like it would be better to not make any changes to the freighters and jump freighters unless they have been deemed overpowered or oversized, or...? The only customization I would have wanted, would be to paint my Charon flat black. |
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
379
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:41:00 -
[2188] - Quote
The maximum ehp you can get on freighters and JFs is too big.
EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
|
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
3495
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:42:00 -
[2189] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Yes, at significant costs to your ships capability. It would hardly be GÇ£better resultsGÇ¥ then, now would it? No, the costs are not significant. In fact, you'll end up with a better ship with a bulkhead/expander combo than if you try to armour tank the poor thing. Remember, an expander cancels out a bulkhead but a bulkhead does not cancel out an expander. Put the two together and you get something that's better than you had before. That leaves you a third module to push on in whatever direction you're interested in. Only reason I could see for adding a plate is when you have a inertia stab and hyperspatial mod in the other two slots. It's really just a fringe option. Sovereignty and Population New Mining Mechanics |
Valterra Craven
249
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:42:00 -
[2190] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Also, has anyone run the numbers for what the new baseline is for cargo cost?
Aka if you run with no low slots how much value can you stuff before you get ganked? Granted, this is napkin math since I'm at work. No lowslots is about 900 mil. Triple bulkheads turns into about 2.4 billion.
Man,I just realized how many combos there are that could affect this. Lol now we need a tool to determine cargo value based on fit!
1 expander 1 bulkhead, and 1 adaptive nano plating? |
|
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
649
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:44:00 -
[2191] - Quote
Stop asking for DCU. It's a terrible idea. There is a reason they have restrictive fittings. DCU has no drawbacks other than not having a 3rd slot for cargo. |
Valterra Craven
249
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:44:00 -
[2192] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Also, has anyone run the numbers for what the new baseline is for cargo cost?
Aka if you run with no low slots how much value can you stuff before you get ganked? Granted, this is napkin math since I'm at work. No lowslots is about 900 mil. Triple bulkheads turns into about 2.4 billion. Man,I just realized how many combos there are that could affect this. Lol now we need a tool to determine cargo value based on fit! 1 expander 1 bulkhead, and 1 adaptive nano plating?
Seems like moving around ice isotopes without getting ganked is going to be a real pain. |
Dave Stark
5965
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:50:00 -
[2193] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Stop asking for DCU. It's a terrible idea. There is a reason they have restrictive fittings. DCU has no drawbacks other than not having a 3rd slot for cargo. and provides an absurd ehp buff. |
Voyager Arran
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
194
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:53:00 -
[2194] - Quote
If it wasn't obvious that the anemic CPU output was specifically to prevent you from putting a DCU on your Freighter then I don't know what to tell you. |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1090
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:56:00 -
[2195] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Also, has anyone run the numbers for what the new baseline is for cargo cost?
Aka if you run with no low slots how much value can you stuff before you get ganked? Granted, this is napkin math since I'm at work. No lowslots is about 900 mil. Triple bulkheads turns into about 2.4 billion.
How about the full cargo failwhale? They should be rare but we all know they will happen. |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1090
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:58:00 -
[2196] - Quote
Cekle Skyscales wrote:Change the bulkheads cpu bonus to a damage control cpu bonus.
NO unless it also completely prevent you from warping so you have to slowboat gate to gate. |
Lyra Gerie
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
30
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 21:03:00 -
[2197] - Quote
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%.
That change still confuses me. I don't use either frighters or JF but it seems stupid to nerf the T2 version in this way. The way this reads regular freighters get up to 21-25% boost while JFs get next to nothing over what they were before this change. Yes they have more choice now, but it gives little reason for cargo capacity to be one of those choices as it doesn't boost it all that much beyond what it used to have.
That means either all cargo expanders or a severely gimped cargo hold. You might as well out right mention that you are nerfing JF rather then trying to disguise it in this manner. |
Igor Wodkowicz
Fast Animals Slow Children
2
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 21:05:00 -
[2198] - Quote
Roll back all tank changes, take a bit of structure away, and then make role bonus something like '75% reduction in Expanded Cargohold structure amount penalty' or something like that - that could be interesting one |
NEONOVUS
Diabolically Sexy Eureka-Secret Science R Us
844
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 21:07:00 -
[2199] - Quote
Why the special case for reinforced bulkheads over just making bulkheads some 0-1 for fitting?
I wonder if nanos mean I still need a web alt or can be bumped so easy... |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
33
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 21:08:00 -
[2200] - Quote
Lyra Gerie 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%.
That change still confuses me. I don't use either frighters or JF but it seems stupid to nerf the T2 version in this way. The way this reads regular freighters get up to 21-25% boost while JFs get next to nothing over what they were before this change. Yes they have more choice now, but it gives little reason for cargo capacity to be one of those choices as it doesn't boost it all that much beyond what it used to have.
That means either all cargo expanders or a severely gimped cargo hold. You might as well out right mention that you are nerfing JF rather then trying to disguise it in this manner. JFs are getting huge ehp boost though. Way more than freighters, so I think it's balanced. |
|
777 Tsuruomo
Final Ascension
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 21:14:00 -
[2201] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Also, has anyone run the numbers for what the new baseline is for cargo cost?
Aka if you run with no low slots how much value can you stuff before you get ganked? Granted, this is napkin math since I'm at work. No lowslots is about 900 mil. Triple bulkheads turns into about 2.4 billion. Man,I just realized how many combos there are that could affect this. Lol now we need a tool to determine cargo value based on fit! 1 expander 1 bulkhead, and 1 adaptive nano plating?
Max armor resists on lets say a Anshar with some Deadspace resistance plating (2 adaptive, 1 explosive ~210 M) is an average of 72.15% without boosts. 90k raw armor puts armor EHP 323k
With boosts (travel for webs?) average resists become 75.475% = 422k armor ehp... all without 'sacrificing' cargo space.
even without boosts, it seem is considerably higher (323k armor + 247k hull + 47k shields = 617k ehp) without sacrificing cargo.
T2 fit is 62.625% average armor resist so.. 240k+247k + 47k shields which is 534k which is a slight decrease from 3 bulkheads but you still have the cargo.
I feel like my math is off somewhere as it seems a bit high, but I've been up 24 hours so hopefully someone a bit more alert then me will verify. |
Daenika
MMO-Mechanics.com
104
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 21:15:00 -
[2202] - Quote
Tippia wrote:They're changing it: GÇ£We are also going to swap the speed penalty on all reinforced bulkhead modules to an equal percentage cargo capacity penalty. The agility penalty will remain intact at this time.GÇ¥.
Well boo. |
Antihrist Pripravnik
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
268
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 21:15:00 -
[2203] - Quote
Thank you CCP Fozzie and ship balancing team
Low slots are far better solution than rigs and provides additional gameplay and planning options. The numbers looks OK so far (I admit I've only looked at Freighters/JFs I could fly). I'm so glad that you got away from the rig approach, since it's kind of a permanent fit rather than having options. My signature got stolen (o.0) |
Flyinghotpocket
Amarrian Vengeance Team Amarrica
372
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 21:17:00 -
[2204] - Quote
2nd iteration is gr8. |
Ramona Quimby
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 21:17:00 -
[2205] - Quote
These modified changes are better, but STILL freighters needs more EHP, and maybe across the board warp/align speeds buffs (but feel free to nerf sub-warp speed to make ganking autopiloters even easier, they deserve to be prey).
Now, eat crow gankers, all you who were saying if freighters were given rigs then everyone would be sorry because it would be a nerf. That was just whining gankers trying to control the narrative to prevent freighters from being rebalanced to reflect DPS increases and thus ease of ganking. But, gankers are really a tiny, but very loud, minority, Eve could frankly do without you, it can't do with the carebears. So rigs announced as straight buff, gankers whine, rigs changed to nerfs, haulers and industrials unsub in mass, CCP realizes who really matters, freighters get low slots, ganker tears ensue and we get to tell them their own motto HTFU or GTFO.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22123
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 21:17:00 -
[2206] - Quote
777 Tsuruomo wrote:Max armor resists on lets say a Anshar with some Deadspace resistance plating (2 adaptive, 1 explosive ~210 M) Yes, let's turn a ship that's normally targeted for its cargo into a loot pi+¦ata with its fittings aloneGǪ
Oh, wait. i forget. These are freighter pilots we're talking about. They're really going to do that, aren't they?
Ramona Quimby wrote:These modified changes are better, but STILL freighters needs more EHP, and maybe across the board warp/align speeds buffs (but feel free to nerf sub-warp speed to make ganking autopiloters even easier, they deserve to be prey). No, they really don't. In fact, it's fairly likely at this point that their EHP numbers will be dialled back to more sensible numbers.
Quote:Now, eat crow gankers, all you who were saying if freighters were given rigs then everyone would be sorry because it would be a nerf. GǪand guess what? It was, and they were. Did you miss the first 90 pages of this thread? 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. |
Dave Stark
5966
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 21:20:00 -
[2207] - Quote
Ramona Quimby wrote:all you who were saying if freighters were given rigs then everyone would be sorry because it would be a nerf. not sure if you noticed; but they did get a nerf. that's why there were 60 pages of whining, and ccp had to change it for low slots. |
777 Tsuruomo
Final Ascension
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 21:24:00 -
[2208] - Quote
Tippia wrote:777 Tsuruomo wrote:Max armor resists on lets say a Anshar with some Deadspace resistance plating (2 adaptive, 1 explosive ~210 M) Yes, let's turn a ship that's normally targeted for its cargo into a loot pi+¦ata with its fittings aloneGǪ Oh, wait. i forget. These are freighter pilots we're talking about. They're really going to do that, aren't they? Ramona Quimby wrote:These modified changes are better, but STILL freighters needs more EHP, and maybe across the board warp/align speeds buffs (but feel free to nerf sub-warp speed to make ganking autopiloters even easier, they deserve to be prey). No, they really don't. In fact, it's fairly likely at this point that their EHP numbers will be dialled back to more sensible numbers. Quote:Now, eat crow gankers, all you who were saying if freighters were given rigs then everyone would be sorry because it would be a nerf. GǪand guess what? It was, and they were. Did you miss the first 90 pages of this thread?
heh, went off a bit of a tangent and then realized I was looking at the wrong column for the ehp and 3 bulk heads... sleep time |
vikari
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Nulli Secunda
79
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 21:27:00 -
[2209] - Quote
You are still nerfing the hell out of JFs....
over 5 seconds gained in alignment for every JF type, over 6 for most. You know with all 3 low slots being cargo expanders and that giving only 1-2% increase in cargo, you are forcing JFs to fit cargo expanders. It's to expensive to fly them, not too. So exactly how are we going to make up for the loss alignment time? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22124
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 21:29:00 -
[2210] - Quote
vikari wrote:You are still nerfing the hell out of JFs....
over 5 seconds gained in alignment for every JF type, over 6 for most. You know with all 3 low slots being cargo expanders and that giving only 1-2% increase in cargo, you are forcing JFs to fit cargo expanders. It's to expensive to fly them, not too. So exactly how are we going to make up for the loss alignment time? Reduce the alignment time; reduce warp time; reduce fuel costs. Make up for lost cargo by making more runs faster and at much lower costs. 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
34
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 21:29:00 -
[2211] - Quote
vikari wrote:You are still nerfing the hell out of JFs....
over 5 seconds gained in alignment for every JF type, over 6 for most. You know with all 3 low slots being cargo expanders and that giving only 1-2% increase in cargo, you are forcing JFs to fit cargo expanders. It's to expensive to fly them, not too. So exactly how are we going to make up for the loss alignment time? Huge EHP buff. |
Asuka Solo
Stark Fujikawa Stark Enterprises
2672
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 21:30:00 -
[2212] - Quote
Am I the only one who's sad at the powergrid and CPU given to these ships? Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk! |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
34
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 21:31:00 -
[2213] - Quote
Tippia wrote:vikari wrote:You are still nerfing the hell out of JFs....
over 5 seconds gained in alignment for every JF type, over 6 for most. You know with all 3 low slots being cargo expanders and that giving only 1-2% increase in cargo, you are forcing JFs to fit cargo expanders. It's to expensive to fly them, not too. So exactly how are we going to make up for the loss alignment time? Reduce the alignment time; reduce warp time; reduce fuel costs. Make up for lost cargo by making more runs faster and at much lower costs. Holy..... ****? Tippia actually siding with JF pilots? Now I can die happily, I have seen it all... |
Silvetica Dian
Manson Family Advent of Fate
1046
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 21:31:00 -
[2214] - Quote
Dersen Lowery wrote:Arya Regnar wrote:You can forget about ganking anshars alltogether 670k+ ehp. They can still carry well over 100k m3 at that ehp. That person has made the decision to fly a bomb shelter at the expense of pretty much every other consideration. For ~7 billion ISK, they should get a pretty good bomb shelter. They'll still die if caught, it'll just take a damnably long time to kill them. Put another way, I'm not sure that many jump freighter pilots are going to put up with the extra hassle of a mere 100km3 cargohold just to have a hilariously redundant tank. They're already used to taking measures to avoid getting caught, so they'll fit to the assumption that they're unlikely to get caught.
Jita to null home= undock , jump dock. deliver cargo of pvp ships Null to Jita is cargo of exploration loot , jump to Lsec and jump high, gate to gate to jita with low volume high value cargo. Guess which way is cargo and which way tank? Money at its root is a form of rationing. When the richest 85 people have as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion (50% of humanity) it is clear where the source of poverty is. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/20/trickle-down-economics-broken-promise-richest-85 |
Craven More
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 21:32:00 -
[2215] - Quote
Grenn Putubi wrote: 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 understand your idea behind wanting to give shield tankers a mid slot, but lets be honest, it would not really achieve anything & I'd be curious to see, how many people would fore go using it for invul field & instead use it for micro warp drive instead ?. |
Ramona Quimby
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 21:33:00 -
[2216] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Ramona Quimby wrote:all you who were saying if freighters were given rigs then everyone would be sorry because it would be a nerf. not sure if you noticed; but they did get a nerf. that's why there were 60 pages of whining, and ccp had to change it for low slots.
Not sure if you noticed; but they didn't get a nerf at first. Rigs were a straight buff, with only sub-warp speed drawbacks, then you and all you the other fail easymode gankers whined, Fozzie made the mistake of listening to you, this thread ensued because the bear was poked. |
Regan Rotineque
Arch Angels Assault Force The Kadeshi
335
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 21:34:00 -
[2217] - Quote
thank you
this provides a much more flexible and affordable option to fitting
in addition the player has much more choice in terms of deciding how much nerf vs tank vs speed they want and the ability to change it as their needs change without having to drop billions on rigs
there is only one small issue with the freighters and others have mentioned it - that the armour freighters end up at the higher end of the spectrum in terms of ehp than the two that have more shield. Although it might not seem like much, anyone who can so the math is going to recommend that you choose to train the armour versions vs the shield variants. Every bit of protection and advantage helps.
i suspect that over time we will end up with two heavily used freighter types and two used less
that being said its minor - overall the approach is much better than the previous iteration, ty CSM and Fozzie |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
34
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 21:34:00 -
[2218] - Quote
Craven More wrote:Grenn Putubi wrote: 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 understand your idea behind wanting to give shield tankers a mid slot, but lets be honest, it would not really achieve anything & I'd be curious to see, how many people would fore go using it for invul field & instead use it for micro warp drive instead ?. Easily fixed. All those modules require powergrid and cpu. Make freighters have 100% CPU & powergrid costs of adv. invul. field (and it's derivatives). |
Victoria Sin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
639
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 21:35:00 -
[2219] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:What you're asking for is to have new players handcuffed by pricetags just because your entitlement tells you that you should never have to die.
Pathetic.
I don't think that's what I asked for, no. What I in fact asked for was the effort required to kill one of these things in high sec, or anywhere come to think of it, better reflect the amount it actually costs and the fact that it's a prestige item that only Supers and Titans are able to beat in terms of cost.
|
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
650
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 21:43:00 -
[2220] - Quote
I think fozzie needs to update OP to reflect why there's not enough fittings for a DCU. Every tenth post keeps asking for one without reading other replies. |
|
Victoria Sin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
641
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 21:49:00 -
[2221] - Quote
vikari wrote:You are still nerfing the hell out of JFs....
over 5 seconds gained in alignment for every JF type, over 6 for most. You know with all 3 low slots being cargo expanders and that giving only 1-2% increase in cargo, you are forcing JFs to fit cargo expanders. It's to expensive to fly them, not too. So exactly how are we going to make up for the loss alignment time?
I'm just curious to know why you care about align time at all? If you're jumping to low sec you should be immediately initiating warp to the gate and getting your cyno alt to triple web you so you insta-warp. You should then be docking at the first station you find in the next system and transferring your stuff into a regular freighter and then using that to haul with no more than around 2b worth of stuff in it each trip (gate-to-gate, not autopilot). I do that even if it's 20b, 10 trips. It takes so long to earn that much it's not problem to me if it takes days to move it.
The way to keep your JF safe is just to have it in space for the absolute minimum amount of time. There's really no other strategy if CCP aren't going to allow it to have a tank commensurate with its cost. |
Voyager Arran
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
194
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 22:01:00 -
[2222] - Quote
RE: using JFs in hisec. It seems dumb at first, but it allows you to travel with near-complete safety (assuming you aren't flying around with a warded, in which case you deserve what you get). Stay at your keyboard, have cynos up on lowsec stations in range, and if someone starts trying to bump you for a gank then you just jump to freedom since they can't actually tackle you.
I mean, it could theoretically be done, but it would be highly impractical since they can jump directly out of gatecloak if their in-gate looks fishy. |
Claudine va Tefairevoir
Pangalactic Frontline Supply Agency
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 22:04:00 -
[2223] - Quote
Victoria Sin wrote:vikari wrote:You are still nerfing the hell out of JFs....
over 5 seconds gained in alignment for every JF type, over 6 for most. You know with all 3 low slots being cargo expanders and that giving only 1-2% increase in cargo, you are forcing JFs to fit cargo expanders. It's to expensive to fly them, not too. So exactly how are we going to make up for the loss alignment time? I'm just curious to know why you care about align time at all? If you're jumping to low sec you should be immediately initiating warp to the gate and getting your cyno alt to triple web you so you insta-warp. You should then be docking at the first station you find in the next system and transferring your stuff into a regular freighter and then using that to haul with no more than around 2b worth of stuff in it each trip (gate-to-gate, not autopilot). I do that even if it's 20b, 10 trips. It takes so long to earn that much it's not problem to me if it takes days to move it. The way to keep your JF safe is just to have it in space for the absolute minimum amount of time. There's really no other strategy if CCP aren't going to allow it to have a tank commensurate with its cost.
This. Max-Cargo JF and Max-Tank Freighter is the way to go. I never understood why tank on a JF should be important at all. if you are bumped off station or your cyno is killed while in jump, you JF would most likely die even with 2mln EHP. |
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
1841
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 22:08:00 -
[2224] - Quote
I like the revised changes. Well done. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
643
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 22:08:00 -
[2225] - Quote
I think there's still room for JFs to fit things other than cargo expanders. The last load in a JF run is typically not the maximum size of the JF, so swapping some or all of your cargo expanders for capital fuel efficiency lowslots for that jump is smart. Also, if you are doing multiple runs bringing stuff from highsec to lowsec, fitting istabs and/or hyperspatial optimizers to reduce your travel time with an empty JF is also smart.
Lowslots enable this behavior much better than rigs, since modules are much cheaper and can be removed from the JF without losing them. Rigs required you to make a single choice up-front and had that choice essentially be permanent due to the cost of capital rigs and the fact that they are destroyed when they are removed. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Smertyukovitch
Caladari CareBear Corporation
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 22:10:00 -
[2226] - Quote
That version without rigs is crap. Why? First of all you talking about giving JF pilots more options. In essence they are all about cutting down cargo they had in exchange of restoring some of the other stats they had. In other words "cut your arm off then you can eat less". It is a nerf of JF`s as you leave to players only bad choices. Secondly JF`s with rigs and low slots would be able to carry LVL 5 infrastructure upgrades. -íonsequences of that you can imagine you self. Personally i would love all of them. I would even agree to spend twice more fuel to jump but be capable of carrying this stuff. |
Draconus Lofwyr
UK Corp RAZOR Alliance
102
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 22:14:00 -
[2227] - Quote
Vincintius Agrippa wrote:Shizuken wrote: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. Is the cap ban before they changed the old aoe doommsdays? if so then i understand. Cant have titans doing supernovas' on the jita undock. But now, doomsdays are "aimed" weapons.I dont see why not now. Ofcourse If they did naturally, using doomsdays in hisec would be a criminal offence and youd get alpha'd by concord.
actually it goes back even farther, when you could actually permatank CONCORD in a battleship. they fixed that problem and realized the potential for conflict by keeping the rule in place. i personaly belive allowing capitals into highsec would fix a lot of gatecamp issues at regional null borders, but would open way to many other issues.
|
Luxotor
Imploding Turtles Rising in Outerspace Gravity
54
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 22:18:00 -
[2228] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone the Op has now been updated with a revised version of the design. As many of you were anticipating, we will be achieving the goal of customizability through low slots instead of rig slots. Big thanks to everyone who has provided reasoned feedback in the thread and special thanks to the CSM. The most significant issues raised in the thread about the previous version of the design are: - The permanence of customizability that relies completely on rigs. As the only classes to have rig slots alone with no fitting slots, Freighters and Jump Freighters would have allowed customization towards a player's most common use cases, but would still lack the very important ability to adjust fittings in response to changing needs and environments.
- The relative lack of interesting choices for Jump Freighter pilots. Due to the very unique situation of Jump Freighters, they did not receive very significant benefits from any rigs other than cargohold optimization. This is partially an issue with the lack of gameplay around JF use and their near complete safety when used optimally, but it also reflected a lack of good options.
To deal with the first issue, we are making the significant change of providing the goal of customizability through low slots rather than rig slots. Keeping this path balanced requires a few extra tricks but we believe that it will provide a more interesting set of gameplay choices for freighter pilots to make on an everyday basis. All Freighters and Jump Freighters will receive 3 low slots, and not receive any rig slots. They will have very restrictive powergrid and cpu totals, and a special role bonus that allows the use of Reinforced Bulkhead modules. In Kronos we are also adding a new set of low-slot warp speed enhancing modules that can be obtained through low-sec exploration. These modules will increase warp speed by a flat addition of 0.2, 0.25 or 0.3 au/s each. We expect that these will be popular modules for use on Freighters. To help address the lack of interesting options for Jump Freighters, we are planning to introduce a set of jump fuel conservation modules in the Crius release in July. These modules will not be available in Kronos. So we expect that most Freighter and Jump Freighter pilots will use their three low slots to mix and match the following modules to meet their needs: - Expanded Cargoholds
- Reinforced Bulkheads
- Hyperspatial Accelerators (warp speed modules)
- Inertia Stabilizers
- Overdrive Injector Systems
- (For certain armor tanking fits) Adaptive Nano Platings
- (For Jump Freighters) Capacitor Power Relays
- (For Jump Freighters after the Crius release) Jump Fuel Conservation Modules
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. The base EHP of all Freighters and Jump Freighters is being increased (since Expanded Cargoholds affect freighter hp more than cargo rigs do) and more emphasis is being placed on armor and shield than before (although all Freighters still gain the majority of their hitpoints from hull). Let us know what you think!
God damn these changes are so much better than what you were thinking of before. Having the ability to refit modules instead of the constrained usage from rigs is an infinitely better idea and I'm very pleased that you took an open and proactive approach to revisiting this subject. The addition of jump fuel conservation modules makes me even more happy.
No complaints from me - very happy with how this was dealt with. Wondering if CCP has thought about a slot 9 navigation implant that reduces jump fuel conservation (say by 1/3/5/8%?).
Thank you again for taking the time to revisit the ideas laid out in your original post and my appreciation extends to the CSM for their input as well. THE NIGHT IS DARK AND FULL OF TERRORS! |
Midori Tsu
Evolution Northern Coalition.
133
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 22:24:00 -
[2229] - Quote
Voyager Arran wrote:RE: using JFs in hisec. It seems dumb at first, but it allows you to travel with near-complete safety (assuming you aren't flying around with a wardecced, in which case you deserve what you get). Stay at your keyboard, have cynos up on lowsec stations in range, and if someone starts trying to bump you for a gank then you just jump to freedom since they can't actually tackle you.
I mean, it could theoretically be done, but it would be highly impractical since they can jump directly out of gatecloak if their in-gate looks fishy.
People already use JFs in highsec, not extremely common though. |
Jada Maroo
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
1388
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 22:31:00 -
[2230] - Quote
Love the rigs -> low slots change. Will they be able to deploy mobile depots and switch them in space as well? |
|
Iski Zuki DaSen
Icarus Academy
8
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 22:37:00 -
[2231] - Quote
[quote=Luxotor]. Wondering if CCP has thought about a slot 9 navigation implant that reduces jump fuel conservation (say by 1/3/5/8%?).
Nice idea |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
10027
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 22:37:00 -
[2232] - Quote
Claudine va Tefairevoir wrote:Victoria Sin wrote:vikari wrote:You are still nerfing the hell out of JFs....
over 5 seconds gained in alignment for every JF type, over 6 for most. You know with all 3 low slots being cargo expanders and that giving only 1-2% increase in cargo, you are forcing JFs to fit cargo expanders. It's to expensive to fly them, not too. So exactly how are we going to make up for the loss alignment time? I'm just curious to know why you care about align time at all? If you're jumping to low sec you should be immediately initiating warp to the gate and getting your cyno alt to triple web you so you insta-warp. You should then be docking at the first station you find in the next system and transferring your stuff into a regular freighter and then using that to haul with no more than around 2b worth of stuff in it each trip (gate-to-gate, not autopilot). I do that even if it's 20b, 10 trips. It takes so long to earn that much it's not problem to me if it takes days to move it. The way to keep your JF safe is just to have it in space for the absolute minimum amount of time. There's really no other strategy if CCP aren't going to allow it to have a tank commensurate with its cost. This. Max-Cargo JF and Max-Tank Freighter is the way to go. I never understood why tank on a JF should be important at all. if you are bumped off station or your cyno is killed while in jump, you JF would most likely die even with 2mln EHP. JF can't cyno into highsec, HTH. "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
|
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
1354
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 22:41:00 -
[2233] - Quote
Thread temporarily locked for some trolling cleaning... ISD Ezwal Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
Adunh Slavy
1405
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 23:47:00 -
[2234] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone the Op has now been updated with a revised version of the design.
...
Let us know what you think!
Much better Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.-á-á- William Pitt |
Tyrrax Thorrk
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
356
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 23:51:00 -
[2235] - Quote
Yeah much better.
Is a fully expanded JF losing ehp compared to current cos of the drawbacks of the module ? |
Andraea Sarstae
Circle of Steel Inc. Care Factor
9
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 00:07:00 -
[2236] - Quote
I dig it. |
cynobutt
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 00:17:00 -
[2237] - Quote
EVE has never been about nor ever should be about convenience. A nerf to freighters would have been a huge step in the right direction for this game.
CCP by you appeasing to people who say-- if this changed then it will be harder to do this or if this is done it will be easier to do that bla bla-- in an effort to keep people subbed does more harm to the game IN THE LONG RUN. This is a niche game and by trying to mainstream it you will lose sight of what made this game great.
But 3 low slots instead of rigs??? Just doesn't even sound or feel right for a freighter. |
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
136
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 00:20:00 -
[2238] - Quote
The move from rigs to low slots is good. Allows us to actually customize the freighter without worrying about destroying rigs if we need to refit.
While rigs gave us some options, they were hard and costly options. This is more flexible and I think we can work with this a lot more.
Thank you. |
Iris Bravemount
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
331
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 00:23:00 -
[2239] - Quote
Thank you guys!
Once more, you have proven that you are great game designers.
I am really happy with the decision to move from rigs to lows. It's a simple and elegant solution to most problems the rig proposal would have brought with it.
Now that the base EHP is actually increasing, there also doesn't seem to be a need for a construction cost reduction, the overall value of the bare hull remaining in the same ballpark.
Good job! "I will not hesitate when the test of Faith finds me, for only the strongest conviction will open the gates of paradise. My Faith in you is absolute; my sword is Yours, My God, and Your will guides me now and for all eternity." - Paladin's Creed |
Delhaven
Vicis Inter Astrum I'd Rather Be Roaming
45
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 00:26:00 -
[2240] - Quote
Aerissa Nolen wrote:http://xyjax.com/optimizer_kronos/Has been updated to replace rigs with cargo expander mods and the new base stats. Other mods to come "soon" as I get a chance to tinker. For those who want to play with the numbers. |
|
Money Makin Mitch
Paid in Full
367
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 00:28:00 -
[2241] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:I want to take this opportunity to remind people that pre-patch market speculation is never guaranteed and CCP takes no responsibility for any isk lost from speculation.
|
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
578
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 00:30:00 -
[2242] - Quote
Low slots makes for a much better change than rigs, as rigged freigthers would face the same problem as rigging a T3, adaptability is lost due to the permanence of rigs.
Updated change is a great improvement, always nice to see when CCP is willing to work with players. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
654
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 00:44:00 -
[2243] - Quote
Has anyone run the numbers on the total value a fully tanked a anshar can hold now? |
Polo Marco
Four Winds
2
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 00:47:00 -
[2244] - Quote
Warr Akini wrote:Tippia wrote:Ok, new tables: 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). tl;dr: the only ones who have anything to complain about anything anymore are gankersGǪ Indeed. I suppose it's time to speak up, then. Taking a quick look at Tippia's tables (which I will confirm when my little trained minions get around to hacking up EFT or something similar to it with numbers), there are a few things that are pretty concerning for someone who built the last two years of his EVE career on freighter ganking, with all the commensurate laughs and guffaws. There are of course many less people doing what I do than say hauling goodies around; everyone hauls at some stage or has someone haul for them - the Ministry of Love is no exception, but when there's such a glaring numbers issue put in front of me it's hard not to speak up. I see a major opportunity in customization (honestly, I'd love to see i-stabbed fenrirs zipping around more - insert some sort of fat-shaming joke here), but I also look at that scaling on the EHP side of the chart and notice something pretty woeful in terms of the new risk balance of the freighter proposition. In the very best case for freighter/JF EHP, that being three bulkheads, you gain in the vicinity of 75% of your EHP versus pre-Kronos - an Anshar in a 0.5 system fully bulkheaded now takes something like 15 Taloses to kill - something that really only one organization tends to be able to do at any regular interval, that being mine of course (although I do have my eyes on one very promising group who continues to dazzle me at every turn). Of course, as you climb the security status ladder, that number increases dramatically. However, look at the downside on the EHP chart. Even at the very worst-case scenario for a freighter or JF's EHP (three cargo expanders), you're losing somewhere between 10-20% of the pre-Kronos EHP...hell, the Fenrir loses only 2-3%. So then, the question to CCP Fozzie is if this is meant to be a nearly straight EHP buff for freighters, offering 75% EHP bonus on the upside versus only a 3-20% EHP drop on the downside. I'm happy to accept the nerfbat, as the Ministry of Love and me in particular have benefited in laughs and dollars over the past two years pretty heavily (not to mention Burn Jita and etc, which of course will still continue regardless), but note that not many other organizations have been able to sustain that kind of activity, and this will only increase the barrier to entry for gankers (I suspect plenty of folks in this thread would love to see that, but if you're in that camp you might imagine I'm not talking to you). So then, is this meant to be a survivability buff? Fully bulkheaded jump freighters, sitting at between 500-675k EHP (versus current of 320-365), will be damned near unkillable outside of being caught on beacons and poorly-placed cynos in lowsec. Hell, that's a quarter of a trimark/DC'd dreadnought. Something else to consider - Jump Freighters have long been nearly risk-less (I say nearly, Freight Club's been nice enough to prove me wrong) in their operation when travelling from highsec to low. Simply jump from your trade hub to a lowsec cyno near your operation and start your cynoing. If you're coming back empty, put in bulkheads and you are yet again unkillable!
|
Ben Hatton
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
9
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 00:56:00 -
[2245] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Has anyone run the numbers on the total value a fully tanked a anshar can hold now? 121,167 EHP with Bulkhead IIs giving it 662,692 EHP |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
59
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 01:04:00 -
[2246] - Quote
Don't look at the fully tanked ARK
PS - don't use bulkheads |
stoicfaux
4846
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 01:08:00 -
[2247] - Quote
Warr Akini wrote:
Taking a quick look at Tippia's tables (which I will confirm when my little trained minions get around to hacking up EFT or something similar to it with numbers), there are a few things that are pretty concerning for someone who built the last two years of his EVE career on freighter ganking, with all the commensurate laughs and guffaws. There are of course many less people doing what I do than say hauling goodies around; everyone hauls at some stage or has someone haul for them - the Ministry of Love is no exception, but when there's such a glaring numbers issue put in front of me it's hard not to speak up.
Eh... hate to say it, but who cares if it's harder to gank a freighter in high-sec anymore? If we're going to be able to build player star gates, then we're probably going to need a huge (and reliable) industrial and *logistics* base with which to do it. The concerns of the builders is going to outweigh the concerns of the anarchists.
To put it simply, suicide ganking freighters is small time banditry. The real goal in attacking freighters is to disrupt another alliance from building their stargate first. That's where the real money/action/impetus will be, IMHO.
My apologies for sounding a bit harsh and dismissive of your concerns, but freighters haven't had any meaningful ways of adapting their freighters to the environment except by CCP Fiat. Now they finally get a buff and some options.
tl;dr - A Commerce Raiding release will happen. No more ganking. It's time for real war.
WASABI: Warp Acceleration System Ancillary Boost Injected(Gäó)
|
TigerXtrm
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
692
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 01:12:00 -
[2248] - Quote
Ben Hatton wrote:Rowells wrote:Has anyone run the numbers on the total value a fully tanked a anshar can hold now? 121,167 m3 with Bulkhead IIs giving it 662,692 EHP http://xyjax.com/optimizer_kronos/
With max skills it's giving me 712,327 EHP
Flying fortress trucking its way to Jita! My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things! |
Sabriz Adoudel
Mission BLITZ
2928
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 01:12:00 -
[2249] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:I want to take this opportunity to remind people that pre-patch market speculation is never guaranteed and CCP takes no responsibility for any isk lost from speculation.
hehehehe...
Now let's hope you don't need to say a similar thing to me after all of the items I have been purchasing to speculate on a proposed Crius change. EVE rule 1: Never undock anything you can't afford to lose. Rule 2: Never trust anyone in-game unless you are sleeping with them IRL. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=238931 - an idea for a new form of hybrid PVE/PVP content. www.minerbumping.com - ganking miners and causing chaos |
45thtiger 0109
AL3XAND3R.
68
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 01:19:00 -
[2250] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Abrazzar wrote:Everybody! Speculate now in capital rigs! Anyone want to buy a Nomad?
Sorry Tippia I have one of those as well.
Hi CCP Fozzie please don't make a terrible choice in balancing the JF & Freighters.
You know they are slow and agile and to make them slower it not worth of having them at all.
Also allot of players who have them will sell them on the market & the market will be flooded with freighters and JF and no one will buy them if you bring this change in.
I am not a CCP employee-ájust having a input in the EvE forum
|
|
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
654
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 01:21:00 -
[2251] - Quote
TigerXtrm wrote:Ben Hatton wrote:Rowells wrote:Has anyone run the numbers on the total value a fully tanked a anshar can hold now? 121,167 m3 with Bulkhead IIs giving it 662,692 EHP http://xyjax.com/optimizer_kronos/ With max skills it's giving me 712,327 EHP Flying fortress trucking its way to Jita! Sorry, meant to know what value the ship can hold in isk before it's profitable to gank. |
Chandaris
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
579
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 01:23:00 -
[2252] - Quote
Heard about the recent update, sounds great.
Honestly I think they should give these ships rigs and lowslots.. outside of a jump drive, these ships are utterly defenseless.. with any combination of rigs and lowslots, they're still pretty much defeneless.. |
Delhaven
Vicis Inter Astrum I'd Rather Be Roaming
45
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 01:34:00 -
[2253] - Quote
Rowells wrote:TigerXtrm wrote:Ben Hatton wrote:Rowells wrote:Has anyone run the numbers on the total value a fully tanked a anshar can hold now? 121,167 m3 with Bulkhead IIs giving it 662,692 EHP http://xyjax.com/optimizer_kronos/ With max skills it's giving me 712,327 EHP Flying fortress trucking its way to Jita! Sorry, meant to know what value the ship can hold in isk before it's profitable to gank. Plug it into the site. The values are at the bottom. |
Catherine Laartii
State Protectorate Caldari State
186
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 02:40:00 -
[2254] - Quote
What's the reasoning for not allowing BOTH rigs and lows? Or making them, you know...normal with mids and highs and such too? |
Station Sitter
Heavy Star Industries
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 02:56:00 -
[2255] - Quote
Love the new changes a hell of a lot more. Thanks for listening to the community! |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
5
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 03:00:00 -
[2256] - Quote
Catherine Laartii wrote:What's the reasoning for not allowing BOTH rigs and lows? Or making them, you know...normal with mids and highs and such too?
why not just give it 8H 8M 8L 8 rig slots with 800 calibration 500cpu 500 powergrid and 6k shield armor and hull with a cargo size of 6000
any slots it gets will come out of its hull to compensate for the flexibility of fitting. And as its job is moving things from one location to another I'm not sure wtf you would use high slots or mid slots for as it has 2 important things hull tank and cargo space both are low slots and there's nothing in the mids or highs that would help with that. |
Iam Widdershins
project nemesis
859
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 03:26:00 -
[2257] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Lena Lazair wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:The numbers are now corrected in the OP. Can you confirm in contrast that the agility nerf to JFs is intentional? (from 0.05 to 0.0625)? It's intentional, although I have been seeing a few good arguments for reconsidering it in the thread so far. I love how so many people are so buttmad that Jump Freighters are getting nerfed, yet nobody can possibly wrap their heads around the idea that a ship that THEY FLY might be getting nerfed intentionally. Lobbying for your right to delete your signature |
PaulsAvatar
IXCO
4
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 03:31:00 -
[2258] - Quote
Delhaven wrote:Rowells wrote:TigerXtrm wrote:Ben Hatton wrote:Rowells wrote:Has anyone run the numbers on the total value a fully tanked a anshar can hold now? 121,167 m3 with Bulkhead IIs giving it 662,692 EHP http://xyjax.com/optimizer_kronos/ With max skills it's giving me 712,327 EHP Flying fortress trucking its way to Jita! Sorry, meant to know what value the ship can hold in isk before it's profitable to gank. Plug it into the site. The values are at the bottom.
Site looks very handy but I don't know if I trust the numbers. Right now it's saying that a freighter can only carry about a quarter million in goods before it starts becoming profitable to gank. Goes contrary to the idea of a billion being the max collateral that seems fairly standard to hauling corps.
I like the new changes. It doesn't cost me billions to get similar to what I have now, and actually gives me a fair amount of choice in setting it up and tuning it to my style, and I can cheaply and quickly change it if I want to.
+1 for new proposal. |
Ben Hatton
The Fifth Dimension
9
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 03:37:00 -
[2259] - Quote
PaulsAvatar wrote:
Site looks very handy but I don't know if I trust the numbers. Right now it's saying that a freighter can only carry about a quarter million in goods before it starts becoming profitable to gank. Goes contrary to the idea of a billion being the max collateral that seems fairly standard to hauling corps.
I like the new changes. It doesn't cost me billions to get similar to what I have now, and actually gives me a fair amount of choice in setting it up and tuning it to my style, and I can cheaply and quickly change it if I want to.
+1 for new proposal.
Unfortunately the 1 bill has been a false hope for a while since catalysts in the right numbers can gank freighters. The 1 bill was often based on using battle cruiser hulls |
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS type X
158
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 03:54:00 -
[2260] - Quote
The only concern that seems to exist is shield ships not having an option like adaptive nano plating. Perhaps a low slot option only available to freighter and JF's that is exactly the same but affects shields?
This would require only one new mod in the game. Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really. |
|
Axe Coldon
41
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 03:54:00 -
[2261] - Quote
CCP Fozzie,
Well the changes are good. Heard that alot. It concerns me there is no way to boost the shields of the shield tank freighters and everyone will be trading in their Caldari Freighters for Amarr.
Can you come up with some way to shield tank without messing up the balance. i.e. a special freighter only mod that does shield resistances instead of armor. Or add 1 midslot with super low power and cpu and then a mid version of adaptive nano.
I get racially the charon should have shield instead of armor but the armor tanked ones will be able to take best advantage of the change.
If you can't that's fine. 3 low slots are better then no slots. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
10027
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 03:59:00 -
[2262] - Quote
Nobody's going to try ganking a freighter that's carrying 250m. I carry that much in untanked T1 industrials at times (on an NPC alt) and I haven't been ganked yet, probably partially due to my use of bookmarks. "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
Ben Hatton
The Fifth Dimension
9
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 04:04:00 -
[2263] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:The only concern that seems to exist is shield ships not having an option like adaptive nano plating. Perhaps a low slot option only available to freighter and JF's that is exactly the same but affects shields?
This would require only one new mod in the game.
Each ship will have its positives and negatives, just as they currently do. Realistically, if you want tank, its gotta be bulkheads, cause real men hull tank haha. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
10027
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 04:05:00 -
[2264] - Quote
Adaptive nano plating is suboptimal even on the freighters that benefit the most from it. There's really no reason to use it almost ever except maybe if you're also using a High-Grade Slave set. "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
BEPOHNKA
Phoenix Company Force Northern Associates.
169
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 04:07:00 -
[2265] - Quote
The changes what have been made will be a,great add on! Thanks for hearing us out ccp! |
Nex Killer
Drunk3n Industry
66
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 04:18:00 -
[2266] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Nex Killer wrote:Fozzie can you still look into lower the amount of Capital Cargo Bays needed to build a freighter because they're losing so much of their base cargo. Traditionally lowering build costs has always, always been a Bad IdeaGäó because of patch speculation, market manip, etc. This may not be the case coming up due to the loss of perfect reprocessing but still I doubt they will do so. I don't see why they should.
The reason why I see they should change the build requirements is because they are losing a big chunk of their base stats. If carriers were to get a big boost in drone bay the build requirement should go up on them, if they lost a lot of drone bay they should loss some of the build requirement.
Here is an example of what I think they should do because of the change the Charon is losing 40% of its old base cargo, gaining 12% more shield, losing 25% armor, and losing 27% structure. The BPO should reflect the changes because a blueprint tells you how to build something and what you need end up with shouldn't have lost 40% of what the BPO said you only needed. Yes waste blah blah blah but waste is built into the BPO. So the BPO to build a Charon should be changed to something like this (prices from my ISK per Hour pull):
Part Name......................................Old......New..........Part Prices................Old Total.........................New Total Capital Cargo Bay........................105..........63.........$8,199,999.95..........$860,999,994.75...........$516,599,996.85 Capital Construction Parts...........51..........51.........$7,238,982.00..........$369,188,082.00...........$369,188,082.00 Capital Armor Plates.....................14..........10.........$8,499,999.99..........$118,999,999.86............$84,999,999.90 Capital Propulsion Engine...........11..........11.........$9,399,999.98..........$103,399,999.78...........$103,399,999.78
Capital Shield Emitter......................0..........33.........$9,499,000.00..........$-..................................... $313,467,000.00
Build Total:...............$1,452,588,076.39........$1,387,655,078.53
Total Change: $64,932,997.86 http://i.imgur.com/JdrLPLS.png - If you can't read it.
As you can see the Charon or any freighter never needed Capital Shield Emitter and with this change it now needs them so it can be built. With this change your only saving about 65M from the old build requirements but now makes sense. How I got the amount needed for the shield emitters is I just took I the new number needed for armor plates divided it by the 10 which is 1,500 HP per plate. So I took the Charon 50k shield and just divided it by 1,500 and got 33.333... so made it 33 Emitters needed for the build. I don't get how freighter never needed Capital Shield Emitters in the BPO they have shield yet in the BPO they only needed armor plates. Personally I think all BPO should go get a revamped and changed like drone BPO should require Robotics in them. |
Sentamon
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
1833
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 04:18:00 -
[2267] - Quote
Haha shield tanking your freighter.. Bad at Eve.
~ Professional Forum Alt -á~ |
Sturmwolke
573
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 04:38:00 -
[2268] - Quote
Pure gold. Thread of the year. |
Warr Akini
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
125
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 04:40:00 -
[2269] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:Eh... hate to say it, but who cares if it's harder to gank a freighter in high-sec anymore? If we're going to be able to build player star gates, then we're probably going to need a huge (and reliable) industrial and *logistics* base with which to do it. The concerns of the builders is going to outweigh the concerns of the anarchists.
To put it simply, suicide ganking freighters is small time banditry. The real goal in attacking freighters is to disrupt another alliance from building their stargate first. That's where the real money/action/impetus will be, IMHO.
My apologies for sounding a bit harsh and dismissive of your concerns, but freighters haven't had any meaningful ways of adapting their freighters to the environment except by CCP Fiat. Now they finally get a buff and some options.
tl;dr - A Commerce Raiding release will happen. No more ganking. It's time for real war.
I'm not sure where to start - the assumption that because ganking is undertaken by relatively less people that it's illegitimate, compounded by trying to denigrate "guerrilla war" (which is basically what suicide ganking is) versus "real war" (Ho Chi Minh is laughing at you now) and placating gankers with promises of a vague commerce raiding release - or the blatantly incorrect statement that freighters have no way of adapting to their environment (webbers/escort, intel/killboards, having any sort of friends, navigational tactics meant to confuse scouts following your freighter, risk management via controlling your cargo, not to mention the bevy of options jump freighters have) - or trying to assume that the stargate-building (the chevrons are locking) will be the one target ever for logistics disruption, which I don't even know why you brought up.
In short, I don't really see your point. |
Aiwha
Trans Secunda Nulli Secunda
747
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 04:46:00 -
[2270] - Quote
On the subject of Jump fuel conservation modules, is this JF only or will we be adding these to dread/carrier fits? We're winning the war if it says so on CAOD! -á
|
|
Amyclas Amatin
Northstar Cabal Tactical Narcotics Team
283
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 04:47:00 -
[2271] - Quote
My survey shows that half of EVE has partaken in the sweet nectar of ganking. For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/ High-Sec has a future, But do You? Buy a Mining Permit to Secure yours today. |
Jessica Danikov
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
342
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 04:48:00 -
[2272] - Quote
I must admit it feels a bit hacky to me. The whole shield vs. armor balance works nicely with 99% of the ships in EVE as they all have varying compliments of medium and low slots which naturally compete with other modules with other functions and the limited room that is available.
What Freighters really need is to be treated like proper, first class ships- Capital industrials that top the end of their ship line. Instead of asking what should we add to Freighters, we could give them a full compliment of highs, mids, lows, rigs, CPU and PG and then think what should we take away? How many slots should we balance on (regular industrials have up to 11)? Is a Cyno freighter really that bad? A cloak? What about smartbombs, webs, ewar, etc. etc.? Is there a good reason not to let some crazy individual try to make those modules work on a >1 billion ISK hull? The results would be hilarious however it turned out, as anyone who's flown a battle badger/itty V/rorqual/venture etc. can attest.
What's really missing from the proposal for me is the end goal- yes, we want to give players more choice when flying a freighter, yes, rigs were too permanent and didn't offer up enough choice. What hasn't been clear is the affect of offering that choice on balance- have the nerfs/buffs to freighters introduced by proposed changes been necessary evils due to how things were implemented, or is there a purposeful desire to reduce freighter effectiveness overall as part of granting the ability to narrowly surpass those abilities with specialization? With any changes, do we expect the 'average' fit to match the current baseline or not? |
Claudine va Tefairevoir
Pangalactic Frontline Supply Agency
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 05:56:00 -
[2273] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Claudine va Tefairevoir wrote:Victoria Sin wrote:vikari wrote:You are still nerfing the hell out of JFs....
over 5 seconds gained in alignment for every JF type, over 6 for most. You know with all 3 low slots being cargo expanders and that giving only 1-2% increase in cargo, you are forcing JFs to fit cargo expanders. It's to expensive to fly them, not too. So exactly how are we going to make up for the loss alignment time? I'm just curious to know why you care about align time at all? If you're jumping to low sec you should be immediately initiating warp to the gate and getting your cyno alt to triple web you so you insta-warp. You should then be docking at the first station you find in the next system and transferring your stuff into a regular freighter and then using that to haul with no more than around 2b worth of stuff in it each trip (gate-to-gate, not autopilot). I do that even if it's 20b, 10 trips. It takes so long to earn that much it's not problem to me if it takes days to move it. The way to keep your JF safe is just to have it in space for the absolute minimum amount of time. There's really no other strategy if CCP aren't going to allow it to have a tank commensurate with its cost. This. Max-Cargo JF and Max-Tank Freighter is the way to go. I never understood why tank on a JF should be important at all. if you are bumped off station or your cyno is killed while in jump, you JF would most likely die even with 2mln EHP. JF can't cyno into highsec, HTH.
? Of course they can not - who said so? But freighters are not going from Null or Low to High and are then magically transferred back. Sometimes they make return trips. |
Claudine va Tefairevoir
Pangalactic Frontline Supply Agency
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 06:00:00 -
[2274] - Quote
TigerXtrm wrote:Ben Hatton wrote:Rowells wrote:Has anyone run the numbers on the total value a fully tanked a anshar can hold now? 121,167 m3 with Bulkhead IIs giving it 662,692 EHP http://xyjax.com/optimizer_kronos/ With max skills it's giving me 712,327 EHP Flying fortress trucking its way to Jita!
840k with HG slaves and supporting hardwires |
Orny
Shipping Corporation Global ANZUS
7
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 06:05:00 -
[2275] - Quote
Any thoughts of a Super Freighter at any stage - Titan size, 25-30 Mill m3 capital components bay, 5 Mill m3 general cargo bay, and the ability to use jump drive without cyno at the other end - solo hauling low / Null only. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
654
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 06:10:00 -
[2276] - Quote
Claudine va Tefairevoir wrote:TigerXtrm wrote:Ben Hatton wrote:Rowells wrote:Has anyone run the numbers on the total value a fully tanked a anshar can hold now? 121,167 m3 with Bulkhead IIs giving it 662,692 EHP http://xyjax.com/optimizer_kronos/ With max skills it's giving me 712,327 EHP Flying fortress trucking its way to Jita! 840k with HG slaves and supporting hardwires plex hauling here I come |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium
5338
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 06:14:00 -
[2277] - Quote
Rowells wrote:plex hauling here I come
Erm GǪ wouldn't you be better off hauling PLEX in a blockade runner, since you have the cloak and an incredibly short align time and high warp speed?
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Dave Stark
5967
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 06:48:00 -
[2278] - Quote
Ramona Quimby wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Ramona Quimby wrote:all you who were saying if freighters were given rigs then everyone would be sorry because it would be a nerf. not sure if you noticed; but they did get a nerf. that's why there were 60 pages of whining, and ccp had to change it for low slots. Not sure if you noticed; but they didn't get a nerf at first. Rigs were a straight buff, with only sub-warp speed drawbacks, then you and all you the other fail easymode gankers whined, Fozzie made the mistake of listening to you, this thread ensued because the bear was poked.
they weren't even close to a straight buff, but you carry on telling yourself it was. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
654
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 06:53:00 -
[2279] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Rowells wrote:plex hauling here I come Erm GǪ wouldn't you be better off hauling PLEX in a blockade runner, since you have the cloak and an incredibly short align time and high warp speed? But then I can't collect tears as my cargo gets scanned by gankers |
Rena'Thras
Military Gamers The Methodical Alliance
12
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 07:27:00 -
[2280] - Quote
Hello.
I'm one of those people that isn't a forum junkie, so maybe what I say doesn't really matter. Alternatively, take me as one of those "normally happy players that only goes to the forums when something really weird is happening."
I want to start by asking a question:
What is the intended design goal of this change?
.
Why am I asking?
Suppose the intended design goal is to encourage industrialists to localize in areas - harvest, produce, and sell - then reduced cargo holds makes sense. However, what would also make sense is buffed ship health and faster align times. After all, the ship has less cargo hold, meaning in a "if EVE was real life" sense, there's more room for armor plating or lighter frames or bigger engines.
More specifically, it means the ships would be used more for local travel in Low and Null, keeping those markets hale and hearty.
.
Suppose, instead, the intended design is to give pilots more customization options - do they want faster align, bigger cargo hold, etc. Now they can have that choice. For that to happen, though, the levels have to be dropped. After all, the Freighters/JFs are balanced around the levels they're at now, right?
Well, in THAT case, they should be nerfed, but where T1 (Tier ONE) rigs will bring them back up to normal. If you look at the calculations that I found on another site (TheMitinni, I think it was?), it shows that if you fully load a Freighter out with T1 cargo rigs, it still has LESS CARGO CAPACITY than the Freighters do on live, and ALSO has the negative bonus of having longer align times and less overall health.
Why does this make sense to anyone? At the very least, with 3x T1 cargo rigs, it should have EQUAL cargo capacity to live right now. Then if a person were to invest in T2 rigs, they should go above the current levels, with the caveat that in the other two areas (align and HP in the case of going all out on cargo), they would be weaker than live.
The reason this doesn't make sense is because even if you kit out for one of the areas, unless you bring T2 rigs, you're still weaker in that area than on live AND you're also considerably weaker in the other two areas. Only if you go balls to the wall in T2 rigs for only ONE area can you get an improvement over live, but in that case, you're still weaker in two other areas.
So you're not getting more customization, you're getting less - your ship is weaker unless you specialize with expensive T2 rigs, but even then, your ship will be weaker in the other areas.
Were I to set this up for customization, I would make it where a T2 rig of each type would JUST make the ship exactly what it is on live (a "balanced", but high tech setup.) Using 3 T1s in one area would put it at slightly ahead (in that one area) of what it is today but weaker in the others (2 T1s would put it somewhat behind what it is on live.) Keep in mind, 3 T1s means you're sacrificing the other two areas.
So this design intent seems clearly NOT intended to increase customization, since you're penalized doing anything. ANYTHING - there's no setup that will bring you to the live numbers. Any set up will either have you weaker in two or all three areas, and only the expensive AND specialized setups for one area will have you out ahead...but only in that one area, you're still behind in the other two.
.
I guess what I'm saying is, why aren't the changes calculated where all T1 rigs produces, at LEAST, at a MINIMUM, the same capacity in that system as before the nerf? Why is there no setup (say T2 rigs in all three systems) that brings you back to the standard baseline we have today?
This is all nerf and little gain. I don't understand what design intent says that ships should get weaker no matter how you kit out, with no option of getting the baseline of today. And this isn't like the Tiericide thing which simply brought hulls more in line with each other - the Freighter/JF line doesn't really have competition like that. It's not like we're balancing a Jump Freighter against a Carrier or a Freighter against a Dreadnaught. Thoraxes and Vexors are a different animal than Freighters and Jump Frigates, which are more like balancing the T1 Industrials against the T2 Blockade Runners - it just doesn't work with a Tiericide approach, since Freighters/JFs aren't in "tiers".
And so I ask again:
What is the intended design goal of this change?
CCP, help me understand why this makes no sense. Maybe you're looking at it from some weird angle that I don't see.
But if the intent is to encourage local markets, then you should just slash cargo holds but boost armor and agility (make the ships more attractive for Low and Null). If the intent is customizability for pilots, then the baseline should be such that T1 rigs will get it to at least equal what it is today, and that there be some "balanced" setup which comes close to the baseline of today.
This change seems to meet neither of these objectives, so what IS it meeting? |
|
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
654
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 07:32:00 -
[2281] - Quote
Rena'Thras wrote:Hello.
I'm one of those people that isn't a forum junkie...*SUPER SNIP* Rigs are gone, low-slots are in. Re-read OP. |
Carniflex
StarHunt Mordus Angels
212
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 07:47:00 -
[2282] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone the Op has now been updated with a revised version of the design. ... Let us know what you think!
This seems a more reasonable iteration than the first one with rigs. At least that way one has an option to refit and and fuel reduction module vs cargo expander vs nanofiber/istab feels like meaningful decision to make for JF based on specific situation as opposed to previous "decision" of fitting T2 cargo rigs or T1 cargo rigs.
Assuming the fuel savings from the proposed modules end up to be something meaningful enough. However, I see these modules to be in quite a high demand by all the non-freighter capital pilots and black ops pilots as well. If this ends up being a significant issue it might be possible to balance this by switching the flat 5% fuel reduction bonus from JF skill to provide additional benefit from these new lowslot modules or add a specific role bonus to JF hull. For a start, though, situation will be probably fine and will benefit smaller groups probably a bit more than major coalitions (as major coalitions can just shrug off the fuel costs as long as it's not something utterly crippling for smaller non-renter-empire groups).
Regular freighters seem better off slightly as well. Have not looked at exact numbers so far but at first glance it seems reasonable enough compromise in regards of cargo space vs agility/AP speed/EHP.
With the increased shields/armor it might be even reasonable to "escort" a freighter with logi ships against suicide ganks and 3 to 6 bonused web's would presumably make one still instawarp if one is willing to put in the effort of doing that kind of stuff.
Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... *THWONK!* GOT the bastard. |
Sgt Ocker
Last Bastion of Freedom
230
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 08:04:00 -
[2283] - 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. I'm curious as to why you bothered with the role bonus on Jump Freighters after advertising the attribute change to Bulkheads from Agility to Cargo reduction.
Quote:Note the change in the Jump Freighter HP bonus, which now only applies to their main tank and hull. The large increase in JF base HP and resist more than make up for the bonus change and all JFs have more base EHP than before
Quote:although all Freighters still gain the majority of their hitpoints from hull). At least until you fit the 3 Required Expanded Cargo Holds to get, 1% or 2% more cargo capacity, for a loss of 20% Structure Per Module. Alternately you can fit Bulkheads or Overdrives for a reduction in an already more than halved cargo capacity.
I don't see a JF with around 120k cargo hold, that aligns slower than now but has more EHP as being an interesting fitting option.
Now if they had a bonus to Warp Core Stabilizers, with similar cargo hold drawbacks as Bulkheads and Overdrives - That would make for interesting fitting options.
Greatly reduce the chance of being scrammed at the expense of cargo capacity. Fitting limitation of 2 (limited CPU will do that)
Drawbacks for fitting a Warp Core Stabilizer to a fteighter, -15% cargo capacity +5% Inertia modifier My opinions are mine. -á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-áIf you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK. Just don't bother Hating - I don't care.. |
MOL0TOK
E.V.G.
942
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 08:24:00 -
[2284] - Quote
About replacement rigs on low slots - I see that CCP can work when they want! Nice idea! -æ-+-+, -¦-î-Ä -+ -¦-â-¦-â -¦-+-é-î! / to Kerzhakoved / |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
34
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 08:27:00 -
[2285] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote: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. Quote: All Freighters and Jump Freighters will receive 3 low slots, and not receive any rig slots. Sorry but I am a little confused. In your reply to Tippia, you say T1 rigs, yet the description states (twice) that freighters and Jump Freighters will not receive Rig Slots. Could someone clarify which statement is true, as both statements are from the same Dev and one contradicts the other.. Are they getting rigs or not?
What is there to clarify? Originally, freighters were supposed to get rigs. Now they get low slots instead.
|
Rena'Thras
Military Gamers The Methodical Alliance
12
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 08:30:00 -
[2286] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Rena'Thras wrote:Hello.
I'm one of those people that isn't a forum junkie...*SUPER SNIP* Rigs are gone, low-slots are in. Re-read OP.
Oh cool.
So the baseline stats...higher/lower than before?
That is, are we slotting just to meet live, or are able to exceed live in at least one area?
I'll have to do some comparisons...
Anyway, thanks. Good to know. |
Dave Stark
5967
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 08:44:00 -
[2287] - Quote
Rena'Thras wrote:Rowells wrote:Rena'Thras wrote:Hello.
I'm one of those people that isn't a forum junkie...*SUPER SNIP* Rigs are gone, low-slots are in. Re-read OP. Oh cool. So the baseline stats...higher/lower than before? That is, are we slotting just to meet live, or are able to exceed live in at least one area? I'll have to do some comparisons... Anyway, thanks. Good to know.
answers here. |
Pyotr Sevastyan
Babylon Knights The Unthinkables
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 09:33:00 -
[2288] - Quote
So, in one hand you want move industry in 0.0 and you say risk = isk, but in other hand you nerf JF ,the only jump-ship who can jump from high sec, with increasing fuel comsumption and reducing cargo (more fuel in cargo = less cargo for real needed).
So cost for bring item in 0.0 (because we can't prod everything in 0.0) will be higher ! We take risk but we only loose money.
The only good think would be having one more rigs slot for JF & (i'm dreaming) have a rigs for reduce comsuption for capital.
And why nerf the Rhea more than Other ? Rhea has a good cargo but the fuel is very expensive, so if you do that i want all my skill be reimboursed for switch to Anshar ! |
Dareth Astrar
Astrar Logistics and Engineering
19
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 09:36:00 -
[2289] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Below is the type of person that I and many others think that Fozzie will listen to: TheGunslinger42 wrote:Carebear industrialists have been demanding more tank and speed in their big spacetrucks for god knows how long - now that they're giving the option of that (but with a tradeoff, of course) they poop their spacepants and rage and rage and rage.
Good changes, and delicious tears. Great job Fozzie, more of this sort of thing. Here is the sort of person that he should instead listen to: Dareth Astrar wrote:It concerns me that to address a few points, you have made such massive structural changes to the hauling backbone that keeps this game running.
I was concerned with the coming industrial changes, but willing to see them in practice on SiSi for a while before making final comments.
We may be a small corporation, but we had already adopted an approach of attempting to perform industry outside of a major hub. The problem has always been hauling the massive quantities of materials around to actually make it possible.
One of our regular builds used to comprise of the following:
Tritanium1,464,196,468 Pyerite 291,120,685 Mexallon81,465,340 Isogen 15,966,498 Nocxium3,588,315 Zydrine 912,678 Megacyte460,246
1,857,710,230 total units. 18,577,102.3 m3 volume. Charon's Maxed Pilots (which we needed): 981,250 m3 Total Loads: 18.93, so 19 round trips to collect minerals
New Charon Max Load before rigs: 687,500 m3 Total Loads: 27.02, so 28 round trips. (47.37% increase in runs!!!!)
I disagree with those that say just rig it up and shut-up. Industry isn't as profitable as people seem to think, a point I may discuss greater later.
Realistically you have to make the profit to pay for the costs you are incurring. Nothing new, just the basics of any business, so realistically it's only 3xT1 Capital rigs that will be afforded regularly. So what is that impact:
New Charon Max Load with 3xT1 Capital rigs: 1,045,602 m3 Total Loads: 17.76, so 18 rounded up. Already much slower to move then 6 months ago with the warp speed and travel changes!
So with all these changes, with additional cost per ship used, we save 1 round trip. I'm sorry, but the practicality of the claimed benefit is being somewhat over claimed here, as everyone is only looking at the T2 rigged max end results only.
After many years of performing our building on a fortnightly basis, we long ago realized the time and effort, lack of fun and lacking of reliable profitability (by the time big items and build batches came out, market depreciation and peoples inability to do basic maths by consistently just undercut the lowest on market in Jita already, often negated the profit to barely average out to 1-5% after sales costs) actually had most people migrate to running Incursions or anything else to make a living AND try to get enjoyment from, what is after all a Game, and not to have it be like work which they were trying to escape!
It strikes me that there were a few things with these changes that CCP focused on, and really forgot the cause-effect of all others.
* EHP were high. Fine, so they obviously wanted to increase ganking of freighters in high sec. Not something I think is sensible given they are the backbone supporting the economy, but fine. * Didn't want certain things to fit into freighters after the changes. Fine, the simple option is increase the volume of those things so that they don't. * Give freighters an ability to customize a load-outs. This could have been done more easily with module slots, and at a far reduced cost to the pilots of those ships. The reason I think they did this with rigs is they realize they've created a massive array of Capital Rig BPO's that are never ever used! There are reasons for that, examine those before assuming this is a sensible option for customization.
So why did people keep asking for rigs? I'm not going to lie, we would have liked to have seen bigger cargo holds, but with the profits being made it also has to factor in the additional costs of any change affecting the business.
Practical terms that were regular reasons: * Size of ships packages were high. Some stupidly so, for example you could only fit 1 Orca in a charon, as they were 500k m3. Personally I would have preferred to have seen reductions in silly sizes before reductions in hauling sizes. * CCP keep missing/ignoring the industrial points: Ore compression is one thing, but actually what is needed is Mineral compression, so that much more can be moved in smaller number of trips. This is still lacking, and the means by which players did this with modules is now less viable, and post the industrial patch not at all viable considering the reprocessing of modules and items given the massive losses. * Hauling is painfully slow now, and exceptionally boring for a game, nearly as boring as mining!
Sadly, all things considered it just strikes me that over the past year all the changes CCP keep making are to increase player time trying to make money, reduce the quantity they can make, and increase the cost of everything else so having fun in PvP is much greater end cost to the economy.
I know I joined for the PvP and found Industry to be an interesting mental pursuit, but with competition coming from other games in the coming year or so, I think CCP may be wise to remember this is a game for entertainment and enjoyment, not yet another form of personal work.
I've already stopped playing as much in PvP, currently not going to waste my time on industrial elements that aren't worth the time invested in terms of results and performance in isk growth, and sadly looking at these changes highly doubtful I'll bother wasting time with the new industrial changes, which will also likely be bringing additional material consumption with it....
|
Carniflex
StarHunt Mordus Angels
212
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 09:48:00 -
[2290] - Quote
Midori Tsu wrote:is it intended that the JFs won't be able to put on a single T2 CPR?
No one uses T2, they are useless. Beta's take 3 CPU, offer the same cap recharge bonus and one percent less shield boost penalty AND are usually cheaper. So you can fit one beta CPR on JF as long as the other two slots do not take any CPU. Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... *THWONK!* GOT the bastard. |
|
Pensador
Ponto Final
17
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 09:52:00 -
[2291] - Quote
Thank God. For years all of we were expecting that. Maybe this is the end of Ganking freighters in high sec |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22129
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 09:55:00 -
[2292] - Quote
Pensador wrote:Thank God. For years all of we were expecting that. Maybe this is the end of Ganking freighters in high sec Lmao no. It will be easier and more profitable than ever. And if it did end freigther ganking, then the whole thing would have to be rolled back since it has had rather disastrous effects. 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
34
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 09:55:00 -
[2293] - Quote
Pensador wrote:Thank God. For years all of we were expecting that. Maybe this is the end of Ganking freighters in high sec That will never end. But it will raise the safe for transport value of goods. And that is a good thing. |
Dareth Astrar
Astrar Logistics and Engineering
19
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 09:56:00 -
[2294] - Quote
Lvzbel Ixtab wrote:He actually knows why this changes are bad, everyone else that comes here and start blabbing about carebear tears is really close minded becasue huge alliances and small gang/solo pvpers like myself own freighters to move their assets around.
Thank you Lvzbel Ixtab.
Ranger 1 wrote: For those debating whether local markets will be strengthened by these changes, yes, they likely will be. However this particular change will only have an ancillary effect.
The main boost that local markets will get will come with the industry changes next release. To one degree or another the market hubs will follow the industrial hubs (at least in an effort to keep shipping distances to a minimum), and those are going to be shifting around a great deal.
So the industry changes will likely lead to a greater need to ship large quantities of goods around New Eden (which is a very good thing), which means these changes will have a small but noticeable impact... reinforcing the upcoming pressure to develop local trade hubs instead of simply shipping everything to and from Jita (and the handful of other largish trade hubs).
I also suspect the increased level of shipping, AND increased pressure to develop local markets, will be felt in all area's of space... which will be a bit of a first.
I'm sorry to say, but in a decade of observation I would have some reservations.
Whilst I would like to agree with you that it will increase local markets, I have doubts as well and would rather wait to see the industrial changes occur prior to and before any changes to the haulers critical to making that a possible opportunity.
Ultimately basic economics will take control here: supply and demand.
Our supplies are from Miners, and ultimately they don't want to be doing this in null sec and hauling it all 50+ jumps to us. So realistically the markets have to rely on local supplies.
Local supplies took a hit years ago when there were main mission hub systems where 100+ characters would gather. With some of their many changes, CCP removed Asteroid Belts from a great many systems. A lot of those mission hubs were in Caldari space, The Citadel comes to mind as having been particularly impacted when those changes were made. I think as many as 6 or more systems lost their asteroid fields, and have NEVER had them return after the change of Agent Levels and Qualities.
Suppliers Miners are in it for the profit as well. They are going to haul the least distance for the quantities they mine, assuming they get at least the highest price that makes their efforts to move it to the nearest trade hub, or the highest paying one.
Purchasers: Well here lies the problem with moving trade from Jita. Jita has everything. You can buy it all in one place, and then move it. No running here to get a few items, move somewhere else to get some more.
Reality: People spend their time in a game to play the fun parts, not be bored. Less shopping hastle, more getting back to what we want to do is WHY Jita is the place to go.
Until every local trade hub supplies the vast range (impractical based on likely sales) and at a competitive price, they won't realistically succeed at establishing themselves as a viable and practical alternative.
Until every trade hub is considered by accurate industrialists to be profitable to be worth our time, we won't bother.
I dearly hope you are correct. Eve could use some benefit from distribution, but practical experience and observation over the past decade plus raise my levels of scepticism sadly.
I really don't think increasing the boredom and workload of haulers is a smart thing to do though. The recent changes have already made freighters slower and that's really quite a lot slower.
I'm a further concerned about those wanting to further reduce their align time massively. If you as a PvP'er can't lock a freighter in the current 41+ seconds of opportunity, I really hate to say it, but there is something you are doing wrong. Most Gankers in Empire can lock and destroy a standard industrial before it gets to 1/3 speed, so there should be no current issues with that mechanic relating to freighters. All this type of change will do is make hauling even more boring, and slower, and increase costs.
Time is never free as we get paid for it! Our free time is even more valuable then our standard hourly rates! |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1386
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 10:00:00 -
[2295] - Quote
Pyotr Sevastyan wrote:So, in one hand you want move industry in 0.0 and you say risk = isk, but in other hand you nerf JF ,the only jump-ship who can jump from high sec, with increasing fuel comsumption and reducing cargo (more fuel in cargo = less cargo for real needed).
So cost for bring item in 0.0 (because we can't prod everything in 0.0) will be higher ! We take risk but we only loose money.
The only good think would be having one more rigs slot for JF & (i'm dreaming) have a rigs for reduce comsuption for capital.
And why nerf the Rhea more than Other ? Rhea has a good cargo but the fuel is very expensive, so if you do that i want all my skill be reimboursed for switch to Anshar !
You can produce almost eveythign in 0.0 As long as peopel do exaclty what they want. MOVE RESOURSE aquisition and industry core to 0.0. Their actiosn are perfeclty in line with their stated desires. "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1386
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 10:03:00 -
[2296] - Quote
Dareth Astrar wrote: People spend their time in a game to play the fun parts, not be bored. Less shopping hastle, more getting back to what we want to do is WHY Jita is the place to go.
Until every local trade hub supplies the vast range (impractical based on likely sales) and at a competitive price, they won't realistically succeed at establishing themselves as a viable and practical alternative.
Any pilot that needs to fit a ship and is near amarr and just travels extra 10 jumps to jita to save 3 mil on the total cost of their ship is really not smart.
Amarr and dodixie are prefeclty fine for 98% of the aquisitions any player will need. Jita only speciall place is in massed buy and sell orders for market pvp and massive resources trading.
"If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1386
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 10:05:00 -
[2297] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Pensador wrote:Thank God. For years all of we were expecting that. Maybe this is the end of Ganking freighters in high sec Lmao no. It will be easier and more profitable than ever. And if it did end freigther ganking, then the whole thing would have to be rolled back since it has had rather disastrous effects.
Dont nit pick. You know very well that he means it will make harder to gank freighters of people wantign to reduce that risk. Simple option of bulkheads pushes the line where it is profitable to gank certain freighters. "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |
Dareth Astrar
Astrar Logistics and Engineering
19
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 10:11:00 -
[2298] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote: Any pilot that needs to fit a ship and is near amarr and just travels extra 10 jumps to jita to save 3 mil on the total cost of their ship is really not smart.
Amarr and dodixie are prefeclty fine for 98% of the aquisitions any player will need. Jita only speciall place is in massed buy and sell orders for market pvp and massive resources trading.
Not smart perhaps, but possibly based on their cash income stream to time to acquire. Again people don't place value on their time much, not gathering resources, not time spent hauling, etc. Until people put a value on those things, perhaps they won't do the required mental maths to see that the 20 jump extra time is not worth it.
They might be fine for some of the acquisitions, but as I said until the local demand for materials provides a viable alternative to the consistency of being able to sell at fairly regularly and consistent buy order prices in Jita, you won't get the mass production you need locally to have competitive alternative, so you'll still have the problem.
Two other hubs, three if you include another well known one, if you excuse my harshness is still insufficient to distribute the quantities purchased by people in the singular location that is the curse we all know and love.
Logically, CCP would almost be wise to consider increasing brokers fees in areas where there is much greater trade (Jita), increasing costs for people in an attempt to encourage relocation of suppliers, but practically I don't think that would work and, I would rather wait to see the impact from their current planned changes first. |
Maru Niffilen
United Trading Organisation
3
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 10:13:00 -
[2299] - Quote
Jessica Danikov wrote:I must admit it feels a bit hacky to me. The whole shield vs. armor balance works nicely with 99% of the ships in EVE as they all have varying compliments of medium and low slots which naturally compete with other modules with other functions and the limited room that is available.
What Freighters really need is to be treated like proper, first class ships- Capital industrials that top the end of their ship line. Instead of asking what should we add to Freighters, we could give them a full compliment of highs, mids, lows, rigs, CPU and PG and then think what should we take away? How many slots should we balance on (regular industrials have up to 11)? Is a Cyno freighter really that bad? A cloak? What about smartbombs, webs, ewar, etc. etc.? Is there a good reason not to let some crazy individual try to make those modules work on a >1 billion ISK hull? The results would be hilarious however it turned out, as anyone who's flown a battle badger/itty V/rorqual/venture etc. can attest.
That's something I was asking my self, even more after they switched from rigs to low-slots. Why shouldn't freighter be like every other ship? I really would like to kill a Freighter with 3x cargo expander rigs + cargo expander in the lowslots
|
Carniflex
StarHunt Mordus Angels
212
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 10:15:00 -
[2300] - Quote
Grarr Dexx wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Worried about your jump freighter? Send it along with a battlecruiser providing armor or shield resist boosts. which battlecruiser has a jump drive? which jf gets shot at after jumping?
Yet you do see JF lossmails in lowsec more or less regularly. Thing is - if the JF is getting shot after jumping its dead anyway regardless of EHP it has. Bcos mistakes happen - if they would not then no ship would die in EVE if everyone would be on their top game all the time, using scouts, deagressing in time, not swallowing baits, etc.
Common mistakes are - bumping off station after cyno, i'll placed cynos, being dumb and not docking getting bumped off station, jumping to cyno at POS, using a kickout station in low sec, etc. Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... *THWONK!* GOT the bastard. |
|
Syzygium
Friends Of Harassment The Camel Empire
43
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 10:15:00 -
[2301] - Quote
Tbh while the current changes go into the right direction, there is simply no reason not to make Freighters/Jumpfreighters "normal" ships with Low/Med/High/Rig Slots in a forseeable future.
It is not that hard to balance the base stats to make them useful for their purpose and then just let the players decide how much cargo/tank/speed they want to fit on the ship.
It would even offer the possibility, to add more specialized freighters in the future (like you did for the industrials). I can imagine, for some corps a specialized Ore/Mineral Freighter or a Specialized Fuel Freighter will be quite useful. Fine thing, just give them Special Bays and give the usage and fitting into players hands. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1386
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 10:19:00 -
[2302] - Quote
Dareth Astrar wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote: Any pilot that needs to fit a ship and is near amarr and just travels extra 10 jumps to jita to save 3 mil on the total cost of their ship is really not smart.
Amarr and dodixie are prefeclty fine for 98% of the aquisitions any player will need. Jita only speciall place is in massed buy and sell orders for market pvp and massive resources trading.
Not smart perhaps, but possibly based on their cash income stream to time to acquire. Again people don't place value on their time much, not gathering resources, not time spent hauling, etc. Until people put a value on those things, perhaps they won't do the required mental maths to see that the 20 jump extra time is not worth it. They might be fine for some of the acquisitions, but as I said until the local demand for materials provides a viable alternative to the consistency of being able to sell at fairly regularly and consistent buy order prices in Jita, you won't get the mass production you need locally to have competitive alternative, so you'll still have the problem. Two other hubs, three if you include another well known one, if you excuse my harshness is still insufficient to distribute the quantities purchased by people in the singular location that is the curse we all know and love. Logically, CCP would almost be wise to consider increasing brokers fees in areas where there is much greater trade (Jita), increasing costs for people in an attempt to encourage relocation of suppliers, but practically I don't think that would work and, I would rather wait to see the impact from their current planned changes first.
The brokers fee adjusted by ammount of commerce iwthin the CONSTELATION is something I defend for like 6 years, yet, always ignored. "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |
Eli Porter
Nanashi no Geemu
2
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 10:27:00 -
[2303] - Quote
Seems like a weird + lazy change. Why not give them proper powergrid and cpu, a few mid slots, and then balance the HP+cargo?
Giving a capital-class ship laughable levels of CPU and PG just screams un-intuitive and contrived. Special for no good reason. |
Cardano Firesnake
Les chevaliers de l'ordre Goonswarm Federation
164
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 10:28:00 -
[2304] - Quote
Pyotr Sevastyan wrote:So, in one hand you want move industry in 0.0 and you say risk = isk, but in other hand you nerf JF ,the only jump-ship who can jump from high sec, with increasing fuel comsumption and reducing cargo (more fuel in cargo = less cargo for real needed).
So cost for bring item in 0.0 (because we can't prod everything in 0.0) will be higher ! We take risk but we only loose money.
The only good think would be having one more rigs slot for JF & (i'm dreaming) have a rigs for reduce comsuption for capital.
And why nerf the Rhea more than Other ? Rhea has a good cargo but the fuel is very expensive, so if you do that i want all my skill be reimboursed for switch to Anshar !
You will understand when you will be in 0.0. :-) The fact that the cost to transport thing in low sec and 0.0 have increased is nothing in regard of the gain in 0.0 and low sec. They are boosting the number of ways to make ISK in low sec already. But yes, going to there is risky and have a price...
The Rhea is still the ship with the bigger cargo capacity. As Expanded Cargohold II increase the cargo by % you will gain more capacity with the Rhea than with the other ships.... |
Carniflex
StarHunt Mordus Angels
212
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 10:34:00 -
[2305] - Quote
Walter Hart White wrote:My main issue now is that you can't shield tank freighter but you can armor tank...
I would speculate that one of the reasons why armor seems to be at advantage is that remote shield reps hit at the beginning of the cycle while remote armor reps hit at the end of the cycle. So in a theoretical gank scenario of a shield vs armor freighter escorted by some logi they might end up roughly similar as shield guys should be able to get in an extra cycle.
Although I personally would just use something with sufficient web bonus and try to be faster with webs than gankers can with a point if I would have already something flying with the freighter.
Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... *THWONK!* GOT the bastard. |
Carniflex
StarHunt Mordus Angels
212
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 10:44:00 -
[2306] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: The capital ban is to stop large powerblocs trivially dominating high sec.
If the ban was removed, then the face of hi-sec would change overnight.
It's a relic from a really old time as once upon a time it was possible to tank CONCORD. Other than more undock games with carriers I do not see a lot changing in hi sec if the packaged caps would be allowed to be moved around in hisec. Well ... perhaps it would be also a slightly easier to siege a POS in hi sec as it would take couple less pilots / a bit less time. But as it stands today all it takes anyway is few dps with some buffer and few logi that knows what they are doing as POS guns as they are are a bit lol against any remotely organized attacker.
And I guess some missions without gates could be AFK'd but that would be .. well .. rather inefficient compared to just throwing equal amount of isk at that mission in a pirate BS hull.
I have not looked into leadership bonuses of carriers recently. They still are better than subcaps at it or are T3 better? That might be something to keep carriers out of hi sec.
Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... *THWONK!* GOT the bastard. |
Antihrist Pripravnik
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
270
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 11:09:00 -
[2307] - Quote
Carniflex wrote:Malcanis wrote: The capital ban is to stop large powerblocs trivially dominating high sec.
If the ban was removed, then the face of hi-sec would change overnight.
It's a relic from a really old time as once upon a time it was possible to tank CONCORD. Other than more undock games with carriers I do not see a lot changing in hi sec if the packaged caps would be allowed to be moved around in hisec. Well ... perhaps it would be also a slightly easier to siege a POS in hi sec as it would take couple less pilots / a bit less time. But as it stands today all it takes anyway is few dps with some buffer and few logi that knows what they are doing as POS guns as they are are a bit lol against any remotely organized attacker. And I guess some missions without gates could be AFK'd but that would be .. well .. rather inefficient compared to just throwing equal amount of isk at that mission in a pirate BS hull. I have not looked into leadership bonuses of carriers recently. They still are better than subcaps at it or are T3 better? That might be something to keep carriers out of hi sec.
I'll give you a couple of reasons why capitals should stay out of highsec and I'm not even going to touch supers and titans: - capital production spam in highsec... we simply don't need that; - you can't add capitals to highsec without adding their main mean of travel - cynos in highsec. You don't want to open that can of worms; - Wars in higsec against lower skilled/newer characters... I was looking for the appropriate term and Urban dictionary told me "roflstomped". - Remote SB/TE Naglfars somewhere in a general area of a station where war targets are ; - Fighters in higsec *cringe*; - ... My signature got stolen (o.0) |
Carniflex
StarHunt Mordus Angels
212
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 11:12:00 -
[2308] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Dareth Astrar wrote: People spend their time in a game to play the fun parts, not be bored. Less shopping hastle, more getting back to what we want to do is WHY Jita is the place to go.
Until every local trade hub supplies the vast range (impractical based on likely sales) and at a competitive price, they won't realistically succeed at establishing themselves as a viable and practical alternative.
Any pilot that needs to fit a ship and is near amarr and just travels extra 10 jumps to jita to save 3 mil on the total cost of their ship is really not smart. Amarr and dodixie are prefeclty fine for 98% of the aquisitions any player will need. Jita only speciall place is in massed buy and sell orders for market pvp and massive resources trading.
Depends what they need. I would not go as far as claim that it's 98% - as if the local market is short just the right mod you need you will pay that 3 extra mil AND travel to Jita for that last mod. Even for stuff like standard doctrine stuff - like, for example Triangel Scimi which uses few deadspace medium shield transfers.
Jita is just the place where you know that if it's for sale you will get it instead of figuring out first if your full shopping list is available before you start shopping and end up going to Jita regardless.
For standard T2 fit the four hubs are usually ok, although even for that you can pay something through the nose for more niche things - like, for example, Heavy T2 logi drones or "common" faction items like republic/domination points, etc. Smaller hubs just fluctuate more. Amarr, as the second largest hub is still more or less fine ofc, been a while since I have lived south and used it though.
Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... *THWONK!* GOT the bastard. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3310
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 11:27:00 -
[2309] - Quote
Carniflex wrote:Midori Tsu wrote:is it intended that the JFs won't be able to put on a single T2 CPR? No one uses T2, they are useless. Beta's take 3 CPU, offer the same cap recharge bonus and one percent less shield boost penalty AND are usually cheaper. So you can fit one beta CPR on JF as long as the other two slots do not take any CPU.
Betas, with max skill, take 2.25 CPU.
The CPU is also boosted by 25% due to skills, to 6.25.
Type E CPRs take 1 CPU, granted, they only give 10%, but you could fit 2 betas, and 1 Type E (or other meta Basic CPR) Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Carniflex
StarHunt Mordus Angels
212
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 11:29:00 -
[2310] - Quote
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:I'll give you a couple of reasons why capitals should stay out of highsec and I'm not even going to touch supers and titans: - capital production spam in highsec... we simply don't need that; - you can't add capitals to highsec without adding their main mean of travel - cynos in highsec. You don't want to open that can of worms; - Wars in higsec against lower skilled/newer characters... I was looking for the appropriate term and Urban dictionary told me "roflstomped" . - Remote SB/TE Naglfars somewhere in a general area of a station where war targets are ; - Fighters in higsec *cringe*; - ...
* The supers are much much larger than regular non-assembled caps and could not be moved. Also - they are by design undockabe as it stands and as such being able to transport supers into station would be significant change indeed. * You can not produce capitals in hi sec. Being able to transport that would not change it. Otherwise most capitals would be produced in hi sec and would be just jumped out of hi sec (as it used to be once upon a time, that is the reason whi Chribba and other have capitals in hi sec today). * Sure you can. Cyno's cant be done in hi sec and that does not prevent people going there in other jump capable ships like jump freighters and black ops. They even fixed the exploit where you were able to escape concord by jumping out of hi sec through cyno in low/null. * Noobs get rolfstomped without caps in hi sec all day long already if going up against veterans. T2 logi ships, establised doctrines, flying pirate battleships .. etc ... so in that regard caps would not change the landscape by any significant degree. * Sieged dread can not be remote boosted and its lock time is loooooong. Wirthout siege the dread is pretty much useless doing only approx 1/3 rd of the gank battleship damage. So I really really would not worry about dreads camping someone in sub cap in. Now if someone is playing the station games in a carrier agressing at station then ... I would indeed expect to see some dreads stuck on that station for the duration of their siege cykle. Unsupported sieged dreads die btw real fast if you neut them dry. So combat as expected. * I do not understand what would be the problem exactly with fighters in hi sec. They lose the carrier bonuses when assigned to other people so they suck badly for pve unless directly controlled by a carrier, can be killed if one needs to and carriers can't already use any gates in missions so using a carrier in a mission would be possible only in select few missions - and they are less effective at that than a pimped pirate BS at roughly similar cost.
Although we are drifting off topic in here. I just honestly do not believe regular capitals would be a problem in hi sec in todays EVE. On the other hand I'm not particularly caring if they can or can not enter hi sec as other than few very select niche cases I do not see much use for them in hi sec. The being mainly station games, shooting POCO's / POS'es with fewer people and poviding leadership bonuses and - one important factor why ORCA was nerfed - theyr ship maintenance bay would allow criminals to ignore their sec status by just grabbing gank catalysts from a carrier.
Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... *THWONK!* GOT the bastard. |
|
Maru Niffilen
United Trading Organisation
3
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 11:32:00 -
[2311] - Quote
Imagine Freighter with the classic high-mid-low slot layout. They could become more popular in nullsec. Thanks to cyno, WCS, more Tank and so on. |
Skytle DblooD
D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. S.A.S Northern Associates.
2
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 11:38:00 -
[2312] - Quote
If the JF's now use 50% more fuel will the fuel bay be made bigger to accommodate more fuel or do we have to use some of our reduced cargo space to carry fuel aswell? |
Oxide Ammar
128
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 11:43:00 -
[2313] - Quote
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:- Wars in higsec against lower skilled/newer characters... I was looking for the appropriate term and Urban dictionary told me "roflstomped"
This is the most hilarious reason for not bringing capitals to hisec, you don't need capitals to roflstomp low skilled players. |
TigerXtrm
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
693
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 11:45:00 -
[2314] - Quote
Skytle DblooD wrote:If the JF's now use 50% more fuel will the fuel bay be made bigger to accommodate more fuel
Yes. My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things! |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3310
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 11:47:00 -
[2315] - Quote
Skytle DblooD wrote:If the JF's now use 50% more fuel will the fuel bay be made bigger to accommodate more fuel or do we have to use some of our reduced cargo space to carry fuel aswell?
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=340420&find=unread
Quote:To compensate for the extra isotopes that ships will need to carry, the volume of all four isotopes will be reduced by 1/3, to 0.1m3 Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Korean Ninja
Im Watching You
2
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 11:56:00 -
[2316] - Quote
give us low-slot shield tanking module |
Sgt Ocker
Last Bastion of Freedom
230
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 12:06:00 -
[2317] - Quote
Walter Hart White wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote: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. Quote: All Freighters and Jump Freighters will receive 3 low slots, and not receive any rig slots. Sorry but I am a little confused. In your reply to Tippia, you say T1 rigs, yet the description states (twice) that freighters and Jump Freighters will not receive Rig Slots. Could someone clarify which statement is true, as both statements are from the same Dev and one contradicts the other.. Are they getting rigs or not? What is there to clarify? Originally, freighters were supposed to get rigs. Now they get low slots instead. The reason for my question was because the comment about T1 rigs was made "in this thread". Sort of fits with the confusion in the Drone Blog - It states 1 thing but the forum says something to the contrary. Never hurts to have things clarified - especially when both comments are on the same page in the same thread. My opinions are mine. -á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-áIf you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK. Just don't bother Hating - I don't care.. |
Vivianne Athonille
Athonille Logistics and Provisions
16
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 12:12:00 -
[2318] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: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 would like to suggest that you consider either leaving the packaged size of Freighters and JFs alone or better yet reduce them to 800K m3 or lower.
- Freighters and JFs are non-aggressive capital ships already allowed in high-sec
- You could eliminate some of the serious questions raised in the Contracts thread around getting Freighters and JFs to market, as they could be hauled in existing courier contracts. No need for the devs to even consider Contract changes just to solve this one problem.
You have an opportunity here that you might not want to pass up. |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1090
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 12:15:00 -
[2319] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Rowells wrote:plex hauling here I come Erm GǪ wouldn't you be better off hauling PLEX in a blockade runner, since you have the cloak and an incredibly short align time and high warp speed?
If you have a brain, what you really want to use to carry PLEX is a shuttle to get to the target location then redeem your PLEX once you are in the right station. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11701
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 12:21:00 -
[2320] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:Rowells wrote:plex hauling here I come Erm GǪ wouldn't you be better off hauling PLEX in a blockade runner, since you have the cloak and an incredibly short align time and high warp speed? If you have a brain, what you really want to use to carry PLEX is a shuttle to get to the target location then redeem your PLEX once you are in the right station.
You should carry as many as possible too. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
|
Silvetica Dian
Manson Family Advent of Fate
1046
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 12:26:00 -
[2321] - Quote
Dareth Astrar wrote:Silvetica Dian wrote: Also i read the stuff written by Dareth and got the impression that he was a very poor industrialist. His description of huge effort for low profits amused me greatly and is the exact opposite of how i do industry.
Very nice to have opinions. May I ask what you base that on? I can base my proofs on cold hard maths, not that CCP listen that much to it. As I have stated before, most people involved in industrial effort (or what they call of it) cannot arrive at an accurate calculation of cost. I'm sure I will hear lots of people shout, but I can and am willing to prove my statements with figures, but you may be surprised how long the proofs can be. I and my team have made many billions in actual true profit in the game, before continual price depreciation and constant market entropy became massively significant factors that we stropped wasting our time. I know there are items out there which are still profitable, some T2 ones, but most T1 items (which is where new entries to market are) are not profitable, and ironically the larger you go the bigger the investment, the greater profit you believe people would insist upon. Unfortunately, that is just plain incorrect as an assumption (and we all know what phrases are out there warning us about assumptions). I did the maths last night, on a previously truely industrial involvement with investors that we took part in. I updated the figures last night using the Jita buy prices for Minerals, and based on the CURRENT Sell prices of the eventual items in Jita (invalid assumptions, as fails to account for speed of depreciation in eve of both source materials pricing and sales achievable prices). These figures even have factory production associated and all other market related costs included: Final Sales Cost Profit / Unit Margin Profit / Factory Hour Charon: 1,290,823,860.50 79,176,139.50 6.133% 2,778.93 Orca: 623,146,338.65 15,733,661.20 2.525% 1,104.86 Total Profit / Batch:267,980,073.85 Batches to Recover Investment:> 2,000 Time to Recover Investment:> 37,295 days! BEFORE you have recovered the investment costs, you have made no actual profit!! Simple business fact. Reader Tasks:Now I will leave you Add Real haulage costs both ways, and the increase for increased quantities of hauling and recalculate your impact on profit etc. ]
so i was correct. You were making low margin high effort stuff involving massive amounts of hauling. When i started my industrial alt about a year ago i was making t1 only for a profit of about 750 mill/week with about 40 mins a day off effort. It is now north of a billion /week as i can build T2 stuff. Manufacturing is the most profitable thing i have done in eve and i have done most activities. Money at its root is a form of rationing. When the richest 85 people have as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion (50% of humanity) it is clear where the source of poverty is. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/20/trickle-down-economics-broken-promise-richest-85 |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1090
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 12:34:00 -
[2322] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:Rowells wrote:plex hauling here I come Erm GǪ wouldn't you be better off hauling PLEX in a blockade runner, since you have the cloak and an incredibly short align time and high warp speed? If you have a brain, what you really want to use to carry PLEX is a shuttle to get to the target location then redeem your PLEX once you are in the right station. You should carry as many as possible too.
I must of worded that poorly. I meant you don't put the PLEX in the game until you are in the right station. Is there a mecanic I'm missing where there is a need to move PLEX around? |
Theng Hofses
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
64
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 12:39:00 -
[2323] - 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.
While you are increasing jump fuel consumption could you also look at the different jump freighter fuel consumption numbers of the different races/jump freighters? |
Sipphakta en Gravonere
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
608
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 12:39:00 -
[2324] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:I must of worded that poorly. I meant you don't put the PLEX in the game until you are in the right station. Is there a mecanic I'm missing where there is a need to move PLEX around?
Buy in X, sell in Y. But in 99% of the cases, the price difference isn't worth it. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11701
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 12:44:00 -
[2325] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:baltec1 wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:Rowells wrote:plex hauling here I come Erm GǪ wouldn't you be better off hauling PLEX in a blockade runner, since you have the cloak and an incredibly short align time and high warp speed? If you have a brain, what you really want to use to carry PLEX is a shuttle to get to the target location then redeem your PLEX once you are in the right station. You should carry as many as possible too. I must of worded that poorly. I meant you don't put the PLEX in the game until you are in the right station. Is there a mecanic I'm missing where there is a need to move PLEX around?
I assumed you were being sarcastic and was building on it. Next step was to go on autopilot Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6458
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 12:47:00 -
[2326] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote: I must of worded that poorly. I meant you don't put the PLEX in the game until you are in the right station. Is there a mecanic I'm missing where there is a need to move PLEX around?
My last redemption of a half-dozen I bought from a contract was in the wrong Jita 4-4. That was hair raising. Moved them in an over tanked Abbadon. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Victor Dathar
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
347
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 12:47:00 -
[2327] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:Eh... hate to say it, but who cares if it's harder to gank a freighter in high-sec anymore? If we're going to be able to build player star gates, then we're probably going to need a huge (and reliable) industrial and *logistics* base with which to do it. The concerns of the builders is going to outweigh the concerns of the anarchists.
To put it simply, suicide ganking freighters is small time banditry. The real goal in attacking freighters is to disrupt another alliance from building their stargate first. That's where the real money/action/impetus will be, IMHO.
My apologies for sounding a bit harsh and dismissive of your concerns, but freighters haven't had any meaningful ways of adapting their freighters to the environment except by CCP Fiat. Now they finally get a buff and some options.
tl;dr - A Commerce Raiding release will happen. No more ganking. It's time for real war.
Guuuuyyysssssss these people do something I don't like so that means it is not important and I don't care if these poopy heads can't have their fun any more. ^^^ lol that post is so bad you should get back 2 GBS m8 o7
@grr_goons : Wisdom, Insight, GBS Posts |
Rain6637
Team Evil
14699
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 12:59:00 -
[2328] - Quote
I'm fairly certain I would have erected a research tower and tried a bit of industry with a Capital Cargohold BPO, exploring things like research, invention, production. I'm just guessing it would have impacted rig market and the economy a bit much. cuz I doubt it was reverted for the sake of player feels. President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Rainfleet mk.III-á| Twitch | Imgur | Content \o/ |
E-2C Hawkeye
State War Academy Caldari State
631
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 13:07:00 -
[2329] - Quote
Querns wrote:Tippia wrote:Querns wrote:Oh -- I think I answered my own question. The JF agility adjustment is meant to compensate for the potential for rigging the Jump Freighter for agility.
My question then becomes "do you think that there is a compelling reason for anyone, ever, to rig for agility?" Jump freighter usage is all about cargo, cargo, cargo. I will, if I keep it (which is questionable). I picked a JF over a normal freighter for highsec use because it offered higher survivability and faster movement. The higher cargo was pointless since that just made it more worth-while to attack, and I wanted that improved survivability and movement exactly to avoid that problem. Why not rig it for warp speed, instead? You spend a lot more time in warp then you do aligning. Regarding the safety angle, rigging for hull HP is going to be a lot more effective at safeguarding you than align. Any serious freighter suicide ganker utilizes suicide newbie ships with a point to shut off your warp and stop your align before initiating a bump. Your align time won't be particularly useful in saving you when your align is already terrible (pre- and post-change.) +1 This guy, he must fly a freighter. |
Majin Shouten
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 13:27:00 -
[2330] - Quote
My only concern is this: why is there absolutely no variation in between racial freighter variants? Same boni all around. The only choice between them is the optics. |
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1573
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 13:27:00 -
[2331] - Quote
Walter Hart White wrote:Pensador wrote:Thank God. For years all of we were expecting that. Maybe this is the end of Ganking freighters in high sec That will never end. But it will raise the safe for transport value of goods. And that is a good thing.
safety is not good in eve. Saftey promotes complacency. Risk rewards effort.
u want things to be difficult because u want to be rewarded for ur efforts and risk. U want ur competition to lose out because they are lazy and/or died in a fire.
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" |
Grumpy Poster
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 13:27:00 -
[2332] - Quote
Customization by righs would be to prevent choices which give more possibilities compared to the status quo.
Let's take agility, hp and cargo as base points.
Rigging for agility should hit hp and cargo, rigging for cargo should hit hp and agility and of course rigging for hp should hit cargo and agility. So you have choices to take for certain purposes while the baseline (unrigged) should stay more or less the same as it is.
With the proposed changes only risk gets raised while there is no added real benefit. The potential benefit of getting more money for transport jobs will easily be eaten up by only one ship loss. And one medium term consequence will very probably be overall inflation anyway. Intended consequence?
And real life shows that markts do not diversify just because it is more expensive to get to the superstore. No local market will ever come near the reach and volume of the trade hubs and so it will still be better for most purposes to use the trade hubs and just raise prices.
In the long run it is also another blow agains single / small corp players since the large alliances and blocks will have a much easier time to mitigate any consquences of both transport nerf and industry changes whereas small enterprises will have a hard time. It will in no way lead to a more diverse or interesting 0.0 though but just furthers concentration even more. |
Sgt Ocker
Last Bastion of Freedom
230
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 13:38:00 -
[2333] - Quote
Silvetica Dian wrote: so i was correct. You were making low margin high effort stuff involving massive amounts of hauling. When i started my industrial alt about a year ago i was making t1 only for a profit of about 750 mill/week with about 40 mins a day off effort. It is now north of a billion /week as i can build T2 stuff. Manufacturing is the most profitable thing i have done in eve and i have done most activities.
Sorry to tell you but your T2 production costs may take a bit of a hit soon.
Fit anything other than Cargo Expanders to a JF, you end up with around half your current cargo capacity.
Should JF pilots have to take a 50% hit on earnings in what are the 3rd most expensive class of ships in the game?
To maintain current standards, why should a JF pilot have to face the extra risks - Mishmash defenses, longer align times
Should those wanting to kill JF have easier kills handed to them due to a Devs ill conceived idea of "interesting fitting choices"
A question for the OP regarding the resists on the Rhea; Current base shield resist; EM 0 / Therm 28 / Kin 40 / Exp 50
Quote: Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 40(+20) / 47.5(+7.5) / 50 Signature Radius Current; 2928 Proposed ; 2930 -2
Possibly simple typos but as they are all through the stats it would be nice to know if the Rhea is in fact getting 28+20 = 48 thermal resist, or 28 +12 = 40. Is the Sig Radius going down to 2926 or up to 2930. Maybe someone could go through the resists on all the JF and correct errors - If for no other reason, than to at least make it look professional, let alone giving players correct information My opinions are mine. -á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-áIf you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK. Just don't bother Hating - I don't care.. |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1090
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 13:41:00 -
[2334] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Walter Hart White wrote:Pensador wrote:Thank God. For years all of we were expecting that. Maybe this is the end of Ganking freighters in high sec That will never end. But it will raise the safe for transport value of goods. And that is a good thing. safety is not good in eve. Saftey promotes complacency. Risk rewards effort. u want things to be difficult because u want to be rewarded for ur efforts and risk. U want ur competition to lose out because they are lazy and/or died in a fire.
Complacency leads to bigger whales. Bigger whales will be at risk. |
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
14
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 13:43:00 -
[2335] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Rowells wrote:plex hauling here I come Erm GǪ wouldn't you be better off hauling PLEX in a blockade runner, since you have the cloak and an incredibly short align time and high warp speed?
not to mention they can't scan you so they have no way of knowing that you have plex in your hold... |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1573
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 13:50:00 -
[2336] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:Walter Hart White wrote:Pensador wrote:Thank God. For years all of we were expecting that. Maybe this is the end of Ganking freighters in high sec That will never end. But it will raise the safe for transport value of goods. And that is a good thing. safety is not good in eve. Saftey promotes complacency. Risk rewards effort. u want things to be difficult because u want to be rewarded for ur efforts and risk. U want ur competition to lose out because they are lazy and/or died in a fire. Complacency leads to bigger whales. Bigger whales will be at risk.
i suppose ill have to wait and see.
just out of curiosity, how much would ppl charge for freighter ganking? 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" |
KIller Wabbit
The Scope Gallente Federation
580
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 13:55:00 -
[2337] - Quote
Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:Holy hell this forum is ridiculous at how fast it's going. We're over 109 pages and it's only been up 5 days LOL.
Well when stupid stuff happens...
CCP .. always first with the wrong stuff
|
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
3059
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 14:23:00 -
[2338] - Quote
For those that suggest the CSM has no control over CCP, this is an object lesson.
Fozzie puts out moronic changes that the entire Eve universe hates, except the griefers. Fozzie says he will talk with the CSM, and they are giving him good ideas. 72 hours later, Fozzie does a 180 and puts out changes past CSM members are stating are what the CSM wanted all along.
Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Warr Akini
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
128
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 14:27:00 -
[2339] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Complacency leads to bigger whales. Bigger whales will be at risk.
I keep seeing blanket statements like these being thrown around (and have since the beginning of time) - sure, idiots will continue to be idiots, but it's again a question of scaling (or balance). If you pump freighter EHP by 10x then you might see people hauling around a lot more money at once, making them "at risk," but I'd be willing to bet the number of people carrying 10x of goods (i.e. 100b versus 10b) will be a tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny fraction - mostly because people just don't have those kinds of assets. Usually. Meanwhile, the guys carrying the same old 1.5b are snugglier.
Not to say I know what the magic "I have more ehp therefore I carry x much more dollar" number is, but I wouldn't say anyone here can really assume that either. |
Dave Stark
5969
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 14:32:00 -
[2340] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Fozzie puts out moronic changes that the entire Eve universe hates, except the griefers.
actually, everyone hated the changes including the 'griefers'. the 'griefers' just got to be smug about it because we knew it was going to be a bad change and had been telling everyone that for as long as people had been asking for rig slots on freighters.
but don't let facts get in the way. |
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1574
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 14:32:00 -
[2341] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:For those that suggest the CSM has no control over CCP, this is an object lesson.
Fozzie puts out moronic changes that carebears rage about and make threats of violence over, except the griefers.
FTFY 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" |
Gumpy Bitterhawk
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
6
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 14:45:00 -
[2342] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:Walter Hart White wrote:Pensador wrote:Thank God. For years all of we were expecting that. Maybe this is the end of Ganking freighters in high sec That will never end. But it will raise the safe for transport value of goods. And that is a good thing. safety is not good in eve. Saftey promotes complacency. Risk rewards effort. u want things to be difficult because u want to be rewarded for ur efforts and risk. U want ur competition to lose out because they are lazy and/or died in a fire. Complacency leads to bigger whales. Bigger whales will be at risk.
Frankly, Japan and Norway dont give no *****. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11703
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 14:51:00 -
[2343] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:For those that suggest the CSM has no control over CCP, this is an object lesson.
Fozzie puts out moronic changes that the entire Eve universe hates, except the griefers. Fozzie says he will talk with the CSM, and they are giving him good ideas. 72 hours later, Fozzie does a 180 and puts out changes past CSM members are stating are what the CSM wanted all along.
Rigs on freighters were the brainchild of people like you. The gankers were always against the idea. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
14
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 14:52:00 -
[2344] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:baltec1 wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:Rowells wrote:plex hauling here I come Erm GǪ wouldn't you be better off hauling PLEX in a blockade runner, since you have the cloak and an incredibly short align time and high warp speed? If you have a brain, what you really want to use to carry PLEX is a shuttle to get to the target location then redeem your PLEX once you are in the right station. You should carry as many as possible too. I must of worded that poorly. I meant you don't put the PLEX in the game until you are in the right station. Is there a mecanic I'm missing where there is a need to move PLEX around?
Spies. If you are paying or plexing a spy account ejecting the plex from your cargo and him picking it up is the only way that you can plex him without a record of the transfer. |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
34
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 14:54:00 -
[2345] - Quote
Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:
Spies. If you are paying or plexing a spy account ejecting the plex from your cargo and him picking it up is the only way that you can plex him without a record of the transfer.
Or buy GTC on forums? |
Dareth Astrar
Astrar Logistics and Engineering
20
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 14:58:00 -
[2346] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone the Op has now been updated with a revised version of the design. As many of you were anticipating, we will be achieving the goal of customizability through low slots instead of rig slots. Big thanks to everyone who has provided reasoned feedback in the thread and special thanks to the CSM.
Thank you for listening.
Valterra Craven wrote: I like this better but I still don't like the fact that armor can be tanked somewhat (resistance plates) and shields can not. This wouldn't have been a big deal had you leave HP values in hull so every could tank roughly equally, but since you guys moved such a large chunk of HP to shields and armor this seems to be an unfair advantage for armor based races.
I wish i knew how to edit EFT files to create fits based off this to see just what the difference is.
It's a valid point. There are ENAM's for armour tanks, but I don't recall a low slot shield resist module aside from the DCU, which we have been read clearly stated as not going to be a freighter suitable module.
That does swing things rather heavily one way on tanking front, which to be fair, does give you a reason other then racial role play to fly those other freighters now.
OK, there's a very sizable hit from Cargo Expander's negative to hull points for these ships, but I still think this is a better place then the previous rigs option. |
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
15
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 15:02:00 -
[2347] - Quote
Walter Hart White wrote:Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:
Spies. If you are paying or plexing a spy account ejecting the plex from your cargo and him picking it up is the only way that you can plex him without a record of the transfer.
Or buy GTC on forums?
You pay money for eve?! |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
34
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 15:04:00 -
[2348] - Quote
Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:Walter Hart White wrote:Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:
Spies. If you are paying or plexing a spy account ejecting the plex from your cargo and him picking it up is the only way that you can plex him without a record of the transfer.
Or buy GTC on forums? You pay money for eve?! No silly. You buy GTC for isk there for your spai alt. |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
60
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 15:05:00 -
[2349] - Quote
Dareth Astrar wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone the Op has now been updated with a revised version of the design. As many of you were anticipating, we will be achieving the goal of customizability through low slots instead of rig slots. Big thanks to everyone who has provided reasoned feedback in the thread and special thanks to the CSM. Thank you for listening. Valterra Craven wrote: I like this better but I still don't like the fact that armor can be tanked somewhat (resistance plates) and shields can not. This wouldn't have been a big deal had you leave HP values in hull so every could tank roughly equally, but since you guys moved such a large chunk of HP to shields and armor this seems to be an unfair advantage for armor based races.
I wish i knew how to edit EFT files to create fits based off this to see just what the difference is.
It's a valid point. There are ENAM's for armour tanks, but I don't recall a low slot shield resist module aside from the DCU, which we have been read clearly stated as not going to be a freighter suitable module. That does swing things rather heavily one way on tanking front, which to be fair, does give you a reason other then racial role play to fly those other freighters now. OK, there's a very sizable hit from Cargo Expander's negative to hull points for these ships, but I still think this is a better place then the previous rigs option.
Freighters nor jump freighters will have the CPU to use an EANM either
They can use a ANP, which generally give less overall EHP than bulkheads. However 3 ANP also give great resists on an Ark, which lend itself very well to repping.
So, to prevent ganks, bulkheads are the way to go for strictly overall buffer, but if you want a bait ship, a JF with ANP x3 will be a friggin beast. |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1090
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 15:08:00 -
[2350] - Quote
Walter Hart White wrote:Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:Walter Hart White wrote:Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:
Spies. If you are paying or plexing a spy account ejecting the plex from your cargo and him picking it up is the only way that you can plex him without a record of the transfer.
Or buy GTC on forums? You pay money for eve?! No silly. You buy GTC for isk there for your spai alt.
You could also use any of the toon on the 2 other slot on the spy account to deal with the PLEX since the sub is account wide, not linked to the character... |
|
Angelique Duchemin
Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
793
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 15:15:00 -
[2351] - Quote
And a big "screw you" to the people who spent isk hoarding capital cargo rigs. The very sun of heaven seemed distorted when viewed through the polarising miasma welling out from this sea-soaked perversion, and twisted menace and suspense lurked leeringly in those crazily elusive angles of carven rock where a second glance shewed concavity after the first shewed convexity. |
Sixx Spades
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
185
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 15:16:00 -
[2352] - Quote
Angelique Duchemin wrote:And a big "screw you" to the people who spent isk hoarding capital cargo rigs. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA Using a weapon as a deterrent in a diplomatic situation is only viable when you have proven that you have deployed it in the past and are willing to use it in the future. |
Dave Stark
5970
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 15:18:00 -
[2353] - Quote
Angelique Duchemin wrote:And a big "screw you" to the people who spent isk hoarding capital cargo rigs.
such are the dangers of patch speculation. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
532
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 15:23:00 -
[2354] - Quote
Angelique Duchemin wrote:And a big "screw you" to the people who spent isk hoarding capital cargo rigs.
You deserve it for trying to profit on the misery of others. Shed your tears into my bucket, maybe I can use them for some useful stuff.
|
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
34
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 15:24:00 -
[2355] - Quote
Angelique Duchemin wrote:And a big "screw you" to the people who spent isk hoarding capital cargo rigs. All according to keikaku. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3946
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 15:27:00 -
[2356] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Angelique Duchemin wrote:And a big "screw you" to the people who spent isk hoarding capital cargo rigs. such are the dangers of patch speculation.
After I read the original post, I bought capital cargo optimization, warp speed, and agility rigs. Then plugged them into my lab to research them to ME 10 so they'd be perfect come industry changes. Now I'll have a bunch of pretty useless rig BPO's, but I'll gladly sacrifice 250m in rig BPO's for the awesome set of changes!
|
Sael Va'Tauri
State War Academy Caldari State
9
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 15:28:00 -
[2357] - Quote
So, with the changes to potential EHP of a tanked Freighter, you might need the larger volley damage from a decent number of Tornados instead of a horde of catalysts to gank a freighter? I'm not sure that's the end of the world outside of a longer train time for the gank alt. What is the major problem here, again? Freighter pilot wants to carry something low volume and expensive, and tanks up - is there a reason that shouldn't require an increase in isk on the ganker side?
If you just want to grief freighter pilots, that should be easier with catalysts now given that you'll see a number of them running 3x cargo expanders... |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
3061
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 15:50:00 -
[2358] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Angelique Duchemin wrote:And a big "screw you" to the people who spent isk hoarding capital cargo rigs. You deserve it for trying to profit on the misery of others. Shed your tears into my bucket, maybe I can use them for some useful stuff.
Actually, the ones who profited were the ones that quietly bought up the rigs and rig components weeks before the changes were announced, and dumped them within hours of the first fozzie posts. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1090
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 15:53:00 -
[2359] - Quote
Sael Va'Tauri wrote:So, with the changes to potential EHP of a tanked Freighter, you might need the larger volley damage from a decent number of Tornados instead of a horde of catalysts to gank a freighter? I'm not sure that's the end of the world outside of a longer train time for the gank alt. What is the major problem here, again? Freighter pilot wants to carry something low volume and expensive, and tanks up - is there a reason that shouldn't require an increase in isk on the ganker side?
If you just want to grief freighter pilots, that should be easier with catalysts now given that you'll see a number of them running 3x cargo expanders...
You only switch from DPS to alpha if don't have the time to apply the DPS. Either because the security status of the system is to high or the target is getting massive reps between gun cycles. |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
34
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 16:21:00 -
[2360] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:Angelique Duchemin wrote:And a big "screw you" to the people who spent isk hoarding capital cargo rigs. You deserve it for trying to profit on the misery of others. Shed your tears into my bucket, maybe I can use them for some useful stuff. Actually, the ones who profited were the ones that quietly bought up the rigs and rig components weeks before the changes were announced, and dumped them within hours of the first fozzie posts. Well that was risky too. Freighters could get only large rigs not capital. |
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3946
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 16:24:00 -
[2361] - Quote
Walter Hart White wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:Angelique Duchemin wrote:And a big "screw you" to the people who spent isk hoarding capital cargo rigs. You deserve it for trying to profit on the misery of others. Shed your tears into my bucket, maybe I can use them for some useful stuff. Actually, the ones who profited were the ones that quietly bought up the rigs and rig components weeks before the changes were announced, and dumped them within hours of the first fozzie posts. Well that was risky too. Freighters could get only large rigs not capital.
Fozzie's initial post clearly stated Freighters would use capital sized rigs. |
Dave Stark
5972
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 16:38:00 -
[2362] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Walter Hart White wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:Angelique Duchemin wrote:And a big "screw you" to the people who spent isk hoarding capital cargo rigs. You deserve it for trying to profit on the misery of others. Shed your tears into my bucket, maybe I can use them for some useful stuff. Actually, the ones who profited were the ones that quietly bought up the rigs and rig components weeks before the changes were announced, and dumped them within hours of the first fozzie posts. Well that was risky too. Freighters could get only large rigs not capital. Fozzie's initial post clearly stated Freighters would use capital sized rigs.
yeah but the announcement of "freighters get rigs" happened a fair while before "freighters will use capital rigs". |
HandelsPharmi
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
577
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 16:49:00 -
[2363] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: The base EHP of all Freighters and Jump Freighters is being increased (since Expanded Cargoholds affect freighter hp more than cargo rigs do) and more emphasis is being placed on armor and shield than before (although all Freighters still gain the majority of their hitpoints from hull). Note the change in the Jump Freighter HP bonus, which now only applies to their main tank and hull. The large increase in JF base HP and resist more than make up for the bonus change and all JFs have more base EHP than before.
ARK
Slot layout: 0H, 0M, 3(+3)L; Fittings: 3(+2) PWG, 5(+4) CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 12000(+6000) / 63600(+26400) / 96000(-15000) Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 20 / 47.5(+7.5) / 62.5(+12.5) Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 50 / 35 / 34.375(+9.375) / 40(+20)
78 / 71 / 71 / 74 Armor Resistance is possible with a Armor tank without a booster or anything else... this is... amazing |
Valterra Craven
249
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 17:11:00 -
[2364] - Quote
So I've been playing around with the fitting tool here:
http://xyjax.com/optimizer_kronos/
and the most comparable fit to today is the following (for t1 freighters)
2x t2 Cargo holds 1x t2 ANP
This fit will yield a slight nerf to current m3 numbers for a slight boost in EHP numbers (this of course assumes all skills except racial freighter at 5 with the racials being at 4)
This fit also comes with a nerf to max velocity since cargo holds have not one, but two penalties.
Fozzie, any chance we could get a slight max velocity boost on all the freighters? Maybe 15-20m/s ? |
Skia Aumer
Atlas Research Group
74
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 17:16:00 -
[2365] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:The permanence of customizability that relies completely on rigs. As the only classes to have rig slots alone with no fitting slots, Freighters and Jump Freighters would have allowed customization towards a player's most common use cases, but would still lack the very important ability to adjust fittings in response to changing needs and environments. 1) Contracts. We use them.
2) Fitting a ship means making a decision. It's interesting to make difficult decisions and face the consequences. It's not interesting to make clicky-clicky to swap to one of predefined standard fits like "max cargo" or "max speed".
3) The difference between "adjustment" and "total repurposing" is crucial. If I put 3x trimarks on my battleship, it is doomed to be passive armor tanked. I can choose to fit more tank or DPS depending on ~environments~ but god forbid if I put a shield booster and go ratting. You dont allow total repurposing even for T3 ships - yet - but allow it for T1 Freighters and "specialized" T2 JFs, seriously?
CCP Fozzie wrote: The relative lack of interesting choices for Jump Freighter pilots. Fuel rigs would have solved that issue much more elegantly. Because capital power projection in not what we want to stimulate, do we? And those abominations, warp speed modules... |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
76
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 17:27:00 -
[2366] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:To help address the lack of interesting options for Jump Freighters, we are planning to introduce a set of jump fuel conservation modules in the Crius release in July. These modules will not be available in Kronos. Will these modules be made exclusive to jump freighters or will other caps be able to use them? Because if it's the latter you're basically just giving capital ships reduced fuel consumption in certain circumstances. Of course that could be mitigated by making them really big (e.g. 4,000 m3 like other capital mods) so you can't refit them without sacrificing huge portions of your fleet hangar. More information on these modules will be given at a later point.
Fozzie - if players aren't doing anything interesting with their Jump Freighter i.e. jumping station to station, why feel the need to give them interesting options via a new mod? Not that I am adverse to saving some fuel, just not understanding the impetus to make up a mod using the logic that there aren't enough "interesting options for Jump Freighters". Especially when they are be given a bunch of new options for doing things that are as interesting as Jump Freighters get. |
Flyinghotpocket
Amarrian Vengeance Team Amarrica
376
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 17:37:00 -
[2367] - Quote
fozzie since they are getting lows can we just make them all armor tank? the shield freighter i cant help but feel if they wanted to armor resistance up wouldnt have a opportunity to do it as effectively as the armor tanked ones.
just throw out rp reasons and make them all armor tanked. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
532
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 17:49:00 -
[2368] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote: 2) Fitting a ship means making a decision. It's interesting to make difficult decisions and face the consequences. It's not interesting to make clicky-clicky to swap to one of predefined standard fits like "max cargo" or "max speed".
I hope you understand the difference between Fitting and Rigging. All your examples fall in the Rigging part and have little to do with Fitting. They influence and "restrict" your fitting capabilities and that's it. |
Hoshi Sorano
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
44
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 19:39:00 -
[2369] - Quote
I do think that the change from rigs to slots is a good one, both in terms of cost and options. However, I am a bit concerned about the decision to only allow low slots.
CCP Fozzie wrote:The base EHP of all Freighters and Jump Freighters is being increased (since Expanded Cargoholds affect freighter hp more than cargo rigs do) and more emphasis is being placed on armor and shield than before (although all Freighters still gain the majority of their hitpoints from hull). (boldface added for emphasis)
This statement would seem to indicate that using either armor or shield to tank a freighter should be viable options, but the limitation to low slots only means that there really are only options to boost armor. You even list armor tanking modules as an expected choice for freighter pilots. But where are the shield options?
Basically, if you're going to start adding slots to freighters, don't do the job halfway; give the ships a full suite of slots and fitting options. |
Hiryu Jin
Enterprise Estonia Northern Coalition.
35
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 19:50:00 -
[2370] - Quote
seriously, just admit this was a terrible idea, leave things the way they are and move on to something else. |
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
2408
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 19:52:00 -
[2371] - Quote
Hoshi Sorano wrote:I do think that the change from rigs to slots is a good one, both in terms of cost and options. However, I am a bit concerned about the decision to only allow low slots. CCP Fozzie wrote:The base EHP of all Freighters and Jump Freighters is being increased (since Expanded Cargoholds affect freighter hp more than cargo rigs do) and more emphasis is being placed on armor and shield than before (although all Freighters still gain the majority of their hitpoints from hull). (boldface added for emphasis) This statement would seem to indicate that using either armor or shield to tank a freighter should be viable options, but the limitation to low slots only means that there really are only options to boost armor. You even list armor tanking modules as an expected choice for freighter pilots. But where are the shield options? Basically, if you're going to start adding slots to freighters, don't do the job halfway; give the ships a full suite of slots and fitting options.
Yeah! I too want to be able to fit a bait Obelisk with a huge tank and a cyno! Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence So Local Chat vanished, now what? |
Axe Coldon
41
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 20:10:00 -
[2372] - Quote
Hoshi Sorano wrote:I do think that the change from rigs to slots is a good one, both in terms of cost and options. However, I am a bit concerned about the decision to only allow low slots. CCP Fozzie wrote:The base EHP of all Freighters and Jump Freighters is being increased (since Expanded Cargoholds affect freighter hp more than cargo rigs do) and more emphasis is being placed on armor and shield than before (although all Freighters still gain the majority of their hitpoints from hull). (boldface added for emphasis) This statement would seem to indicate that using either armor or shield to tank a freighter should be viable options, but the limitation to low slots only means that there really are only options to boost armor. You even list armor tanking modules as an expected choice for freighter pilots. But where are the shield options? Basically, if you're going to start adding slots to freighters, don't do the job halfway; give the ships a full suite of slots and fitting options.
A mid slot or 2 and a new module that is the equivalent of adaptive nano only for shields. So could still keep cpu and power low to limit what we can put their. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
2408
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 20:15:00 -
[2373] - Quote
Hiryu Jin wrote:seriously, just admit this was a terrible idea, leave things the way they are and move on to something else.
Might want to rethink that a bit.
After all, getting all the low ends out to null to keep building supers your block relies heavily on.....might want a freighter with as big a cargo hold as you can get. You may have to end up hauling a giant amount of veld to the ore compression array, before jumping it out to null. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence So Local Chat vanished, now what? |
Rittel
Band of Valence
8
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 20:24:00 -
[2374] - Quote
Is there any plan to align all the JF's fuel usage?
If you're going to nerf the Rhea slightly more than the others it seems fair to at least drop its fuel usage per LY slightly. |
NEONOVUS
Diabolically Sexy Eureka-Secret Science R Us
844
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 20:31:00 -
[2375] - Quote
Axe Coldon wrote:Hoshi Sorano wrote:I do think that the change from rigs to slots is a good one, both in terms of cost and options. However, I am a bit concerned about the decision to only allow low slots. CCP Fozzie wrote:The base EHP of all Freighters and Jump Freighters is being increased (since Expanded Cargoholds affect freighter hp more than cargo rigs do) and more emphasis is being placed on armor and shield than before (although all Freighters still gain the majority of their hitpoints from hull). (boldface added for emphasis) This statement would seem to indicate that using either armor or shield to tank a freighter should be viable options, but the limitation to low slots only means that there really are only options to boost armor. You even list armor tanking modules as an expected choice for freighter pilots. But where are the shield options? Basically, if you're going to start adding slots to freighters, don't do the job halfway; give the ships a full suite of slots and fitting options. A mid slot or 2 and a new module that is the equivalent of adaptive nano only for shields. So could still keep cpu and power low to limit what we can put their. Midslots means ewar Lowslots mean that they cant project anything |
Freelancer117
So you want to be a Hero
210
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 20:32:00 -
[2376] - Quote
3x low slots ftw Eve rule no.1: The players will make a better version of the game, then CCP initially plans.
http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
2408
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 21:17:00 -
[2377] - Quote
NEONOVUS wrote:Axe Coldon wrote:Hoshi Sorano wrote:I do think that the change from rigs to slots is a good one, both in terms of cost and options. However, I am a bit concerned about the decision to only allow low slots. CCP Fozzie wrote:The base EHP of all Freighters and Jump Freighters is being increased (since Expanded Cargoholds affect freighter hp more than cargo rigs do) and more emphasis is being placed on armor and shield than before (although all Freighters still gain the majority of their hitpoints from hull). (boldface added for emphasis) This statement would seem to indicate that using either armor or shield to tank a freighter should be viable options, but the limitation to low slots only means that there really are only options to boost armor. You even list armor tanking modules as an expected choice for freighter pilots. But where are the shield options? Basically, if you're going to start adding slots to freighters, don't do the job halfway; give the ships a full suite of slots and fitting options. A mid slot or 2 and a new module that is the equivalent of adaptive nano only for shields. So could still keep cpu and power low to limit what we can put their. Midslots means ewar Lowslots mean that they cant project anything
Well the modules could be limited as with the low slots. While Hoshi Sorano's request for a full range of slots and fitting options is silly, the notion of allowing at least some shield tanking ability is less so. Of course, the ships that have more shield than armor HP have other characteristics such as being faster or more cargo space. As such, this request may not go anywhere. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence So Local Chat vanished, now what? |
Ed Bever
Evolution Northern Coalition.
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 21:18:00 -
[2378] - Quote
Maybe give them a role bonus to allow fitting warp core stabs? |
Vhelnik Cojoin
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
53
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 21:39:00 -
[2379] - Quote
I may have missed it, however: Would it be possible to get CCP to comment on or confirm which set of numbers for the fitted freighters, which are correct, please?
I would like to know what I am commenting on, and Tippia provided one set of numbers, while Red Frog provided another. Have you Communicated with your fellow capsuleers today? It is good for the EVE-oconomy and o-kay for you. |
Pyotr Sevastyan
Babylon Knights The Unthinkables
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 22:11:00 -
[2380] - Quote
Cardano Firesnake wrote:You will understand when you will be in 0.0. :-) The fact that the cost to transport thing in low sec and 0.0 have increased is nothing in regard of the gain in 0.0 and low sec. They are boosting the number of ways to make ISK in low sec already. But yes, going to there is risky and have a price... The Rhea is still the ship with the bigger cargo capacity. As Expanded Cargohold II increase the cargo by % you will gain more capacity with the Rhea than with the other ships.... And also... YES!! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3736833#post3736833
Rhea win 1% other JF win 4% => for me is a nerf, almost 5k m3, and with the price of fuel + up the comsumption, Rhea will be not the old Rhea, it will be just an old car who cost extremly expensive in fuel in regards of cargo.
|
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
2408
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 22:57:00 -
[2381] - Quote
Pyotr Sevastyan wrote:Cardano Firesnake wrote:You will understand when you will be in 0.0. :-) The fact that the cost to transport thing in low sec and 0.0 have increased is nothing in regard of the gain in 0.0 and low sec. They are boosting the number of ways to make ISK in low sec already. But yes, going to there is risky and have a price... The Rhea is still the ship with the bigger cargo capacity. As Expanded Cargohold II increase the cargo by % you will gain more capacity with the Rhea than with the other ships.... And also... YES!! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3736833#post3736833 Rhea win 1% other JF win 4% => for me is a nerf, almost 5k m3, and with the price of fuel + up the comsumption, Rhea will be not the old Rhea, it will be just an old car who cost extremly expensive in fuel in regards of cargo.
Can you show your numbers here please, for the 1% & 4%?
As for the fuel costs/consumption issues, everyone faces those changes so it isn't like you are being singled out and the JF is still the best deal in town for moving lots of stuff to null or low sec. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence So Local Chat vanished, now what? |
Hoshi Sorano
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
46
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 23:17:00 -
[2382] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:NEONOVUS wrote:Axe Coldon wrote:Hoshi Sorano wrote:I do think that the change from rigs to slots is a good one, both in terms of cost and options. However, I am a bit concerned about the decision to only allow low slots. CCP Fozzie wrote:The base EHP of all Freighters and Jump Freighters is being increased (since Expanded Cargoholds affect freighter hp more than cargo rigs do) and more emphasis is being placed on armor and shield than before (although all Freighters still gain the majority of their hitpoints from hull). (boldface added for emphasis) This statement would seem to indicate that using either armor or shield to tank a freighter should be viable options, but the limitation to low slots only means that there really are only options to boost armor. You even list armor tanking modules as an expected choice for freighter pilots. But where are the shield options? Basically, if you're going to start adding slots to freighters, don't do the job halfway; give the ships a full suite of slots and fitting options. A mid slot or 2 and a new module that is the equivalent of adaptive nano only for shields. So could still keep cpu and power low to limit what we can put their. Midslots means ewar Lowslots mean that they cant project anything Well the modules could be limited as with the low slots. While Hoshi Sorano's request for a full range of slots and fitting options is silly, the notion of allowing at least some shield tanking ability is less so. Of course, the ships that have more shield than armor HP have other characteristics such as being faster or more cargo space. As such, this request may not go anywhere.
How is it any more silly than having all slot types on T1 industrials? The silly part to me is flying giant loot targets around space that (unlike every other ship in this galaxy) can't be properly fit for defense. |
Phugoid
Thee Almitee Ones The Unforgiven Alliance
163
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 23:22:00 -
[2383] - Quote
Ok, seems fair enough. But I do have one big gripe!
Why is the align time being bascially tripled???? Isnt 40 seconds to get to warp long enough as it is? Now at 114 seconds it is absolutely an idiotic change!
Someone please explain the why/how of that decision...... Flugzeugf++hrer |
Valterra Craven
250
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 23:36:00 -
[2384] - Quote
Phugoid wrote:Ok, seems fair enough. But I do have one big gripe! Why is the align time being bascially tripled???? Isnt 40 seconds to get to warp long enough as it is? Now at 114 seconds it is absolutely an idiotic change! Someone please explain the why/how of that decision......
Base Stats vs Skill modifiers. Align time didn't change. |
Halan Devan
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 23:55:00 -
[2385] - Quote
This still seems a massive nerf bat to the groin.
Claiming to offer the ability to customize a ship but then reducing m3 to the order that most of the new changes will go to cargo modules guarantees that most haulers will instantly slap on 2 t2 cargo mods in lows, and one slot to mess with left over isn't going to change much at all.
And increasing the cost for JFs to operate, then saying "hey we will let you use new modules to reduce the fuel costs" sounds highly dubious at beast. For any module to reduce fuel use to a meaningful point they would have to make up for the m3 lost per jump due to cargo amounts lost in the changes.
In other words the m3 per trip/fuel used with a small cargo/high efficency fuel use would have to exceed the idea of using all cargo m3 modules and paying the higher fuel cost in order for players to make that choice. Not to mention offsetting the one trip vs two trip time factor for the player in real life.
Are the fuel costs vs m3 moved really going to be that large of a factor? To offset the 2nd trip and the fuel costs for another trip? We are talking some very large numbers here for fuel reduction. With some JFs having half the cargo according to the posts by CCP is this even feasible, fuel efficiency increasing by over 100% to make up for cost per haul? And that just breaks them even for fuel cost, no mention of making up for the time lost with the 2nd trip to move the same amount that we do now...
I am still of the opinion that the "freighters get rigs" announcement, without any other work done to balance this was a Fanfest publicity stunt that was poorly planned prior to that moment. |
Regan Rotineque
Arch Angels Assault Force The Kadeshi
336
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 23:58:00 -
[2386] - Quote
(insert HallmarkGäó moment)
(tears)
I luvs my new tiny cargo hold freighter with bits of tank and alignment mods
|
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
657
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 00:06:00 -
[2387] - Quote
I think there is now a healthy place for the one existing faction cargo expander and a few faction nanos. |
Rain6637
Team Evil
14705
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 00:07:00 -
[2388] - Quote
purple freighter
purple freighter in the skai President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Rainfleet mk.III-á| Twitch | Imgur | Content \o/ |
Ben Hatton
The Fifth Dimension
10
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 00:15:00 -
[2389] - Quote
All I can say is that Im really looking forward to the changes, just yesterday I had 2 full Charon loads of Trit to haul and then a 200k m3 m3 high value haul to do. Given the choice I would have fitted all T2 Cargo Exps first and then Tank and warp speed. |
Marsan
226
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 00:19:00 -
[2390] - Quote
Really with jump freighters given they are intended operate in dangerous space. Why don't they have a better tank? Why don't they have high slots? Really I should be able to install on my JF at least a point defense able to take on a frigate or 2.
Like wise give the freighters some high slots as well. Currently a freighter can be locked down by a newbie frigate without any recourse in LS/NS/WH.
Maybe the min, or ammar ships should get a modest drone able to fit a flight of drones instead of high slots.
Don't get me wrong I'm not asking for battleship level fittings, but more like very low end of cruiser or destroyer dps. Some thing a modestly tanked cruiser, or even well flown frigate can tank for long enough for friends to arrive, and a any well tanked cruiser and above could tank indefinitely. Former forum cheerleader CCP, now just a grumpy small portion of the community. |
|
Regan Rotineque
Arch Angels Assault Force The Kadeshi
336
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 00:28:00 -
[2391] - Quote
Go play with the changes on SiSi they are there :)
I can soooo see one of the first KMs is going to be a purple or blue fitted freighter (yes gankers there stuff for you too in these changes)
Being able to fit the armor repper was also a nice surprise :)
Lots of fun
+1 from me overall
though i still think we need to figure out something for the shield tanked freighters there is nothing you can really fit on those to increase resists or shield tank that has zero or 1 CPU. I may be trading in the old Fenrir fleet for some armor tankies. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
76
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 00:36:00 -
[2392] - Quote
Marsan wrote:Really with jump freighters given they are intended operate in dangerous space. Why don't they have a better tank? Why don't they have high slots? Really I should be able to install on my JF at least a point defense able to take on a frigate or 2.
Like wise give the freighters some high slots as well. Currently a freighter can be locked down by a newbie frigate without any recourse in LS/NS/WH.
Maybe the min, or ammar ships should get a modest drone able to fit a flight of drones instead of high slots.
Don't get me wrong I'm not asking for battleship level fittings, but more like very low end of cruiser or destroyer dps. Some thing a modestly tanked cruiser, or even well flown frigate can tank for long enough for friends to arrive, and a any well tanked cruiser and above could tank indefinitely.
They do have a better tank. a much better tank. And will get an even better tank if you choose to do with less cargo space. But the best tank for a Jump Freighter is ensuring it avoids trouble to begin with. Because generally, no matter what you tank is, if you're 7 billion ISK ship gets caught it will die just like it was a Supercarrier. |
Sgt Ocker
Last Bastion of Freedom
231
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 01:14:00 -
[2393] - Quote
HandelsPharmi wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: The base EHP of all Freighters and Jump Freighters is being increased (since Expanded Cargoholds affect freighter hp more than cargo rigs do) and more emphasis is being placed on armor and shield than before (although all Freighters still gain the majority of their hitpoints from hull). Note the change in the Jump Freighter HP bonus, which now only applies to their main tank and hull. The large increase in JF base HP and resist more than make up for the bonus change and all JFs have more base EHP than before.
ARK
Slot layout: 0H, 0M, 3(+3)L; Fittings: 3(+2) PWG, 5(+4) CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 12000(+6000) / 63600(+26400) / 96000(-15000) Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 20 / 47.5(+7.5) / 62.5(+12.5) Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 50 / 35 / 34.375(+9.375) / 40(+20)
78 / 71 / 71 / 74 Armor Resistance is possible with a Armor tank without a booster or anything else... this is... amazing I wouldn't be over optimistic about your resists - The resists quoted are wrong - Or have been written our wrongly.
I'm not sure when (armor,exp) 28 + 20 became 40 or when (shield,exp) 55 + 12.5 = 62.5
Not sure if it is bad math or just bad workmanship - Pretty sure though if it were a cheque book he was balancing, he stands a very good chance of being charged with fraud .
Just checked on SISI - Someone needs to fix the information in the OP so those who don't use SISI but would like to know what they are getting, are getting the right information. My opinions are mine. -á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-áIf you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK. Just don't bother Hating - I don't care.. |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
60
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 02:14:00 -
[2394] - Quote
SiSi also has base for Rhea at 143,000m3 cargo
OP has 144,000m3
Dunno which is correct honestly.... |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
881
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 03:19:00 -
[2395] - Quote
Looks like Fozzie blew it on this iteration.
I don't really see balance here.
Freighters had pretty strong stats because they weren't customizable.
1st Iteration was a fair compromise - nerf to stats in exchange for the limited ability to modify them with rigs. EHP could be increased beyond the current freighters, with a cost to cargo. Cargo could be increased above today's freighters, at a cost to EHP. Alignment could also be improved, if the other stats were ignored. Seemed balanced as their capabilities were not significantly different.
2nd iteration grants far cheaper and easier customization (no rig expense). It should have come with a further reduction of the freighters 'raw stats' to account for this.
Instead, now a cargo-fit freighter carries 25% more cargo with only a very slight 3-5% EHP penalty (from Rubicon) to 'pay' for it - with no penalty to current alignment speed. And we get Jump Freighters with 500-600K EHP. A large increase in cargo capacity should be balanced with a significant penalty to alignment and cargo.
Yes, this version is popular with the 'make me invincible' in highsec crowd, if they weren't so busy moaning that they can't fit a DCII.
But I think Fozzie needs to take another look at his spreadsheet, and I hope he realizes that handing out free ice cream cones to freighter pilots might get him a lot of 'likes' but it - doesn't mean its a good iteration.
We don't need another 'mining barge'-style balance round. Time to dial back the stats.
|
Angelique Duchemin
Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
795
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 03:38:00 -
[2396] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Angelique Duchemin wrote:And a big "screw you" to the people who spent isk hoarding capital cargo rigs. You deserve it for trying to profit on the misery of others. Shed your tears into my bucket, maybe I can use them for some useful stuff.
I wasn't one of them. I am a logistics coordinator.
My "plan" was to wait for the patch to come. Then as all the speculators start dropping their rigs on the market for the big payout. I would buy my rigs in the subsequent price drop after demand has been filled but supply was still in plenty and people start competing to liquidize their investments before the prices normalize.
That was my plan anyway but things changed.
The very sun of heaven seemed distorted when viewed through the polarising miasma welling out from this sea-soaked perversion, and twisted menace and suspense lurked leeringly in those crazily elusive angles of carven rock where a second glance shewed concavity after the first shewed convexity. |
Angelique Duchemin
Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
795
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 03:43:00 -
[2397] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Looks like Fozzie blew it on this iteration.
I don't really see balance here.
Freighters had pretty strong stats because they weren't customizable.
1st Iteration was a fair compromise - nerf to stats in exchange for the limited ability to modify them with rigs. EHP could be increased beyond the current freighters, with a cost to cargo. Cargo could be increased above today's freighters, at a cost to EHP. Alignment could also be improved, if the other stats were ignored. Seemed balanced as their capabilities were not significantly different.
2nd iteration grants far cheaper and easier customization (no rig expense). It should have come with a further reduction of the freighters 'raw stats' to account for this.
Instead, now a cargo-fit freighter carries 25% more cargo with only a very slight 3-5% EHP penalty (from Rubicon) to 'pay' for it - with no penalty to current alignment speed. And we get Jump Freighters with 500-600K EHP. A large increase in cargo capacity should be balanced with a significant penalty to alignment and cargo.
Yes, this version is popular with the 'make me invincible' in highsec crowd, if they weren't so busy moaning that they can't fit a DCII.
But I think Fozzie needs to take another look at his spreadsheet, and I hope he realizes that handing out free ice cream cones to freighter pilots might get him a lot of 'likes' but it - doesn't mean its a good iteration.
We don't need another 'mining barge'-style balance round. Time to dial back the stats.
Don't forget that in all of this the fuel cost is still increased by +50% which means that even if they carry 25% more cargo. it will still be 25% less efficient than before.
When it comes to Jump Freighters. Fuel cost means everything. Cargo space barely means anything it all. It's all down to how many M3 of space you squeeze out of every isotope.
The very sun of heaven seemed distorted when viewed through the polarising miasma welling out from this sea-soaked perversion, and twisted menace and suspense lurked leeringly in those crazily elusive angles of carven rock where a second glance shewed concavity after the first shewed convexity. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
2408
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 04:20:00 -
[2398] - Quote
Hoshi Sorano wrote:
How is it any more silly than having all slot types on T1 industrials? The silly part to me is flying giant loot targets around space that (unlike every other ship in this galaxy) can't be properly fit for defense.
You should not be able to fit a huge tank on a freighter (seriously, do the math on a freighter with both low and mid slots and able to fit a DCU II in the lows as well...you'd have a huge ass tank...unless CCP nerfed the base tank to practically nothing...so maybe you should STFU....), ewar and a cyno, IMO. That is just silly. With the proposed changes you can fit for tank, cargo...and well not exactly speed but something a bit faster than current.
And we aren't talking about a T1 industrial, but a freighter which already comes with a substantial amount of EHP right out of the box. With 3 low slots and some module options you can boost that EHP quite a bit too. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence So Local Chat vanished, now what? |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
2408
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 04:27:00 -
[2399] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Looks like Fozzie blew it on this iteration.
I don't really see balance here.
Freighters had pretty strong stats because they weren't customizable.
1st Iteration was a fair compromise - nerf to stats in exchange for the limited ability to modify them with rigs. EHP could be increased beyond the current freighters, with a cost to cargo. Cargo could be increased above today's freighters, at a cost to EHP. Alignment could also be improved, if the other stats were ignored. Seemed balanced as their capabilities were not significantly different.
2nd iteration grants far cheaper and easier customization (no rig expense). It should have come with a further reduction of the freighters 'raw stats' to account for this.
Instead, now a cargo-fit freighter carries 25% more cargo with only a very slight 3-5% EHP penalty (from Rubicon) to 'pay' for it - with no penalty to current alignment speed. And we get Jump Freighters with 500-600K EHP. A large increase in cargo capacity should be balanced with a significant penalty to alignment and cargo.
Yes, this version is popular with the 'make me invincible' in highsec crowd, if they weren't so busy moaning that they can't fit a DCII.
But I think Fozzie needs to take another look at his spreadsheet, and I hope he realizes that handing out free ice cream cones to freighter pilots might get him a lot of 'likes' but it - doesn't mean its a good iteration.
We don't need another 'mining barge'-style balance round. Time to dial back the stats.
Look everyone, here we have a high sec freighter ganker who is moaning in his cheerios about having to work harder.
I love your 25% more cargo space with only a slight nerf to EHP....as if people were filling up their freighters in the first place....well the smart people that is.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence So Local Chat vanished, now what? |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
2408
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 04:32:00 -
[2400] - Quote
Halan Devan wrote:This still seems a massive nerf bat to the groin.
Claiming to offer the ability to customize a ship but then reducing m3 to the order that most of the new changes will go to cargo modules guarantees that most haulers will instantly slap on 2 t2 cargo mods in lows, and one slot to mess with left over isn't going to change much at all.
I have to ask...WTF are you hauling? Low end high volume crap that nobody cares about?
Really, I'm quite curious...I have almost never ever filled up my JF with stuff let alone my obelisk...the issue of reduced cargo space is not really a binding constraint. Maybe if I was doing logistics for my alliance and filling up the JF before jumping to null and docking up, but other than that running around empire I have never ever run into the cargo hold limit....ever. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence So Local Chat vanished, now what? |
|
Regan Rotineque
Arch Angels Assault Force The Kadeshi
336
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 04:53:00 -
[2401] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:
Bunch of other stuff
We don't need another 'mining barge'-style balance round. Time to dial back the stats.
really? mining barge changes were great - and guess what - they still blow up
I suspect that MANY will not take advantage of the opportunity to add tank - and will make their giant space winnebago's even more squishy with 3x t2 cargo holds
Or blow a few bills on officer fits :)
These changes are win win - those who fit and fly smartly benefit - those who prey on the fitting challenge benefit so you have to get another catalyst or two to gank one.....big deal
|
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS type X
159
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 05:12:00 -
[2402] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Pyotr Sevastyan wrote:So, in one hand you want move industry in 0.0 and you say risk = isk, but in other hand you nerf JF ,the only jump-ship who can jump from high sec, with increasing fuel comsumption and reducing cargo (more fuel in cargo = less cargo for real needed).
So cost for bring item in 0.0 (because we can't prod everything in 0.0) will be higher ! We take risk but we only loose money.
The only good think would be having one more rigs slot for JF & (i'm dreaming) have a rigs for reduce comsuption for capital.
And why nerf the Rhea more than Other ? Rhea has a good cargo but the fuel is very expensive, so if you do that i want all my skill be reimboursed for switch to Anshar ! You can produce almost eveythign in 0.0 As long as peopel do exaclty what they want. MOVE RESOURSE aquisition and industry core to 0.0. Their actiosn are perfeclty in line with their stated desires.
The problem isn't logistics or material supply. It is the absolute compulsion of nullsec to blast or attempt to enslave every miner, hauler and moon miner that shows any interest in nullsec game play rather than simply extending a corp invite and working with players that like doing these things.
CCP can do whatever it likes to make nullsec industry viable except stop nullsec alliances from working against its own best interests by blasting that which could best help them defend their empires and even gain the power to conquer new SOV space, no not 10 more titans but 100 more farmers. Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really. |
Loraine Gess
Confedeferate Union of Tax Legalists
325
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 05:12:00 -
[2403] - Quote
@CCP Fozzie, you're missing a very clever thing. You've addressed the idea that freighters will use CPRs:
Quote: (For Jump Freighters) Capacitor Power Relays
However, you forgot to factor in capacitor FLUX COILS. Yes, these provide less recharge. But they do a very interesting thing: They reduce overall capacitor. This means a JF can be "capped up" from a partner, buddy, logi chain etc much more quickly. Because capitals rely on % of total capacitor, NOT a flat cost in Joules to jump. I am not saying this is a negative thing. I would like to see JF capacitor recharge nerfed, actually, providing a niche for this sort of gameplay where players have to work together. And perhaps, be trusted to work together... |
Warr Akini
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
128
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 05:17:00 -
[2404] - Quote
Regan Rotineque wrote:really? mining barge changes were great - and guess what - they still blow up
I suspect that MANY will not take advantage of the opportunity to add tank - and will make their giant space winnebago's even more squishy with 3x t2 cargo holds
Or blow a few bills on officer fits :)
These changes are win win - those who fit and fly smartly benefit - those who prey on the fitting challenge benefit so you have to get another catalyst or two to gank one.....big deal
Absolute difference in manpower required is far more than it was for the miner buffs. See some post I made earlier - an Anshar in the 600k ehp range is not simply a thing of adding a couple more catalysts (or even a couple more Taloses). |
Louis Robichaud
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
224
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 05:29:00 -
[2405] - Quote
@CCP Fozzie: I've just realized that you're sort of painted in a corner by having 3 slots (or previously, 3 rigs) to work with.
First, I'm assuming that your goal was to make these ships more customizable, without significantly boosting their power - ie you didn't want to see a 500K ehp freighter or one with 3 million cubic metres of cargo. This seems reasonable. So a nerf accorss the board was needed to reduced the post-rigged stats. But what stats? A freighter has 3 important stats:
- Cargo space
- Tank
- Align time
(There is also warp speed but let's ignore that one for now as I believe the above 3 are more important. You'll see my argument is still valid with those.)
So in theory, if you had one cargo rig, one tank rig and one agility (ie align time) rig, you would have about the same results as before... but that can't work! If that was the case, having (using cargo as an example) a ship with 2 cargo rigs would have had a fair bit more of cargo, and 3 cargo rigs would have massive cargo. So the only way to make this work was to have the nerf serious enough that only by putting 3 rigs in one stat would you exceed previous capacity, at a significant cost to the other 2.
This design space of "3 stats, 3 slots, don't buff too much" leads to an almost inescapable nerf. You may find that having *less* slots may make balancing these ships easier?
Lastly, I'll note t hat I haven't had time to fully digest the switch from rigs to low-slots, but I think the point remains. I blog a bit http://hspew.blogspot.ca |
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS type X
160
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 05:41:00 -
[2406] - Quote
Louis Robichaud wrote:@CCP Fozzie: I've just realized that you're sort of painted in a corner by having 3 slots (or previously, 3 rigs) to work with.
First, I'm assuming that your goal was to make these ships more customizable, without significantly boosting their power - ie you didn't want to see a 500K ehp freighter or one with 3 million cubic metres of cargo. This seems reasonable. So a nerf accorss the board was needed to reduced the post-rigged stats. But what stats? A freighter has 3 important stats:
- Cargo space
- Tank
- Align time
(There is also warp speed but let's ignore that one for now as I believe the above 3 are more important. You'll see my argument is still valid with those.)
So in theory, if you had one cargo rig, one tank rig and one agility (ie align time) rig, you would have about the same results as before... but that can't work! If that was the case, having (using cargo as an example) a ship with 2 cargo rigs would have had a fair bit more of cargo, and 3 cargo rigs would have massive cargo. So the only way to make this work was to have the nerf serious enough that only by putting 3 rigs in one stat would you exceed previous capacity, at a significant cost to the other 2.
This design space of "3 stats, 3 slots, don't buff too much" leads to an almost inescapable nerf. You may find that having *less* slots may make balancing these ships easier?
Lastly, I'll note t hat I haven't had time to fully digest the switch from rigs to low-slots, but I think the point remains.
This is true but now freighter pilots have meaningful decisions to make and that is one of the core concepts of this game. Whereas, before freighters were a static boring thing now they will be alive with variation that brings new and interesting dynamics to EVE. Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really. |
Carniflex
StarHunt Mordus Angels
212
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 06:23:00 -
[2407] - Quote
A good point was raised few pages back.
What about different fuel consumption the JF's currently have per light-year? Now that their cargo capacities are pretty much the same it might make sense also to make the fuel consumption pretty much the same for all races as otherwise you will end with just one "good" JF.
And a bit more about regular capitals in hi sec which was discussed a number of pages back (related to increasing their packaged sizes up so that regular freighters could not be used to haul them to hi sec).
The main reason why they are not allowed is probably roqual I would guess. As I pointed out dreads and carriers are not really an issue in hi sec (other than grabbing gank catalysts from a carrier and possibly its leadership bonuses when running gang links).
On the other hand having the ability would mean occasional regular freighter jumping into lowsec and coming back out with max cargo expanders on. Plus ofc all the joy of people who would be ganking freighters afkpiloting with their carriers and dreads towards jita to sell in the hub with max cargo expanders on ;) Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... *THWONK!* GOT the bastard. |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
60
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 06:38:00 -
[2408] - Quote
Loraine Gess wrote:@CCP Fozzie, you're missing a very clever thing. You've addressed the idea that freighters will use CPRs: Quote: (For Jump Freighters) Capacitor Power Relays
However, you forgot to factor in capacitor FLUX COILS. Yes, these provide less recharge. But they do a very interesting thing: They reduce overall capacitor. This means a JF can be "capped up" from a partner, buddy, logi chain etc much more quickly. Because capitals rely on % of total capacitor, NOT a flat cost in Joules to jump. I am not saying this is a negative thing. I would like to see JF capacitor recharge nerfed, actually, providing a niche for this sort of gameplay where players have to work together. And perhaps, be trusted to work together... e: I ran some numbers and JFs will not have the sufficient fitting for an appreciable number of CPRs/flux coils. I think these modules are due for some lowered fitting requirements. They're pretty niche (not because of fitting) and should thus not have any impact on balance, though I'm sure some theorycrafting is in order to ensure that.
Do any of the flux coils even fit?
theship only has a few CPU and I think flux coils are like 8-15 cpu each aren't they?
|
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
434
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 07:26:00 -
[2409] - Quote
Hmm... now the gankers are whining, so the change from rigs to low slot modules must actually be a buff. |
Loraine Gess
Confedeferate Union of Tax Legalists
327
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 07:43:00 -
[2410] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:Loraine Gess wrote:@CCP Fozzie, you're missing a very clever thing. You've addressed the idea that freighters will use CPRs: Quote: (For Jump Freighters) Capacitor Power Relays
However, you forgot to factor in capacitor FLUX COILS. Yes, these provide less recharge. But they do a very interesting thing: They reduce overall capacitor. This means a JF can be "capped up" from a partner, buddy, logi chain etc much more quickly. Because capitals rely on % of total capacitor, NOT a flat cost in Joules to jump. I am not saying this is a negative thing. I would like to see JF capacitor recharge nerfed, actually, providing a niche for this sort of gameplay where players have to work together. And perhaps, be trusted to work together... e: I ran some numbers and JFs will not have the sufficient fitting for an appreciable number of CPRs/flux coils. I think these modules are due for some lowered fitting requirements. They're pretty niche (not because of fitting) and should thus not have any impact on balance, though I'm sure some theorycrafting is in order to ensure that. Do any of the flux coils even fit? theship only has a few CPU and I think flux coils are like 8-15 cpu each aren't they?
The easiest fitting flux coils are 8 each (6 at max fitting skills). You can easily fit that after CPU management V. I don't think you could fit a 2nd without some buffs, though. Stacking multiple flux coils would be a VERY interesting fit. CPRs will be pretty hard to fit as well. |
|
Haffsol
30
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 10:40:00 -
[2411] - Quote
I'm pretty happy to jump here at page 119 without having read a single post of this monster-of-a-threadnought but sorry guys you're all wrong. Rebalancing JF&F should be done adding new special rigs to the market, available only for said ship. Their use should be to create specialized and additional cargobays, at the expense of normal cargo.
Just like their lil sisters, the new gallente Kryos/Miasmos and such. If you want to modify your Rhea because you live at the end of the universe and only use it to move moongoo to build your alliance's needs, then go for it: purchase a "MoonGoo modifier" and then all of a sudder your Rhea won't be able to carry anymore 350k of *stuff* but maybe only 50k of *stuff* + 500k of MoonGoo. Of course only 1 per ship and must destroy the rig/modifier to plug a new one.
Same for ice, ores, minerals, PI, hulls, ammo...... plexes!! Anything logi guys needs to move.
This would create a new exclusive market for logi fellas (not influencing cap rigs market and/or other markets), would create specialization, would even create a new need for JF&F hulls since you may be willing to have 2 or 3 of those things and guess what? it would also make sense ;)
Well...... waiting to be punished with an "already discussed and discarded at page 3" hammer on my head. |
Major Trant
CTRL-Q Iron Oxide.
729
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 11:13:00 -
[2412] - Quote
My alts fly Charons and Rheas and generally I think this is a good step in the right direction. However, this mish mash with the low CPU and role bonus towards Bulkheads is really a poor design decision, motivated by laziness. You are frightened of the maths involved and the permentations in allowing a Damage Control to be fitted aren't you?
Grasp the nettle and do it. Just give a decent CPU upgrade and forget the role bonus. Eve is meant to be a sandbox, let people fit what they want to fit in the lows. Don't be frightened of the whiners. Sure the suicide gankers are going to whine that it is another carebear buff. While the carebears are going to whine that they can't AFK haul. Nerf the hull HP some more if you want, but give people some real variety options.
Imagine the extremes - a Charon so stuffed full of goods and as fragile as a BC. Or the Charon whos owner really cares about survivability over profit and can tank a shed load of BS. Imagine baiting with it in low sec. CTRL-Q - Minmatar FW - Low Sec PvP - Euro TZ - New Player Friendly Contact: Major Trant In game channel: FeO Public Recruitment thread: CTRL-Q |
Dave Stark
5978
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 12:26:00 -
[2413] - Quote
Major Trant wrote:You are frightened of the maths involved and the permentations in allowing a Damage Control to be fitted aren't you?
you want nerfs?
because this is how you get nerfs. |
Louis Robichaud
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
224
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 12:31:00 -
[2414] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Major Trant wrote:You are frightened of the maths involved and the permentations in allowing a Damage Control to be fitted aren't you? you want nerfs? because this is how you get nerfs.
Yup. In fact, by having PG and (esp) CPU so limited, Fozzie may have found himself a way out of the "three slots" dilemma I mentioned earlier.
Sometimes, less *is* more. I blog a bit http://hspew.blogspot.ca |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6487
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 12:42:00 -
[2415] - Quote
Louis Robichaud wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Major Trant wrote:You are frightened of the maths involved and the permentations in allowing a Damage Control to be fitted aren't you? you want nerfs? because this is how you get nerfs. Yup. In fact, by having PG and (esp) CPU so limited, Fozzie may have found himself a way out of the "three slots" dilemma I mentioned earlier. Sometimes, less *is* more.
Heh, pretty sure Fozzie has to give credit to mynnna on that one, to be honest. The entire thing is almost in lockstep with his suggested changes.
Although I still want the shield and armor buffs scaled back a fair bit. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
1233
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 12:50:00 -
[2416] - Quote
Major Trant wrote:My alts fly Charons and Rheas and generally I think this is a good step in the right direction. However, this mish mash with the low CPU and role bonus towards Bulkheads is really a poor design decision, motivated by laziness. You are frightened of the maths involved and the permentations in allowing a Damage Control to be fitted aren't you?
Grasp the nettle and do it. Just give a decent CPU upgrade and forget the role bonus. Eve is meant to be a sandbox, let people fit what they want to fit in the lows. Don't be frightened of the whiners. Sure the suicide gankers are going to whine that it is another carebear buff. While the carebears are going to whine that they can't AFK haul. Nerf the hull HP some more if you want, but give people some real variety options.
Yeah I'd have just done this. The great thing about the DC is its active nature. If you balance around HP with a DC active, then anyone APing around will have theirs off and hence be very vulnerable.
Which is fine. If they're empty, this is no big deal, as they're not going to get ganked - although they may get assassinated, meaning that they've been specifically targeted as a pilot. If they're APing with valuable cargo with DC off, then they deserve everything they get.
CCP may have thought that the difference in EHP between DC on and off was just too great though. Or is the risk of scripts to auto-activate the DC too great? |
Loraine Gess
Confedeferate Union of Tax Legalists
327
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 12:55:00 -
[2417] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Major Trant wrote:My alts fly Charons and Rheas and generally I think this is a good step in the right direction. However, this mish mash with the low CPU and role bonus towards Bulkheads is really a poor design decision, motivated by laziness. You are frightened of the maths involved and the permentations in allowing a Damage Control to be fitted aren't you?
Grasp the nettle and do it. Just give a decent CPU upgrade and forget the role bonus. Eve is meant to be a sandbox, let people fit what they want to fit in the lows. Don't be frightened of the whiners. Sure the suicide gankers are going to whine that it is another carebear buff. While the carebears are going to whine that they can't AFK haul. Nerf the hull HP some more if you want, but give people some real variety options. Yeah I'd have just done this. The great thing about the DC is its active nature. If you balance around HP with a DC active, then anyone APing around will have theirs off and hence be very vulnerable. Which is fine. If they're empty, this is no big deal, as they're not going to get ganked - although they may get assassinated, meaning that they've been specifically targeted as a pilot. If they're APing with valuable cargo with DC off, then they deserve everything they get. CCP may have thought that the difference in EHP between DC on and off was just too great though. Or is the risk of scripts to auto-activate the DC too great?
DC2 would also be incredibly powerful for the size of cargo it carries, screwing up the entire risk/reward equation. So the base stats would have to be nerfed into the ground to compensate, negating the entire idea of choice in the first place. Alternatively the DC2 fit would be allowed to roam freely, but that would majorly upset balance. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6487
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 12:56:00 -
[2418] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote: CCP may have thought that the difference in EHP between DC on and off was just too great though. Or is the risk of scripts to auto-activate the DC too great?
I think they took into account that these ships are flown the way they are precisely because the pilot does not want to be paying continuous attention to it. Those people would be dying in droves.
Nevermind that, for the people who are paying attention, it would render functional invicibility. Those people would never die.
Neither of those two outcomes is desirable. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Gregor Parud
537
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 12:56:00 -
[2419] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Major Trant wrote:My alts fly Charons and Rheas and generally I think this is a good step in the right direction. However, this mish mash with the low CPU and role bonus towards Bulkheads is really a poor design decision, motivated by laziness. You are frightened of the maths involved and the permentations in allowing a Damage Control to be fitted aren't you?
Grasp the nettle and do it. Just give a decent CPU upgrade and forget the role bonus. Eve is meant to be a sandbox, let people fit what they want to fit in the lows. Don't be frightened of the whiners. Sure the suicide gankers are going to whine that it is another carebear buff. While the carebears are going to whine that they can't AFK haul. Nerf the hull HP some more if you want, but give people some real variety options. Yeah I'd have just done this. The great thing about the DC is its active nature. If you balance around HP with a DC active, then anyone APing around will have theirs off and hence be very vulnerable. Which is fine. If they're empty, this is no big deal, as they're not going to get ganked - although they may get assassinated, meaning that they've been specifically targeted as a pilot. If they're APing with valuable cargo with DC off, then they deserve everything they get. CCP may have thought that the difference in EHP between DC on and off was just too great though. Or is the risk of scripts to auto-activate the DC too great?
Ytterbium hinted at DC possibly becoming passive.
|
Dave Stark
5978
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 13:03:00 -
[2420] - Quote
Gregor Parud wrote:Ytterbium hinted at DC possibly becoming passive.
look at passive vs active hardeners for both armour and shield.
do you really think the DCII would retain it's stats if it were made passive? |
|
Loraine Gess
Confedeferate Union of Tax Legalists
327
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 13:07:00 -
[2421] - Quote
Interestingly is it (just barely) not possible to fit a civilian damage control on a JF. Even if you use 2 estamel's co procs, genolution set, and 6% CPU hardwiring. Very, very close though. |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1094
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 13:17:00 -
[2422] - Quote
Loraine Gess wrote:Interestingly is it (just barely) not possible to fit a civilian damage control on a JF. Even if you use 2 estamel's co procs, genolution set, and 6% CPU hardwiring. Very, very close though.
The though of using officer fitting mods to enable to use of a single civilian module is interesting. |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1094
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 13:18:00 -
[2423] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Although I still want the shield and armor buffs scaled back a fair bit.
Dunno if it will happen but if it does, it will probably be in a re-pass after release when they get actual in-game data. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
1233
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 13:19:00 -
[2424] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote: I think they took into account that these ships are flown the way they are precisely because the pilot does not want to be paying continuous attention to it. Those people would be dying in droves.
Nevermind that, for the people who are paying attention, it would render functional invicibility. Those people would never die.
Neither of those two outcomes is desirable.
Yeah, I guess the difference between DC and no DC is just too much. Oh well. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6487
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 13:25:00 -
[2425] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote: I think they took into account that these ships are flown the way they are precisely because the pilot does not want to be paying continuous attention to it. Those people would be dying in droves.
Nevermind that, for the people who are paying attention, it would render functional invicibility. Those people would never die.
Neither of those two outcomes is desirable.
Yeah, I guess the difference between DC and no DC is just too much. Oh well.
Pretty much yeah.
Even a conservative nerf of about 35% to all hitpoints would make it capable to take down a freighter with 2 Taloses. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Warr Akini
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
129
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 13:28:00 -
[2426] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Even a conservative nerf of about 35% to all hitpoints would make it capable to take down a freighter with 2 Taloses.
I'm not really sure about that? They'd have to come down to 50-70k ehp range for that to be feasible.
Waiting for CCP Fozzie comment on if he wants stupid-EHP'd freighter/JFs in highsec. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6487
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 13:29:00 -
[2427] - Quote
Warr Akini wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Even a conservative nerf of about 35% to all hitpoints would make it capable to take down a freighter with 2 Taloses. I'm not really sure about that? They'd have to come down to 50-70k ehp range for that to be feasible. Waiting for CCP Fozzie comment on if he wants stupid-EHP'd freighter/JFs in highsec.
Yeah that was a huge derp, I meant to say 4. Thanks. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Gregor Parud
537
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 13:35:00 -
[2428] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Gregor Parud wrote:Ytterbium hinted at DC possibly becoming passive.
look at passive vs active hardeners for both armour and shield. do you really think the DCII would retain its stats if it were made passive? and that's before we point out how insanely powerful the DCII is, regardless of comparisons to other modules.
That wasn't the point. |
Jessica Danikov
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
350
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 13:36:00 -
[2429] - Quote
I rather like the fact that, as an active module, the DC2 penalises the EHP of autopiloting freighters (take that, people going AFK on incredibly long and boring journeys!).
I suspect one of the reasons allowing a DC2 on freighters make things incredibly hard to balance is the fact that they are so effective- most ships do not structure tank, so the DC2 effects on structure EHP are negligible compared to Shield/Armor tanks. As long as the freighter's tank is mainly in structure, if a DC2 can be fit it become a practically mandatory module.
The only two real solutions are: not permitting a DC module (as the rig and hacky low-slot approaches do), or rebalancing freighters as proper ships with proper shield/armour tanks and the slots that go with that. The typical racial differentiators would then become more profound in differentiating the freighters by slot layout |
Loraine Gess
Confedeferate Union of Tax Legalists
327
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 13:46:00 -
[2430] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Loraine Gess wrote:Interestingly is it (just barely) not possible to fit a civilian damage control on a JF. Even if you use 2 estamel's co procs, genolution set, and 6% CPU hardwiring. Very, very close though. The though of using officer fitting mods to enable to use of a single civilian module is interesting.
Officer co-procs are dirt cheap, due to their incredibly limited range of uses. One is the 8-booster command ship. The other is... not this. |
|
Cameron Hages
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 13:53:00 -
[2431] - Quote
So is it just me or do Caldari freighters get the **** end of this deal. All races are capable of good armor tanking, except Caldari, and giving everyone else the ability to close their gaps, while a emp round will tear us a new one seems unfair. I think balance should be made around DCU2 not armor mods. |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1094
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 13:56:00 -
[2432] - Quote
Cameron Hages wrote:So is it just me or do Caldari freighters get the **** end of this deal. All races are capable of good armor tanking, except Caldari, and giving everyone else the ability to close their gaps, while a emp round will tear us a new one seems unfair. I think balance should be made around DCU2 not armor mods.
You could always hull tank with bulkheads... |
Hiryu Jin
Enterprise Estonia Northern Coalition.
36
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 14:11:00 -
[2433] - Quote
I don't understand how everyone is so excited for these changes. It's like a politician comes out and says we're raising taxes 50%. Then a week later he says ok, we've heard your complaints, so we'll only raise the taxes 25%. So everyone starts sucking his **** about what a benevolent being he is... HOORAY! -,- |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
659
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 14:26:00 -
[2434] - Quote
Hiryu Jin wrote:I don't understand how everyone is so excited for these changes. It's like a politician comes out and says we're raising taxes 50%. Then a week later he says ok, we've heard your complaints, so we'll only raise the taxes 25%. So everyone starts sucking his **** about what a benevolent being he is... HOORAY! -,- That is an opinion. While the rig idea was awful the customization idea is good. you no longer have to buy a whole new freighter to fill a certain role. You can just refit and choose your ship based on the most important attribute to you. |
Jakar Th'al
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 14:40:00 -
[2435] - Quote
The one thing I like about the new ships is the chance to vary fits for the go/return legs of the trip.
The grating part is that I can fit an adaptive nano plating on lowslots (3x Coreli for example) and increase the hitpoints considerably on the 'armour flavoured' freighters.
This is way less effective on the shield flavour ones of course ... and we all know its ganking that colours the issue. The more HP/resists the better chance you have of surviving. The Amarr and Gallente get a lot in this context, sadly the others get nothing.
|
Vhelnik Cojoin
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
54
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 14:55:00 -
[2436] - Quote
Executive summary for CCP Devs regarding the T1 freighter changes as currently proposed: Excellent, yes please.
I have now had time to tinker on SiSi with CCP Fozzie's latest iteration of freighter changes, and this edition actually seems to work well. It would seem like Tippia was right (wait, isn't that supposed to be Garth?!) in which case these numbers and changes makes a lot of sense to me.
Please note I do not have a qualified opinion on the JF changes, but the T1 freighters now allow for proper - and sensible - customization. I mostly have 3 freighter use cases, all of which are now properly taken into consideration:
- Travel fit, empty or mostly so: Combination of I-stabs, ODs (flying AFK, surely not?! ) and Hypers. New and improved option we don't currently have, sounds good.
- Expensive yet small(ish) cargo: Bulkheads, providing higher EHP than today.
- Bulky stuff, where every m3 counts: This mostly means hauling uncompressed ore during mining ops. Expanders all the way, or maybe an I-stab in there for good measure, depending on distance to travel. Even at 1.2M m3 of cargo space you cannot really squeeze enough uncompressed HiSec ore into a freighter to make ganking it economically viable. On the other hand, then the reduction in EHP from fitting Expanders still doesn't make the freighter a target for a handful of bored pilots. And if people can be bothered to assemble a fleet large enough to gank the freighter 'for the lulz', then the reduction in EHP won't matter anyway. The freighter would die both today as well as in the future.
Well done Mr. Fuzzy, one 'like' extended. Have you Communicated with your fellow capsuleers today? It is good for the EVE-oconomy and o-kay for you. |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
819
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 14:55:00 -
[2437] - Quote
Jakar Th'al wrote:The one thing I like about the new ships is the chance to vary fits for the go/return legs of the trip.
The grating part is that I can fit an adaptive nano plating on lowslots (3x Coreli for example) and increase the hitpoints considerably on the 'armour flavoured' freighters.
This is way less effective on the shield flavour ones of course ... and we all know its ganking that colours the issue. The more HP/resists the better chance you have of surviving. The Amarr and Gallente get a lot in this context, sadly the others get nothing.
mm... perhaps the caldari and minnie one could get swap 1 lowslot for a midslot ... they could use a shield amplifier ... although there isn't an omni version yet unfortunately .... Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Annette Nolen
Red Frog Freight Red-Frog
18
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 16:10:00 -
[2438] - Quote
This came up in random conversation today so I wanted to throw it out there. I suppose It's pretty late in the thread to expect anyone to see this but, well, I tried :)
Give a different freighter (Providence IMO) a higher top-speed than the Fenrir. Basically, swap the Provi and Fenrir max velocity stat. However, leave the Fenrir as the most agile.
Why? There are two styles of hauling, AFK and ATK. There are benefits and drawbacks to each, but in either case, provided you stay under safe cargo values, the Fenrir wins at BOTH styles. Velocity is important to AFK hauling while agility is important to both. Since Fenrir has the best of both stats, there's no comparison. Moving top speed to a different freighter would turn this into an actual potential trade off. Charon already gets max cargo and Obelisk already gets max tank, but there's very little to differentiate Provi and Fenrir (especially now that their cargo capacity is the same). This change this would give them a relevant distinction.
|
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
130
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 16:14:00 -
[2439] - Quote
Annette Nolen wrote:This came up in random conversation today so I wanted to throw it out there. I suppose It's pretty late in the thread to expect anyone to see this but, well, I tried :)
Give a different freighter (Providence IMO) a higher top-speed than the Fenrir. Basically, swap the Provi and Fenrir max velocity stat. However, leave the Fenrir as the most agile.
Why? There are two styles of hauling, AFK and ATK. There are benefits and drawbacks to each, but in either case, provided you stay under safe cargo values, the Fenrir wins at BOTH styles. Velocity is important to AFK hauling while agility is important to both. Since Fenrir has the best of both stats, there's no comparison. Moving top speed to a different freighter would turn this into an actual potential trade off. Charon already gets max cargo and Obelisk already gets max tank, but there's very little to differentiate Provi and Fenrir (especially now that their cargo capacity is the same). This change this would give them a relevant distinction.
The Provi makes up for this by being one sexy beast. While the Fenrir is a Sandcrawler. |
Hoshi Sorano
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
46
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 18:04:00 -
[2440] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Hoshi Sorano wrote:
How is it any more silly than having all slot types on T1 industrials? The silly part to me is flying giant loot targets around space that (unlike every other ship in this galaxy) can't be properly fit for defense.
You should not be able to fit a huge tank on a freighter (seriously, do the math on a freighter with both low and mid slots and able to fit a DCU II in the lows as well...you'd have a huge ass tank...unless CCP nerfed the base tank to practically nothing...so maybe you should STFU....), ewar and a cyno, IMO. That is just silly. With the proposed changes you can fit for tank, cargo...and well not exactly speed but something a bit faster than current. And we aren't talking about a T1 industrial, but a freighter which already comes with a substantial amount of EHP right out of the box. With 3 low slots and some module options you can boost that EHP quite a bit too.
You seem to be under the impression that I was implying that freighters should have mid slots without adjusting the base stats to compensate; I said no such thing. I just feel that shifting the freighters as a whole to rely more on armor and shields, but then only giving them low slots is leaving the job half done.
Jakar Th'al wrote:The grating part is that I can fit an adaptive nano plating on lowslots (3x Coreli for example) and increase the hitpoints considerably on the 'armour flavoured' freighters.
This is way less effective on the shield flavour ones of course ... and we all know its ganking that colours the issue. The more HP/resists the better chance you have of surviving. The Amarr and Gallente get a lot in this context, sadly the others get nothing.
This, exactly. |
|
Kaius Fero
47
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 18:20:00 -
[2441] - Quote
I totally love how come the ganker rednecks dictate hot to use a freighter in a sandbox. This is better than any monthy python sketch. |
Hoshi Sorano
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
46
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 18:38:00 -
[2442] - Quote
Kaius Fero wrote:I totally love how come the ganker rednecks dictate hot to use a freighter in a sandbox. This is better than any monthy python sketch.
Well, better than the ex-parrot perhaps, but I don't know if I'd say better than the Spanish Inquisition; that one is pretty hard to top. |
Lara Divinity
Seles Deep Space Industries Order of the Exalted
16
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 18:40:00 -
[2443] - Quote
6 days and 2401 posts later still no decent solution altough i like the idea of gettin lowslots better then rig slots ,are we heading in the right direction at least anyways... the armoured freighters seem to be favored in this issue tho like many others said they get plating and so on but shield freighters dont get anything still not there yet why dont u just make all freighters equal after all they r just to transport stuff . ore industrial freighters or somthing without the racial bonusses just cargohold agility ehp bam done out of the box freighter with or without lows but all equal or just dont change anything at all saves a whole lotta messing up |
Captain Finklestein
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 18:43:00 -
[2444] - Quote
This is a bit stupid now.
Using rig slots allowed us to customize nearly any quality of the ship. The Charon for instance could be shield tanked further, allowing for remote rep shield support. Using low slots there is no way to buff shields beyond Power Diagnostics, which don't do much.
Please make all freighters armor tanked. If not, please design new modules that can only be fit to freighters/jump freighters which allow you to tank shield through the use of low slots.
In it's current state the freighters are honestly stuck in certain roles: Charon - The ship you use when you want max cargo Obelisk - The ship you use when you want max EHP Providence - The ship you use when you have RR support Fenrir - The ship you never use because you know how to insta-webwarp the other 3 freighters.
By allowing us to properly buff shields, the Charon/Fenrir both gain new roles as potential RR candidates for shield repping.
|
Kaius Fero
47
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 18:48:00 -
[2445] - Quote
Hoshi Sorano wrote:Kaius Fero wrote:I totally love how come the ganker rednecks dictate hot to use a freighter in a sandbox. This is better than any monthy python sketch. Well, better than the ex-parrot perhaps, but I don't know if I'd say better than the Spanish Inquisition; that one is pretty hard to top. Spanish Inquisition is pretty close. |
Hoshi Sorano
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
46
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 18:50:00 -
[2446] - Quote
Kaius Fero wrote:Hoshi Sorano wrote:Kaius Fero wrote:I totally love how come the ganker rednecks dictate hot to use a freighter in a sandbox. This is better than any monthy python sketch. Well, better than the ex-parrot perhaps, but I don't know if I'd say better than the Spanish Inquisition; that one is pretty hard to top. Spanish Inquisition is pretty close.
"All right; we'll call it a draw." |
Dukt Tapir
ManyTargetsMuchAmmo Brothers of Tangra
2
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 22:57:00 -
[2447] - Quote
It seems that Jump frieghters are really being penalized when the opposite should be true.
!st, these take a huge investment to train for, pay for and fly. Certainly the agility is one of the features that are important to these beasts staying alive.
2nd, We hear that CCP is trying to encourage more 0,0 usage, but it is really only possible if you can trade between high and low sec. Cutting the abilit yof these ships to haul people to 0,0 and profitable goods back to high sec take away much of the motive to be in 0,0.
3rd, making the operation even more expensive for the given amount of freight makes using these ships only viable for really valuable cargo, which now is at risk even more than before.
I understand the need to make changes to freighters and am quite happy to make trade-offs in a ship designed for high sec operations mostly. But ships that enable me to move to and operate in 0,0 have gotten so expensive i have to ask why am I out here? The mining is good, but the ore is too big to be moved unless your using a much cheaper Rorqual and take the time to compress. I can build all but the SC and Titan in high sec and buy the little bit of high end ore on the market. And everything I need to do this is in high sec...... Seems like high sec is no longer a higher level of security (which attracted me to this game in the first place) and 0.0 is no longer as dangerous, just more painful to move around.
I think the changes to JF is counter productive to your stated goals. The ability to change the fit at the expense of carrying ability is useless. The only reason to use the JF is its carrying ability. This is simply a nerf without a good reason that is counter to your stated goals.
|
Eija-Riitta Veitonen
Unicorn Enterprise
203
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 02:47:00 -
[2448] - Quote
I applaud the new much more sensible solution to freighter upgradeability. Now if only i could fit Warp Core Stabs in there, too... |
Cagali Yoll
Infinity Engine Sleeping Dragons
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 05:53:00 -
[2449] - Quote
I have an issue with the 100% bonus to Reinforced Bulkheads.
This may have been answered already but can someone explain the reasoning behind Bulkheads having CPU requirements at all?
It's metal stuck to the inside of the cargo bay to increase structure. What reasonable situation would one use Bulkhead(s) and still be limited in CPU. What unreasonable nich situation would one use Bulkheads?
(Edit: After a google search a hull tanked Tarranis is a viable possibility.)
What would be the consequences of simply re-balancing the module to have 0 CPU? |
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
135
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 06:08:00 -
[2450] - Quote
Cagali Yoll wrote:I have an issue with the 100% bonus to Reinforced Bulkheads.
This may have been answered already but can someone explain the reasoning behind Bulkheads having CPU requirements at all?
It's metal stuck to the inside of the cargo bay to increase structure. What reasonable situation would one use Bulkhead(s) and still be limited in CPU. What unreasonable nich situation would one use Bulkheads?
(Edit: After a google search a hull tanked Tarranis is a viable possibility.)
What would be the consequences of simply re-balancing the module to have 0 CPU? You'd have to re-balance the Orca, and Rorq which are viable hull tanking ships. And that's not happening yet..
Also you'll find that ships with a lot of hull, like a Moros, will sometimes switch to a hulltank while they are going down, in order to delay the opposing force even longer.. (Most often seen in WH's where time, ships, and people are limited) |
|
Cagali Yoll
Infinity Engine Sleeping Dragons
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 06:17:00 -
[2451] - Quote
Sniper Smith wrote:Cagali Yoll wrote:I have an issue with the 100% bonus to Reinforced Bulkheads.
What would be the consequences of simply re-balancing the module to have 0 CPU? You'd have to re-balance the Orca, and Rorq which are viable hull tanking ships. And that's not happening yet.. Also you'll find that ships with a lot of hull, like a Moros, will sometimes switch to a hulltank while they are going down, in order to delay the opposing force even longer.. (Most often seen in WH's where time, ships, and people are limited)
Yes I'm aware capital ships use bulkheads. They also have plenty of CPU to spare. My question was would changing the CPU requirement of a Reinforced Bulkhead II from 40 to 0 have any real impact. I personally don't use an Orca. Are common fittings tight on CPU? |
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
135
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 06:34:00 -
[2452] - Quote
Cagali Yoll wrote:Yes I'm aware capital ships use bulkheads. They also have plenty of CPU to spare. My question was would changing the CPU requirement of a Reinforced Bulkhead II from 40 to 0 have any real impact. I personally don't use an Orca. Are common fittings tight on CPU? There are many Orca fits that are very tight on CPU and PG. Especially if it's travel/transport fit. |
Oxide Ammar
130
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 06:49:00 -
[2453] - Quote
Why there is no mention to Layered plating modules in the OP ? their fitting requirements works with freighters. |
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
6453
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 06:50:00 -
[2454] - Quote
Sniper Smith wrote:Cagali Yoll wrote:Yes I'm aware capital ships use bulkheads. They also have plenty of CPU to spare. My question was would changing the CPU requirement of a Reinforced Bulkhead II from 40 to 0 have any real impact. I personally don't use an Orca. Are common fittings tight on CPU? There are many Orca fits that are very tight on CPU and PG. Especially if it's travel/transport fit. What fit is tight on CPU? PG I can see being tight, but you can fit extremely heavy CPU fits with zero skills, so I'd like to know what fit is so demanding on the CPU? |
Quesa
D00M. Northern Coalition.
27
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 14:33:00 -
[2455] - Quote
Quote:Jump Freighters Bonus per level: +10% to armor and hull hitpoints -10% jump fuel requirements What's the point of a bonus to armor/hp on a JF? |
Dalilus
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
65
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 15:51:00 -
[2456] - Quote
For once I wish the devs would gird their loins and NOT design something by committee. They could come out and say, we will increase cargo capacity, speed and tanking on freighetres and jump freighters. Thank you for your attention.
Instead of, we will increase cargo capacity but nerf it as well, we will increase tanking but nerf it as well, we will increase speed but nerf it as well and just in case there is a misunderstanding, after increasing cargo capacity by a little bit we will increase the size of things so you can carry less of them. Carry on.
I sometimes wonder if they designed the platypus waaaaaay back..... |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
822
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 16:32:00 -
[2457] - Quote
Quesa wrote:Quote:Jump Freighters Bonus per level: +10% to armor and hull hitpoints -10% jump fuel requirements What's the point of a bonus to armor/hp on a JF?
you do have a good point here .... Perhaps Fozzie could help answer this ... what is the role/specialisation of this ship and does the HP bonuses actually meet this purpose? Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
137
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 17:01:00 -
[2458] - Quote
Destination SkillQueue wrote:What fit is tight on CPU? PG I can see being tight, but you can fit extremely heavy CPU fits with zero skills, so I'd like to know what fit is so demanding on the CPU? There are items like Warpspeed Rigs that eat up the CPU.. Know some that use ASB's, etc. Obviously if you are using it as a booster links eat up a chunk of CPU.. Can't say I have a fit handy that is tight on CPU anymore, but I have hit the CPU wall before. Not saying it's commonplace though :) |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3321
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 17:39:00 -
[2459] - Quote
Oxide Ammar wrote:Why there is no mention to Layered plating modules in the OP ? their fitting requirements works with freighters.
They fit, but they're pretty much not worth it.
The T2 version is only +6% to armour. If your goal is tank, a bulkhead wins every time. Or a resist mod. Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3321
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 17:40:00 -
[2460] - Quote
Quesa wrote:Quote:Jump Freighters Bonus per level: +10% to armor and hull hitpoints -10% jump fuel requirements What's the point of a bonus to armor/hp on a JF?
They're kind of important while travelling through the riskiest space for them.
Namely highsec. Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
|
Captain Finklestein
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
22
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 19:11:00 -
[2461] - Quote
Quesa wrote:Quote:Jump Freighters Bonus per level: +10% to armor and hull hitpoints -10% jump fuel requirements What's the point of a bonus to armor/hp on a JF? So CODE. has a harder time ganking your empty Rhea for the lulz. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
884
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 19:32:00 -
[2462] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Quesa wrote:Quote:Jump Freighters Bonus per level: +10% to armor and hull hitpoints -10% jump fuel requirements What's the point of a bonus to armor/hp on a JF? They're kind of important while travelling through the riskiest space for them. Namely highsec.
He has a good point.
JFs are now clocking between 600K - 750K EHP with around 150K cargospace. 25 Taloses in 0.5, or 2.5 Billion+ to kill increases the break-even 'safe hauling' margin to 5 Billion.
These things were not getting killed at a very high rate to begin with when they "only" had 250K EHP.
Changing the EHP bonus to something else would probably dial their hitpoints back to something approaching reason.
This also goes for the freighters, which are getting about 25% more cargo for a very tiny EHP penalty, and NO penalty to alignment. This, mind you, is the version that also gets 'cheap and easy' flexibility of mod-fitting, rather than rigs.
3rd Revision:
I would probably start with looking at the base EHP - match a 25% increase in max cargo version with a 25% EHP penalty. Such a large increase in cargo capability should have an increased ganking risk associated with it.
Then I would give a slight nerf to alignment. Getting freighters to align as fast as they do today (40 sec) should take at least 1 low-slot.
First version of freighters (with rigs) seemed to be an actual rebalance without increasing their abilities in favor of 'easier logistics'. Fozzie got endless tears, death threats. Then he cracked.
Second version is a clear buff, which explains why the carebears are universally happy. Oh wait, they aren't - they STILL want more EHP with enough CPU for damage controls.
As flat as prices are across the entire highsec economy, 'easier logistics via buffed freighters/haulers' is not what EVE needs right now. |
Xavier Thorm
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
144
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 20:01:00 -
[2463] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:As flat as prices are across the entire highsec economy, 'easier logistics via buffed freighters/haulers' is not what EVE needs right now.
Well at least I'm not the only one thinking this. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
884
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 20:30:00 -
[2464] - Quote
Xavier Thorm wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote:As flat as prices are across the entire highsec economy, 'easier logistics via buffed freighters/haulers' is not what EVE needs right now. Well at least I'm not the only one thinking this.
Personally, I thought the 'capital rigs for freighters' was a pretty good way to suck up some of the extra salvage that has been dumped on he market over the last 3-4 years.
Salvaging used to be a pain in the ass for mission runners and all rigs were 'large rigs' - so salvage values were relatively high.
Subsequent addition of easy mode salvaging (Noctis, salvage drones, tractor deployables), and additional 'exploration' sources of T2 Salvage has crushed prices into the mud.
Turning all that surplus into massive capital rigs might move the price point in the other direction, and give capital rigs a place in highly populated highsec.
Giving up on rigs and going to lowslots was fairly gutless on the part of the DEV team.
The metagaming whiners weren't complaining about 'rigs' per se - it was simply the 'lack of a buff' that came with the rigs.
Currently, freighters are statistically buffed AND given 'easy modularity' with lowslots.
If anything, it should be the other way around.
I could live with 'overall enhanced statistics via rigs' - simply because rigs have a significant cost associated with them and are harder to swap. Destroyed freighters mean more rigs (and thus, salvage) are consumed as well. Lowslot mods - not so much. Big difference between a Cargohold Expander II and a Capital Cargo rig. |
Raddar 13
Armada vi Vulnezia
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 21:29:00 -
[2465] - Quote
The 3 low slots on the freighter seem a lot better than the rigs. And I'm quite content for the changes, noting the fact that freighters are not a integral part of my experiences in Eve.(I have the skills to pilot one i tried it but most often than not i just end up using the Bustard)
On the same note it would be interesting if freighter would be able to hold assembled ships with out needing to create a contract (For the package, similar to how the maintenance bay on other capitals work) . I think this would encourage some people to use them more often. The reason i think this would be a good idea is because i have been in situations where i had multiple ships that where fitted and needed relocating and the Orca was not able to hold them in one go so the fasted way and safest of moving them was to sell them and the more expensive ones move them individually.
A good example would be 3 Legions fitted with tech 2 rigs and a Golem also fitted with tech 2 rigs. Now a obvious choice would be to find a create a contract to move the ships, but you have the skill necessary to fly a freighter and a freighter but you can not put the ships in the cargo hold so you would need to use a alt to create a transport contract fail it and contract back your ships then move them.
I feel like freighters should be able to transport smaller ships with out the need for repackaging. Of course the ship would be treated as a item not a ship while its in the freighters hold.(Lore wise they need to use special loading equipment to get the ship in and out. Except if its blown up the it should be a giant pinata that lets the transported ships float in space.)
I thank you for your time. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
884
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 21:56:00 -
[2466] - Quote
Raddar 13 wrote:The 3 low slots on the freighter seem a lot better than the rigs.
If by 'better' you mean more powerful - yes. I don't think 'more powerful freighters' is desirable right now, they are already pretty good at what they do.
Providing freighters with flexibility is fine. But providing 'cheap/easy' lowslot flexibility AND a significant stat buff is out of line. Its freighter power creep. Obviously going to be popular with short-sighted carebears that are worried about ganks, but bad in the long run. Power creep on freighters makes AFK logistics in highsec even easier and thus flattens prices everywhere.
If freighters were buffed with rigs, a small degree of power-creep is probably OK - simply because capital rigs have a large cost associated with them, are not easy to change, and make freighters significantly more expensive (and risky to lose).
In other words, if freighters are going to become 'more powerful' - do it with rigs, not lowslots - because rigs have a significant cost balancing out the enhanced EHP/Cargo/alignment stats.
|
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
138
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 22:17:00 -
[2467] - Quote
It's only a significant stat buff if you fit it that way, and only for any one specific stat.
You can haul a LOT more.. if you don't want tank. You can haul a LOT faster.. if you want ~ tank and/or ~ cargo. You can tank the world.. if you don't want to haul much.
There's gonna be as many people out there flying freighters full of stuff with less EHP, just as there will be people out there moving less but without much fear.. It's a good tradeoff. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
532
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 22:38:00 -
[2468] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Raddar 13 wrote:The 3 low slots on the freighter seem a lot better than the rigs. If by 'better' you mean more powerful - yes. I don't think 'more powerful freighters' is desirable right now, they are already pretty good at what they do. Providing freighters with flexibility is fine. But providing 'cheap/easy' lowslot flexibility AND a significant stat buff is out of line. Its freighter power creep. Obviously going to be popular with short-sighted carebears that are worried about ganks, but bad in the long run. Power creep on freighters makes AFK logistics in highsec even easier and thus flattens prices everywhere. If freighters were buffed with rigs, a small degree of power-creep is probably OK - simply because capital rigs have a large cost associated with them, are not easy to change, and make freighters significantly more expensive (and risky to lose). In other words, if freighters are going to become 'more powerful' - do it with rigs, not lowslots - because rigs have a significant cost balancing out the enhanced EHP/Cargo/alignment stats.
Troll? And you pay for the increased cost when I have to buy several more freighters to be able to have the proper freighter for a wide range of applications handy in several hubs? Somehow I don't see you pay me 10M/gate for a high sec transport.
Rig prices are ridiculous, in some cases nearly doubling or more than doubling the cost of a freighter, which is just as easy to kill. That's what you call "significant stat buff" and "more powerful"? If people do more AFK Hauling their stuff, more people get killed, with rigs or with low slot modules. That is the short, mid and long term evaluation and outlook of this change. Now the only difference is that with low slot modules we Haulers don't need to pay several billions to "bling" our shooting galley, while people like you pay 1,000 ISK /jump and expect it to be moved pronto.
There is not even the slightest sign of a power creep, because at the end of the day, freighters have not received any improvement. Ever stat increase is payed double with 2 stat decreases. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
884
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 23:00:00 -
[2469] - Quote
Sniper Smith wrote:It's only a significant stat buff if you fit it that way, and only for any one specific stat.
You can haul a LOT more.. if you don't want tank. You can haul a LOT faster.. if you want ~ tank and/or ~ cargo. You can tank the world.. if you don't want to haul much.
There's gonna be as many people out there flying freighters full of stuff with less EHP, just as there will be people out there moving less but without much fear.. It's a good tradeoff.
Problem is compared with the current baseline - today's freighters.
A) Max Cargo Fit: (25% buff in Cargo, 5-15% reduction in EHP, 0% loss in alignment speed.) B) Max EHP Fit (80% buff in EHP, 60% reduction in cargo, 0% loss in alignment speed) C) Max Alignment (17% buff in EHP, 40% reduction in cargo, 50% faster alignment time)
Considering the cost of modding freighter stats is now tiny (mods are cheap), the benefits far outweigh the downsides to the point where this can be considered not just a 'rebalance' - but a significant all around logistics buff.
EHP and alignment need to drop from the current 'no mods/rigs' baseline.
One also has to consider the effect of brick tanked 700K EHP JF in highsec pushing the 'safe ISK haul amount' into the stratosphere. Its not all about raw volume - but how much ISK value you can stuff into a freighter/JF safely.
This value is going to TRIPLE in this current iteration unless EHP/alignment speed is brought under control. And the carebears will cheer wildly for ever higher AFK safe-cargo threshold.
Not good for the game overall though, IMHO, for the reasons stated above.
|
Raddar 13
Armada vi Vulnezia
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 23:03:00 -
[2470] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Raddar 13 wrote:The 3 low slots on the freighter seem a lot better than the rigs. If by 'better' you mean more powerful - yes. I don't think 'more powerful freighters' is desirable right now, they are already pretty good at what they do. Providing freighters with flexibility is fine. But providing 'cheap/easy' lowslot flexibility AND a significant stat buff is out of line. Its freighter power creep. Obviously going to be popular with short-sighted carebears that are worried about ganks, but bad in the long run. Power creep on freighters makes AFK logistics in highsec even easier and thus flattens prices everywhere. If freighters were buffed with rigs, a small degree of power-creep is probably OK - simply because capital rigs have a large cost associated with them, are not easy to change, and make freighters significantly more expensive (and risky to lose). In other words, if freighters are going to become 'more powerful' - do it with rigs, not lowslots - because rigs have a significant cost balancing out the enhanced EHP/Cargo/alignment stats. One second all the stuff i wrote is gone. |
|
Caldeo Okaski
The Martial Virtues Foundation
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 23:18:00 -
[2471] - Quote
It really feels to me that the Charon and Fenrir are getting the very short end of this stick when it comes to tank. Especially when you consider that it's impossible to add any kind of shield tanking module. Not that anyone is going to have much interest in doing it, but a Providence or Obelisk pilot could add armour resist plating if they wanted to. Now let's face it, freighters are going to be hull tanked and again, the Providence and Obelisk have a distinct advantage in this regard since they have a significantly larger hull HP pool to boost, and since Reinforced Bulkheads add a percentage bonus, those ships are getting a bigger bonus from those modules as well, further enforcing the advantage they get.
The only advantage that Charon pilot has is a 25K m3 base cargo bonus over an Obelisk, but you give up 32.5k hull HP (roughly 42% more for the Obelisk) to get that. When you figure in even one RBII that gap widens to 40,625HP in the hull. Maybe I'm underestimating the value of the shields, but with no way to buff that at all, it's pretty lame. Again, realistically, freighters are going to be hull tanked and that puts the advantage squarely in the hands of the Obelisk and Providence. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
884
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 23:29:00 -
[2472] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Rig prices are ridiculous, in some cases nearly doubling or more than doubling the cost of a freighter, which is just as easy to kill. That's what you call "significant stat buff" and "more powerful"? If people do more AFK Hauling their stuff, more people get killed, with rigs or with low slot modules. That is the short, mid and long term evaluation and outlook of this change. Now the only difference is that with low slot modules we Haulers don't need to pay several billions to "bling" our shooting galley, while people like you pay 1,000 ISK /jump and expect it to be moved pronto.
There is not even the slightest sign of a power creep, because at the end of the day, freighters have not received any improvement. Ever stat increase is payed double with 2 stat decreases.
'Every stat increase is paid double with 2 decreases' is completely false.
On alignment its mostly upside. On cargo, you lose some m^3, but gain the ability to painlessly shield far more ISK worth. (IE safer to haul Mex instead of Trit)
Don't accuse me of trolling on this topic though. I'm a ganker, but I have spent far more time flying freighters than any other ship.
What mainly concerns me is this:
Currently I fly a Nomad in highsec. Its EHP is around 330K - such that it would take around 10-13 Taloses to kill it in 0.5 space. Or, 1-1.5 Billion worth of gank-ships need to be risked to kill it. So, I generally never haul much more than 3 Billion ISK in it, less if I decide to autopilot. If I haul more than this, I tend to make sure I have a cyno-alt ready for a quick jump to lowsec.
But it will be retired if these changes go through.
Look at the new Anshar - you are pushing 720K EHP, with a still healthy cargo of 120K m^3. That requires over 25 Taloses, meaning an investment of 2.5 to 3 Billion ISK is required to kill it.
You can stuff around 6 Billion into this new Anshar and autopilot away without worrying about gankers making a single dime at your expense. Realistically you could probably stuff around 8 Billion into it before you'd get a second look, as 2 or 3 Billion split 25 ways is a pretty meager payday for such a large operation.
Result: logistics is much easier as much large values of cargo can move without risk of a profitable gank.
This needs to be avoided and looked at more carefully. Radical changes and revisions in such an important ship class in response to forum rage is going to lead to unintended consequences.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6511
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 23:55:00 -
[2473] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote: There is not even the slightest sign of a power creep, because at the end of the day, freighters have not received any improvement. Ever stat increase is payed double with 2 stat decreases.
No, that's a lie. The shield and armor buffs are too high, they make even a max cargo fit freighter have entirely too much EHP, as they divert too much tank away from what should be being penalized by the cargo modules.
It would be better if freighter customization were expensive and permanent, rather than dirt cheap, swappable and overpowered. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Raddar 13
Armada vi Vulnezia
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.25 00:07:00 -
[2474] - Quote
All thought i still view the 3 low slot model to be a good one i think that the Caldari and Minmatar freighters could use a tanking module. The Amarr and Gallente freighters can use Resistance Plantings to improve their tanks but the other two freighters don't get a significant bonus for their use. But the only two low slot modules that come to mind are Shield Power Relay and the Shield Flux Coil which I'm pretty sure are really good or really bad on the Caldari and Minmatar freighter. What do you guys think about the Shield Power Relay and the Shield Flux Coil to balance all the 4 races strength ? Or it will just bring the out of balance again ? |
Caldeo Okaski
The Martial Virtues Foundation
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.25 00:46:00 -
[2475] - Quote
When talking about a gank situation, passive shield recharge really isn't going to help you much. Buffer is what will keep you alive long enough for CONCORD to arrive. That is, unless the passive recharge rate is some ungodly number to begin with, but I highly doubt that. |
Yutou Narukami
Corporate Scum Cult of War
6
|
Posted - 2014.05.25 02:28:00 -
[2476] - Quote
Question: what will the CPU/Powergrid requirements be for the hyperspatial accelerators?
Because this is what I am envisioning... wait for it... Interceptor with 8 AU/sec base warp speed, 3 HSA's in the low slots, 2 t2 HSA rigs, being flown by a pilot with full set of Ascendancy implants including Ascendancy Omega.
In other words, you all can eat my tachyon trail. |
Takara Mora
University of Caille Gallente Federation
76
|
Posted - 2014.05.25 02:30:00 -
[2477] - Quote
Sniper Smith wrote:It's only a significant stat buff if you fit it that way, and only for any one specific stat.
You can haul a LOT more.. if you don't want tank. You can haul a LOT faster.. if you want ~ tank and/or ~ cargo. You can tank the world.. if you don't want to haul much.
There's gonna be as many people out there flying freighters full of stuff with less EHP, just as there will be people out there moving less but without much fear.. It's a good tradeoff.
And no longer an automatic calculation for gankers ... now they will actually have to work just a tiny bit harder to figure out whether they have enough catalysts for a successful gank ... |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
532
|
Posted - 2014.05.25 06:47:00 -
[2478] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote: Don't accuse me of trolling on this topic though. I'm a ganker, but I have spent far more time flying freighters than any other ship.
What mainly concerns me is this:
Currently I fly a Nomad in highsec. Its EHP is around 330K - such that it would take around 10-13 Taloses to kill it in 0.5 space. Or, 1-1.5 Billion worth of gank-ships need to be risked to kill it. So, I generally never haul much more than 3 Billion ISK in it, less if I decide to autopilot. If I haul more than this, I tend to make sure I have a cyno-alt ready for a quick jump to lowsec.
But it will be retired if these changes go through.
Look at the new Anshar - you are pushing 720K EHP, with a still healthy cargo of 120K m^3. That requires over 25 Taloses, meaning an investment of 2.5 to 3 Billion ISK is required to kill it.
You can stuff around 6 Billion into this new Anshar and autopilot away without worrying about gankers making a single dime at your expense. Realistically you could probably stuff around 8 Billion into it before you'd get a second look, as 2 or 3 Billion split 25 ways is a pretty meager payday for such a large operation.
You really want to tell me that ganking a 6.5B ship with cargo worth 2B+ (in total 8.5B+ ISK worth) is too powerful if you need 3B in gank ships? Really?
I don't know what your unintentened consequences are, but that gankers need to put a little bit more effort into their cause when they want to indulge in illegal activities, is certainly more than welcome. This puts ganking a tiny little bit closer to what Haulers risk every day in their defenseless ships. |
Warr Akini
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
129
|
Posted - 2014.05.25 07:07:00 -
[2479] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:You really want to tell me that ganking a 6.5B ship with cargo worth 2B+ (in total 8.5B+ ISK worth) is too powerful if you need 3B in gank ships? Really? I don't know what your unintentened consequences are, but that gankers need to put a little bit more effort into their cause when they want to indulge in illegal activities, is certainly more than welcome. This puts ganking a tiny little bit closer to what Haulers risk every day in their defenseless ships.
Your argument rests on a pure dollar-for-dollar consideration, which might be fair in a vacuum but disregards the manpower required - organizing twenty people in highsec for more than five minutes before they get bored is a hell of a challenge, I promise you. RvB and a couple of others have done it well, we've done it alright even outside of Burn Jita, but in the end cost never ends up being the barrier to entry - manpower does. Especially in a game where effort levels are so high to achieve something like a gank.
EDIT: Avoiding being ganked in about 99% of situations in a jump freighter, by comparison, takes two people and a very passive operation at most (but not so much that you're autopiloting). |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
532
|
Posted - 2014.05.25 07:14:00 -
[2480] - Quote
Warr Akini wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:You really want to tell me that ganking a 6.5B ship with cargo worth 2B+ (in total 8.5B+ ISK worth) is too powerful if you need 3B in gank ships? Really? I don't know what your unintentened consequences are, but that gankers need to put a little bit more effort into their cause when they want to indulge in illegal activities, is certainly more than welcome. This puts ganking a tiny little bit closer to what Haulers risk every day in their defenseless ships. Your argument rests on a pure dollar-for-dollar consideration, which might be fair in a vacuum but disregards the manpower required - organizing twenty people in highsec for more than five minutes before they get bored is a hell of a challenge, I promise you. RvB and a couple of others have done it well, we've done it alright even outside of Burn Jita, but in the end cost never ends up being the barrier to entry - manpower does. Especially in a game where effort levels are so high to achieve something like a gank.
Bored to hell in High sec sitting in station? Where is the difference to sitting on a Titan in 00 sec/Low sec waiting for the drop? If it bores you to wait in a twenty man fleet for a gank, then you clearly are not fit for ganking. If lack of manpower is your issue, you are clearly not fit for ganking. Why is it that ganking has be an easy, low-risk, low-isk-involving, low manpower involving activity? |
|
Warr Akini
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
129
|
Posted - 2014.05.25 08:26:00 -
[2481] - Quote
Let's go point-by-point.
Quote:If it bores you to wait in a twenty man fleet for a gank, then you clearly are not fit for ganking.
You misquote me - I speak of organizing twenty people to kill one thing; oftentimes without warning, and pulling people who would otherwise be occupied up in nullsec. Your overreaction and blanket assumption about who or what is 'fit for ganking' is poor form.
Quote:You mean the slow freighter, the webber and in case of a JF also the ready cyno, so all in all 3 people.
I think some intelligent mathematician demonstrated many years before I was born that three is far less than six, which in turn is far less than twenty. Also, in case of the JF, you may replace the webber with the cyno - ergo two people.
Quote:You mean the, demanded, constant scouting of your routes or sitting in station when gankers are around and you cannot undock?
Re: "scouting" and intel, have you heard of killboards?
Quote:You mean effort put into bumping on the side of the gankers, who just MWD a Machariel into the freighter? Or, again on the side of the gankers, leisurely sitting around Vexors or Thrashers on a gate, ready to instalock, cargo scan and explode Haulers?
Anyone can select a freighter, turn on MWD, and hit "approach" one good time. It takes a lot more to actually sustain bumps, most especially on JFs. As in all subjective things, your mileage may vary.
Also, you no doubt have not yet heard of kill rights, white knights, counter-ecm, vultures, suspect flag on looting, the change to looting so that you can't loot once you have initiated warp (changes CCP has made over the years to make stealing loot, ganking, or 'illegal activity' harder and harder to profit from) or warp core stabilizers (since we're talking about haulers in general).
As for the rest, a contract has a minimum 24 hours to complete. It is very difficult to convince people who otherwise have things to do (or even those who don't within EVE) to watch a whole 24 hour shift, even combined, for a single hauler. Plus, suspiciously high collateral and/or suspicious destinations or a twenty-four hour limit all should raise flags with haulers of any intelligence.
The ad hominem attack on gankers who need to gank to fill a killboard is also poor form, by the way.
But perhaps the most important is this:
Quote:And making it (ganking) easier is all what this patch does.
'fraid not. Your maximum EHP gain compared to Rubicon is nearly three-quarters, your maximum EHP loss is maybe 20% in one or two cases (and in the Nomad's case is actually no loss, I've found out after updated numbers). Scam collateral contracts to force people up may still be a tactic used, but it will continue to be a not-often-used tool. As I said in a previous post, sure, some people will just run expanders all the time, but the flipside of that doesn't mean people running bulkheads will necessarily start carrying double their loads. |
Felicity Love
It Was the Year 3030
1829
|
Posted - 2014.05.25 09:58:00 -
[2482] - Quote
Grats to everyone that got borked on the salvage speculation... feeling special yet ?
"HTFU ! " -á--- -áKatee Sackhoff, aka "The F-Bomb Queen of EVE" ! !-á
|
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
1234
|
Posted - 2014.05.25 13:52:00 -
[2483] - Quote
Easier, safer and quicker movement of large amounts of materials across highsec is not good for the game. The thrust of the second edition is good, it should just be toned down a bit. |
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
160
|
Posted - 2014.05.25 17:16:00 -
[2484] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Quesa wrote:Quote:Jump Freighters Bonus per level: +10% to armor and hull hitpoints -10% jump fuel requirements What's the point of a bonus to armor/hp on a JF? They're kind of important while travelling through the riskiest space for them. Namely highsec. He has a good point. JFs are now clocking between 600K - 750K EHP with around 150K cargospace. 25 Taloses in 0.5, or 2.5 Billion+ to kill increases the break-even 'safe hauling' margin to 5 Billion. These things were not getting killed at a very high rate to begin with when they "only" had 250K EHP. Changing the EHP bonus to something else would probably dial their hitpoints back to something approaching reason. This also goes for the freighters, which are getting about 25% more cargo for a very tiny EHP penalty, and NO penalty to alignment. This, mind you, is the version that also gets 'cheap and easy' flexibility of mod-fitting, rather than rigs. 3rd Revision:
I would probably start with looking at the base EHP - match a 25% increase in max cargo version with a 25% EHP penalty. Such a large increase in cargo capability should have an increased ganking risk associated with it.
Then I would give a slight nerf to alignment. Getting freighters to align as fast as they do today (40 sec) should take at least 1 low-slot.First version of freighters (with rigs) seemed to be an actual rebalance without increasing their abilities in favor of 'easier logistics'. Fozzie got endless tears, death threats. Then he cracked. Second version is a clear buff, which explains why the carebears are universally happy. Oh wait, they aren't - they STILL want more EHP with enough CPU for damage controls. As flat as prices are across the entire highsec economy, 'easier logistics via buffed freighters/haulers' is not what EVE needs right now.
Probably my biggest grief with EVEs design is that ganking empty vessels, even in highsec space, greatly favors the ganker. This removes a lot of interest factor on the ganker's side of the equation. The victim, lets say a JF pilot, is risking not only the loss of 6 billion in ship value but also the cargo he is carrying and potentially implants he has plugged if he gets podded.
If we compare this to the typical gankers side of the equation he is not going to be podded, he risks only his ship and loses a lot less than the victim does in ship value. Using your own numbers the gankers lose 2.5 billion to gank a vessel worth 6 billion with cargo of lets say 1 billion and implants of another 500million for a total differential of 5 billion in favor of the gankers.
Ive long felt that the while i support a differential that favors ganking that the differential that currently exists makes the ganking for giggles equation so tempting that balancing ganking for giggles and ganking for profit almost impossible to balance.
In short, the problem you are pointing out is more fundamental to EVEs core balance problem between ganker and victim than just this case you are pointing out. Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really. |
Sipphakta en Gravonere
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
608
|
Posted - 2014.05.25 17:31:00 -
[2485] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:Probably my biggest grief with EVEs design is that ganking empty vessels, even in highsec space, greatly favors the ganker.
The same is true for the gankers: They risk a 100M Talos, that can easily be ganked by three 2M catalysts. The difference is that ganking the Talos is profitable, ganking an empty freighter on the other hand isn't. And since most gankers want to make a profit from ganking, typically the only empty freighters ganked are those of hostile alliances in an attempt to disrupt their logistics chain.
Quote:If we compare this to the typical gankers side of the equation he is not going to be podded, he risks only his ship and loses a lot less than the victim does in ship value. Using your own numbers the gankers lose 2.5 billion to gank a vessel worth 6 billion with cargo of lets say 1 billion and implants of another 500million for a total differential of 5 billion in favor of the gankers.
You assume that the gankers do ganks to only inflict damage, which simply isn't true. Besides, the gankers are guaranteed to lose 2.5B ISK, while the death of the target is all but guaranteed. A gank can fail to any number of reasons, especially when the target brings friends. Just a few ECM ships will shut-off any gank attempt and let the JF jump to safety.
Quote:Ive long felt that the while i support a differential that favors ganking that the differential that currently exists makes the ganking for giggles equation so tempting that balancing this and ganking for profit damn near impossible to balance.
How many times can people that "gank for giggles" do that without running out of ISK? There simply isn't any evidence of sustained ganking of empty freighters/jump freighters to support your assumption, the killboards show that almost all ganking is done for profit.
(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
beaconBoy SavesTheDay
Galactic Hauling Solutions Inc.
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.25 17:43:00 -
[2486] - Quote
I've been hauling using a jump freighter for several years now. I've built a courier corp around moving people's cargo with jump freighters for a very nice price. So hopefully, I can add some meaningful comments to this discussion.
While the higher fuel prices and JF nerfs cause me to reconsider our 50M flat rate (to move up to 333k m3 anywhere except null sec with up to 6 billion ISK collateral...sorry for the commercial there), we're taking a wait and see approach unlike our well known competitor, who've raised their shipping rates almost 50% for every single customer in the last year. Convo me in game if you'd like me for more details about our competitor's price hikes last summer and last week.
If CCP insists on tweaking freighters and jump freighters, I'd most like to see them fix the contracting mechanism so that a plastic wrap with a container with items in it can be placed in another plastic wrap as a new contract is set up. From my perspective, this fix of the contracting mechanism alone would make all these freighter/JF nerfs much more palatable .
Come on CCP....throw us a bone! Fix the contracting mechanism. It won't directly affect the economics (though it might cause less freighter trips if people can pack more into the hold without the inconvenience of in-station trades for cargo that's already double wrapped) like all your other changes. |
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
160
|
Posted - 2014.05.25 18:10:00 -
[2487] - Quote
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:
The same is true for the gankers: They risk a 100M Talos, that can easily be ganked by three 2M catalysts. The difference is that ganking the Talos is profitable, ganking an empty freighter on the other hand isn't. And since most gankers want to make a profit from ganking, typically the only empty freighters ganked are those of hostile alliances in an attempt to disrupt their logistics chain.
My mackinaw was popped by 2 dessies, they didnt even bother to loot either my ship or their own, i came back and looted and salvaged all the wrecks myself. Even in highsec space you rarely see hulks being operated because the killmail giggles are so easy to get that flying a hulk anywhere is stupid. It isnt just goons that are involved in hulkageddon anymore it is practically anyone with a trigger finger and while im using only one type of ship here as an example the same ratios exist for most hauling vessels it is just that getting 10 friends together to take out a freighter is harder to do than you getting into your catalyst and blasting hulks to space debris.
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote: You assume that the gankers do ganks to only inflict damage, which simply isn't true. Besides, the gankers are guaranteed to lose 2.5B ISK, while the death of the target is all but guaranteed. A gank can fail to any number of reasons, especially when the target brings friends. Just a few ECM ships will shut-off any gank attempt and let the JF jump to safety.
And you likewise assume that the gankers are idiots and arent prepared for counter measures, I would not underestimate the planning that gankers put in to ganking larger targets.
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote: How many times can people that "gank for giggles" do that without running out of ISK? There simply isn't any evidence of sustained ganking of empty freighters/jump freighters to support your assumption, the killboards show that almost all ganking is done for profit.
It is not my supposition that a ganker can gank eternally without some form of econmic support for wasting ships giggle-ganking it is my supposition that it so favors the gankers that like my experience with the two dessies wasting my mackinaw and the hundreds of hulks that get wasted during hulkageddon there is such huge financial favoritism towards the ganker that they dont really even have to think about their lost ship value, while the hulk and any other basically defenseless ships have to take this situation into account every time they undock.
Answer to the statement that is bound to be posted by the knee-jerk crowd: yes i understand everyone has to worry about being blasted when they undock, but defenseless ships and the value differential between things like a catalyst compared to a mackinaw is so steep that the aggressor doesnt have to take into account financial losses to any significant degree.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really. |
Sipphakta en Gravonere
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
608
|
Posted - 2014.05.25 18:32:00 -
[2488] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:My mackinaw was popped by 2 dessies, they didnt even bother to loot either my ship or their own, i came back and looted and salvaged all the wrecks myself.
We were talking about freighters, not exhumers. The exhumer rebalance thread is a different one.
Quote:Even in highsec space you rarely see hulks being operated because the killmail giggles are so easy to get that flying a hulk anywhere is stupid. It isnt just goons that are involved in hulkageddon anymore it is practically anyone with a trigger finger and while im using only one type of ship here as an example the same ratios exist for most hauling vessels it is just that getting 10 friends together to take out a freighter is harder to do than you getting into your catalyst and blasting hulks to space debris.
You can't just extrapolate from one ship to another, ganking a fail-fit mackinaw (no DCU, no invuln, no resist mods, no shield rigs) is easy, ganking a freighter is a lot more complicated. So your personal experience in this matter, while important for you, isn't reasonable basis for rebalancing safety in high-sec.
Quote:And you likewise assume that the gankers are idiots and arent prepared for counter measures, I would not underestimate the planning that gankers put in to ganking larger targets.
There have been many freighter ganks that failed due to ECM, logistics and other circumstances, you can't plan for everything. But in a sense you are right, gankers adapt and plan ahead when they go out, doing their business. Shouldn't we expect the same from other people (haulers, miners) as well?
Quote:It is not my supposition that a ganker can gank eternally without some form of econmic support for wasting ships giggle-ganking it is my supposition that it so favors the gankers that like my experience with the two dessies wasting my mackinaw and the hundreds of hulks that get wasted during hulkageddon there is such huge financial favoritism towards the ganker that they dont really even have to think about their lost ship value, while the hulk and any other basically defenseless ships have to take this situation into account every time they undock.
Again, wrong thread. And, also again, gankers lose their ship every time they gank, their target does not.
Answer to the statement that is bound to be posted by the knee-jerk crowd: yes i understand everyone has to worry about being blasted when they undock, but defenseless ships and the value differential between things like a catalyst compared to a mackinaw is so steep that the aggressor doesnt have to take into account financial losses to any significant degree. [/quote]
Since you can't gank a freighter even with 10 catalysts, that point is irrelevant to this discussion. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Vhelnik Cojoin
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
55
|
Posted - 2014.05.25 18:40:00 -
[2489] - Quote
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:How many times can people that "gank for giggles" do that without running out of ISK? There simply isn't any evidence of sustained ganking of empty freighters/jump freighters to support your assumption, the killboards show that almost all ganking is done for profit.
Please direct your favorite web browser to minerbumping.com. James 315 and his bunch of merry men have now raised more than 350 billion ISK in contributions from other players. The ISK is used to refund the losses of suicide gankers, who systematically attack miners and haulers in HiSec. That is how and why they don't run out of ISK despite the systematic losses.
Earlier in the thread I listed KillIDs off 6 empty freighters suicide ganked by CODEdot et al. and piloted by players in NPC corporations. This was for May alone within the system of Isanamo. There were more empty freighter killed within Isanamo in May, but the pilots were in player corps, which means pilot error (doing freighter runs during live wardecs) cannot be ruled out. The number of attacking ships makes this unlikely, however.
As I type this, the wallet of minerbumping.com stands at 43 billion ISK and change.
About a month ago your own alliance, Goonswarm Federation, ran a little 3 day event called Burn Jita 3. Around 150 freighters or JFs, empty or otherwise, were ganked over the weekend. I Was There(TM). They did not discriminate. You will have to ask your alliance leadership how this event was funded on your end, but apparently the idea behind the event was - in part - to show that the CFC/nullsec alliances has so much ISK that burning some of it on an event like Burn Jita 3 is pocket change.
I would call both events organized and sustained. Burn Jita ran for the third time this year, while the ganks in Lonetrek is an ongoing event. Have you Communicated with your fellow capsuleers today? It is good for the EVE-oconomy and o-kay for you. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11719
|
Posted - 2014.05.25 18:54:00 -
[2490] - Quote
Vhelnik Cojoin wrote:Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:How many times can people that "gank for giggles" do that without running out of ISK? There simply isn't any evidence of sustained ganking of empty freighters/jump freighters to support your assumption, the killboards show that almost all ganking is done for profit.
Please direct your favorite web browser to minerbumping.com. James 315 and his bunch of merry men have now raised more than 350 billion ISK in contributions from other players. The ISK is used to refund the losses of suicide gankers, who systematically attack miners and haulers in HiSec. That is how and why they don't run out of ISK despite the systematic losses. Earlier in the thread I listed KillIDs off 6 empty freighters suicide ganked by CODEdot et al. and piloted by players in NPC corporations. This was for May alone within the system of Isanamo. There were more empty freighter killed within Isanamo in May, but the pilots were in player corps, which means pilot error (doing freighter runs during live wardecs) cannot be ruled out. The number of attacking ships makes this unlikely, however. As I type this, the wallet of minerbumping.com stands at 43 billion ISK and change. About a month ago your own alliance, Goonswarm Federation, ran a little 3 day event called Burn Jita 3. Around 150 freighters or JFs, empty or otherwise, were ganked over the weekend. I Was There(TM). They did not discriminate. You will have to ask your alliance leadership how this event was funded on your end, but apparently the idea behind the event was - in part - to show that the CFC/nullsec alliances has so much ISK that burning some of it on an event like Burn Jita 3 is pocket change. I would call both events organized and sustained. Burn Jita ran for the third time this year, while the ganks in Lonetrek is an ongoing event.
The action of a small group of people that kill a tiny amount of freighters a month should not mean CCP nerfs high sec piracy into the ground.
Equally CCP will not be making changes because we hold a party one weekend every year and blow up less than 5% of traffic into the system. A party we advertise for weeks beforehand I might add. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
|
Sipphakta en Gravonere
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
608
|
Posted - 2014.05.25 18:57:00 -
[2491] - Quote
Vhelnik Cojoin wrote:Please direct your favorite web browser to minerbumping.com. James 315 and his bunch of merry men have now raised more than 350 billion ISK in contributions from other players. The ISK is used to refund the losses of suicide gankers, who systematically attack miners and haulers in HiSec. That is how and why they don't run out of ISK despite the systematic losses.
If I understand you correctly, people pay ISK to the New Order for them to kill stuff in high-sec, that basically makes them a mercenary corporation, similar to how Mermaid Collective or Noir work. That's different from random suicide gankers killing people "for the giggles".
Quote:Earlier in the thread I listed KillIDs off 6 empty freighters suicide ganked by CODEdot et al. and piloted by players in NPC corporations. This was for May alone within the system of Isanamo.
I'm glad they seem to know their trade and they can fulfill their client's contracts. How does this relate to ganking of empty jump freighters just for fun?
Quote:About a month ago your own alliance, Goonswarm Federation, ran a little 3 day event called Burn Jita 3. Around 150 freighters or JFs, empty or otherwise, were ganked over the weekend. I Was There(TM). They did not discriminate. You will have to ask your alliance leadership how this event was funded on your end, but apparently the idea behind the event was - in part - to show that the CFC/nullsec alliances has so much ISK that burning some of it on an event like Burn Jita 3 is pocket change.
It's a yearly event, paid for by the Ministry of Love, for members of the CFC to go and relax for a weekend. If that is your definition of "sustained", I really don't know what to say. Looking at the killboards during Burn Jita this year, most of the freighters were not empty, showing that even the concentrated effort of hundreds of players and the financial backup of one of the wealthiest organizations in Eve is barely enough to sustain a weekend of ganking.
Quote:I would call both events organized and sustained. Burn Jita ran for the third time this year, while the ganks in Lonetrek is an ongoing event.
As was shown above, one is a mercenary corporation fulfilling their contract, the other is a once a year event. I really wouldn't call this "sustained". (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
884
|
Posted - 2014.05.25 19:47:00 -
[2492] - Quote
I guess the thrust of what I'm looking for is, I don't really care how Fozzie gets there, but the end result should look roughly like this:
If lowslots are used:
T1 Freighters:
Max EHP between 200K and 250K EHP, with a 65% (of Rubicon) Cargohold penalty and an agility nerf that can be rectified by a single lowslot I-Stab. Obelisk has top EHP.
Max Cargo version (1.2-1.3M m^3) amount is fine, but that version tops out at 120K-140K EHP, with the same agility penalty. Charon has top Cargo.
Max Alignment version has roughly the same EHP as Rubicon with a 35% (of Rubicon) Cargo penalty, and aligns 30% faster. Fenrir wins this category.
Jump Freighters:
Max EHP topping out at 350-400K EHP, carrying around 100K cargo with a 1-low slot I-Stab penalty for alignment. (Anshar Best) Max Cargo has EHP around 180-200K EHP, carrying around 400K m^3 with a 1-low slot penalty for alignment. (Rhea Best) Max Alignment is close to Rubicon EHP, carrying around 200K m^3 with a 30% alignment bonus. (Nomad Best.
Alternate: If Rigs are used, roughly the same - however perhaps make higher all-around freighter performance achievable - - perhaps 10-15% above the theoretical "lowslot' version listed above, depending on whether T2 or T1 Rigs are used.
This is both fair (higher performance in exchange for significantly higher cost, loss of flexibility), and more desirable due to the positive effect on the salvage market, because value of salvage has been hopelessly crushed due to all the salvage collection buffs given in last four years. Sucking up that surplus into capital rigs for freighters would hopefully prop up the price somewhat.
How, exactly these end results would be accomplished comes down to Fozzie spreadsheet work, but I don't think anyone in the ganker community would complain about this. And as a freighter pilot, I would welcome either version, but prefer the Rig route.
Carebears would probably still cry because its a step down from the current, ridiculously buffed iteration, but not much you can do about that....
TLDR; Here is where I think freighters should end up. If these targets are achived by lowslots, it should represent an increase in flexibility - with a small penalty in overall performance. If achived by rigs, a modest (10-15%) improvement in overall performance is warranted. Rigs preferred because of their effect on the 'salvage industry'.
|
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
160
|
Posted - 2014.05.25 19:48:00 -
[2493] - Quote
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:Maldiro Selkurk wrote:My mackinaw was popped by 2 dessies, they didnt even bother to loot either my ship or their own, i came back and looted and salvaged all the wrecks myself. We were talking about freighters, not exhumers. The exhumer rebalance thread is a different one.
maldiro selkurk wrote:
My mackinaw was popped by 2 dessies, they didnt even bother to loot either my ship or their own, i came back and looted and salvaged all the wrecks myself. Even in highsec space you rarely see hulks being operated because the killmail giggles are so easy to get that flying a hulk anywhere is stupid. It isnt just goons that are involved in hulkageddon anymore it is practically anyone with a trigger finger and while im using only one type of ship here as an example the same ratios exist for most hauling vessels it is just that getting 10 friends together to take out a freighter is harder to do than you getting into your catalyst and blasting hulks to space debris.
I know taking someones words out of context makes refuting them much easier but it is an invalid form of argumentation so Ive included my full statement for others that may not have read it in its entirety.
As you can see at the end of the statement i state that the differential in value between ganker and those ganked exists not only for exhumers as your out of context quote would seem to imply but also for hauling vessels, including the freighter class. Further I state that the only real reason you dont see more giggle-ganking of freighters is that getting together 10 friends that want to giggle-gank just because you are in the mood to do so is much harder than just pulling out your catalyst and giggle-ganking exhumers.
The cost of giggle-ganking is in essence coming at the expense of not freighter pilots that will get ganked either way but at the expense of for profit ganking. I assert that if more emphasis in the game were placed on balancing the losses on both sides of a gank, financially speaking, then giggle-ganking would decrease and the net extra income floating about would go to for profit gankers without increasing the losses suffered overall by freighters. Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1349
|
Posted - 2014.05.25 19:53:00 -
[2494] - Quote
New Order is a LOLZ group, funded purely for LOLZ. They are not a mercenary corp and trying to paint them as such is really stretching. That said, there is no particular need to nerf piracy into the ground either. In saying that however Freighters 'should' get real fittings (As in same kind of slot layout as other capital ships), there should be real mechanics for a fleet to support a ship in high sec that actually work against suicide ganks (I.E. Remote shield extenders instead of reps which only work after the fact), and then when people fail fit their freighters, we have real reason to point and laugh at them. 'You put a full load of minerals in your hold' should not be an automatic 'LOL, GANK NOWZ' level of items in a freighter, yet the value is such that it is in the current meta. In order to stop holds getting out of scale it would be easy enough to add special bays that could hold anything and the cargo bay is smaller so that it doesn't max out too large if someone goes for LOL max cargo fits. |
Barune Darkor
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2014.05.25 20:00:00 -
[2495] - Quote
The gankers are unhappy and the industrialists/freighter pilots are unhappy. Must mean that it's pretty well balanced. |
Sipphakta en Gravonere
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
608
|
Posted - 2014.05.25 20:09:00 -
[2496] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:I know taking someones words out of context makes refuting them much easier but it is an invalid form of argumentation so Ive included my full statement for others that may not have read it in its entirety.
Did you even bother reading on? I quoted that paragraph in its entirety (splitted to 2 blocks), I didn't leave anything out.
Quote:Further I state that the only real reason you dont see more giggle-ganking of freighters is that getting together 10 friends that want to giggle-gank just because you are in the mood to do so is much harder than just pulling out your catalyst and giggle-ganking exhumers.
So you are actually admitting that currently there is no sustained "giggle-ganking" of freighters and jump-freighters? Glad we got that cleared up. Why exactly should something be taken into account that isn't a current occurrence in the first place?
Quote:The cost of giggle-ganking is in essence coming at the expense of not freighter pilots that will get ganked either way but at the expense of for profit ganking. I assert that if more emphasis in the game were placed on balancing the losses on both sides of a gank, financially speaking, then giggle-ganking would decrease and the net extra income floating about would go to for profit gankers without increasing the losses suffered overall by freighters.
Gankers are guaranteed to lose their ships, to lose security status and become a global target for podding, they forfeit any insurance payout and the target gets killrights, which can be activated up to 30 days after the gank. Plus there is the risk of the target not exploding, making all the preparation and planning for naught. The fact that there is practically no "giggle-ganking" going on is prove that there is no need to balance ships around that game-play.
Also, thinking further, would you be in favor of vastly decreasing the hitpoints of procurers and skiffs? You know, to make both sides, the ganker and his target, have a more balanced loss? (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Sipphakta en Gravonere
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
609
|
Posted - 2014.05.25 20:20:00 -
[2497] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:In saying that however Freighters 'should' get real fittings (As in same kind of slot layout as other capital ships), there should be real mechanics for a fleet to support a ship in high sec that actually work against suicide ganks (I.E. Remote shield extenders instead of reps which only work after the fact)
A freighter receiving remote-reps or supported by dedicated ECM boats is already capable of fending off a large group of attackers. I remember a jump freighter during jita which survived the coordinated attack of ~120 people due to receiving remote reps.
Quote:, and then when people fail fit their freighters, we have real reason to point and laugh at them. 'You put a full load of minerals in your hold' should not be an automatic 'LOL, GANK NOWZ' level of items in a freighter, yet the value is such that it is in the current meta.
The tale of freighters worth less than 1B ISK dying makes for a nice bedtime story, but it doesn't hold much truth to it. If freighter ganking was as easy and profitable as you make it out to be there would be a lot more people doing it. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Molic Blackbird
Orion Faction Industries Orion Consortium
130
|
Posted - 2014.05.25 20:30:00 -
[2498] - Quote
What is the reason for a packaged freighter to have a volume of 1,300,000 m3? Freighters are allowed in high sec, so the Carrier/Dread/Rorq problem isn't there. I can't think of any balance issues with freighters being able to be hauled inside other freighters. Please set the packaged volume for freighters back to 1m m3.
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
10095
|
Posted - 2014.05.25 20:30:00 -
[2499] - Quote
Barune Darkor wrote:The gankers are unhappy and the industrialists/freighter pilots are unhappy. Must mean that it's pretty well balanced. Both groups are generally pretty happy, so I don't know what you're looking at. "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
10096
|
Posted - 2014.05.25 20:39:00 -
[2500] - Quote
Also seriously, stop. Asking. For. More. Fitting. Slots. You just might get them and you'll seriously wish you hadn't. You'd think you'd have learned from the first iteration of freighter rebalancing. Be glad this is what you're getting and not the rig slots along with everything that came with it. "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
|
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1095
|
Posted - 2014.05.25 21:00:00 -
[2501] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:] Rigs preferred because of their effect on the 'salvage industry'.
The rig "solution" also basicly double the price of a max cargo charon for example. It also offer no versatility unless you call versatility scrapping miliions worth of ISK every time you wish to change the utilisation of your freighter/JF. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
885
|
Posted - 2014.05.25 21:07:00 -
[2502] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Barune Darkor wrote:The gankers are unhappy and the industrialists/freighter pilots are unhappy. Must mean that it's pretty well balanced. Both groups are generally pretty happy, so I don't know what you're looking at.
Well, consider this: The carebears are complaining about not getting > 1 Million EHP via (passive) DCII's because they want to be invincible.
Experienced gankers understand its a problem when 720K EHP JFs move 6-8 Billion in cargo in highsec with negligible risk. Max EHP on the Anshar should be half of that, and base agility should take a hit across the board - shouldn't be 'all upside' on that statistic.
Main difference is carebears are far more numerous and can easily build a tower of whine into a threadnaught. Now they are happy so they aren't commenting. On the other hand, the (far smaller number of) gankers are used to nerfs by now, kind of like a battered wife.
So I can see how the lack of overall thread debate could be confused with 'happiness'. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
885
|
Posted - 2014.05.25 21:14:00 -
[2503] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote: The rig "solution" also basicly double the price of a max cargo charon for example. It also offer no versatility unless you call versatility scrapping miliions worth of ISK every time you wish to change the utilisation of your freighter/JF.
A) You don't NEED to use T2 Rigs. Ideally they would make most sense on JF's - not regular old insurable T1 Freighters.
B) Lesser rig flexibility would be balanced with higher overall stats. (ie, 10-15% greater cargo/EHP/agility) over lowslot version.
C) Captial Rigs positively affect salvage prices, making salvage 'matter' again, for both ninja looters and mission runners.
D) Gankers would have a more difficult time killing EHP rigged freighters - but the lossmail would look sexier with cap rigs, even if break-even profitability took a small hit.
|
Melek D'Ivri
Propst Mining Services
45
|
Posted - 2014.05.25 22:49:00 -
[2504] - Quote
After reading this I went from "This won't be too bad." to questioning the drug choices CCP staff is making. I'm not subbed to support your habit here. I'm sure you have arguments in favor of a few of the changes, but overall there is no way to make a strong stance for nerfing stuff this hard over and over.
So I assume to keep the same cargo: lose overall agility, velocity, and EHP to compensate Etc, Etc.
|
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1096
|
Posted - 2014.05.25 23:21:00 -
[2505] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote: The rig "solution" also basicly double the price of a max cargo charon for example. It also offer no versatility unless you call versatility scrapping miliions worth of ISK every time you wish to change the utilisation of your freighter/JF.
A) You don't NEED to use T2 Rigs. Ideally they would make most sense on JF's - not regular old insurable T1 Freighters. B) Lesser rig flexibility would be balanced with higher overall stats. (ie, 10-15% greater cargo/EHP/agility) over lowslot version. C) Captial Rigs positively affect salvage prices, making salvage 'matter' again, for both ninja looters and mission runners. D) Gankers would have a more difficult time killing EHP rigged freighters - but the lossmail would look sexier with cap rigs, even if break-even profitability took a small hit.
A) In the original post, with the rig implementation, T2 rigs were needed to get to the same level of cargo as your charon can get prior to change. If you went for the charon because it had the max cargo, I assume you still want at least that capacity.
B) The change is slated to be to provide flexibility, why should we go with the implementation that grant less fo it?
C) That does not justify doubling the effective cost of some ship.
D) Lossmails would only look sexyer for a small time until everybody got used to freighter lossmail starting around 3 bill instead of 1,5 because of the added rig cost always being there. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
885
|
Posted - 2014.05.26 00:40:00 -
[2506] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:
A) In the original post, with the rig implementation, T2 rigs were needed to get to the same level of cargo as your charon can get prior to change. If you went for the charon because it had the max cargo, I assume you still want at least that capacity.
B) The change is slated to be to provide flexibility, why should we go with the implementation that grant less fo it?
C) That does not justify doubling the effective cost of some ship.
D) Lossmails would only look sexyer for a small time until everybody got used to freighter lossmail starting around 3 bill instead of 1,5 because of the added rig cost always being there.
A) I wasn't proposing going back to the first iteration, just saying that if rigs are the device used to give freighters more flexibility, there is more latitude to give them higher stats (due to the inherent inflexibility of rigs)
Its simple: If Low slots used = easy, cheap modification - freighter stats should be objectively weaker. If Rigs used = expensive, less flexible modifcation - freighter stats could be bumped up relative to the lowslot iteration.
Still, no matter what 'means' is used, the current abilities need to be dialed back, as the 2nd iteration is clearly a very large buff to freighters and highsec logistics in general. As I said, the highsec 'Break-Even Cargohold ISK value' number is going to easily triple, from 2-3 Billion up to 6-8 Billion, and this is not good for the game. Hauling that kind of loot should not be an 'set autopilot, AFK haul' affair.
B) explained above.
C) its a side benefit that helps fix the ridiculously low salvage price issue.
D) Are you saying gankers would prefer smaller lossmails?
|
TigerXtrm
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
698
|
Posted - 2014.05.26 01:41:00 -
[2507] - Quote
Barune Darkor wrote:The gankers are unhappy and the industrialists/freighter pilots are unhappy. Must mean that it's pretty well balanced.
Being able to fly an 800k EHP cargo fortress of doom makes me pretty happy. What are you on about? My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things! |
Warr Akini
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
133
|
Posted - 2014.05.26 04:38:00 -
[2508] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:D) Are you saying gankers would prefer smaller lossmails?
I'm not actually sure what the guy you're quoting is getting at, but he's probably saying that 3b freighter killmails will just become the new 1.5b freighter killmails due to rigs, something like killmail inflation. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
10105
|
Posted - 2014.05.26 08:00:00 -
[2509] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Barune Darkor wrote:The gankers are unhappy and the industrialists/freighter pilots are unhappy. Must mean that it's pretty well balanced. Both groups are generally pretty happy, so I don't know what you're looking at. Well, consider this: The carebears are complaining about not getting > 1 Million EHP via (passive) DCII's because they want to be invincible. They're dumb and don't matter.
Herr Wilkus wrote:Experienced gankers understand its a problem when 720K EHP JFs move 6-8 Billion in cargo in highsec with negligible risk. I'm pretty sure carrying 6-8 billion ISK in a jump freighter doesn't have negligible risk, even at 720k EHP. "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
Aiyshimin
Imperial Collective Unsettled.
19
|
Posted - 2014.05.26 08:04:00 -
[2510] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote: As I said, the highsec 'Break-Even Cargohold ISK value' number is going to easily triple, from 2-3 Billion up to 6-8 Billion, and this is not good for the game.
Could you explain what kind of problems this creates "for the game"? |
|
Jessica Danikov
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
354
|
Posted - 2014.05.26 08:20:00 -
[2511] - Quote
Right now I'm fairly resigned to the fact that the changes will likely be close to as last proposed in Kronos 'just to see what happens' and that any further action will be done in a further balancing pass...
... unless it breaks the universe. Which it might, but that's half the fun. |
Warr Akini
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
133
|
Posted - 2014.05.26 08:32:00 -
[2512] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote:Experienced gankers understand its a problem when 720K EHP JFs move 6-8 Billion in cargo in highsec with negligible risk. I'm pretty sure carrying 6-8 billion ISK in a jump freighter doesn't have negligible risk, even at 720k EHP.
If you autopilot into me in a 0.5, I'll maybe find a way to kill it - but you'll be VERY hard-pressed to find people with the resources, time and organization to pull that off except on a special occasion. Otherwise, 720k EHP is a giant turnoff. And outside of 0.5/0.6, saying 'just bring alpha tornados' means you're bringing 65+ to kill that Anshar, something you wouldn't see at all outside Burn Jita, guaranteed.
The risk may not be 'negligible' in the sense that it isn't worth considering, but it is certainly approaching that level. |
ORLICZ
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2014.05.26 08:32:00 -
[2513] - Quote
rich people should have respect for ragtag. so 6-7 bil in safe freighter is too much. lets give our haulers more work, more ships in space, more ppl, more alts, more ganking squads, more action. |
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
280
|
Posted - 2014.05.26 09:14:00 -
[2514] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Either way that's a discussion for another thread since these ships cannot fit Damage Controls. I'd be interested to know why not (not in terms of "they don't have enough CPU"), why the decision was made to restrict the fitting to prevent the fitting of Damage Controls. Doing so on a combat ship would be impossible (without applying strip miner or cov ops cloaking device fitting restrictions, due to the requirements of all of the other modules they require, not least their guns...) but I can't imagine it even being considered. Similarly, when Rigs were the method of choice, the nerfs which "allowed" rigs to be fitted were out of place; when rigs were first introduced there were no such global changes to balance the potential for rig fitting. When I first became aware of the sort of threads which (probably) led to this change I envisaged a minimalist approach - a counter to packaged capital ships (the current increase in packaged size being sufficient, a ban on packaged ships in freighter holds and the allowance of ships in freight containers would also have worked) and a single lowslot: The clear choice would have been Tank (DCII), Capacity (Expanded Cargohold), Align time/speed (Nano), or re-Jump time (Cap Flux Coil)... Would the impact have been significant? particularly compared to the current changes. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
888
|
Posted - 2014.05.26 12:24:00 -
[2515] - Quote
Jacob Holland wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Either way that's a discussion for another thread since these ships cannot fit Damage Controls. I'd be interested to know why not (not in terms of "they don't have enough CPU"), why the decision was made to restrict the fitting to prevent the fitting of Damage Controls. Doing so on a combat ship would be impossible (without applying strip miner or cov ops cloaking device fitting restrictions, due to the requirements of all of the other modules they require, not least their guns...) but I can't imagine it even being considered. Similarly, when Rigs were the method of choice, the nerfs which "allowed" rigs to be fitted were out of place; when rigs were first introduced there were no such global changes to balance the potential for rig fitting. When I first became aware of the sort of threads which (probably) led to this change I envisaged a minimalist approach - a counter to packaged capital ships (the current increase in packaged size being sufficient, a ban on packaged ships in freighter holds and the allowance of ships in freight containers would also have worked) and a single lowslot: The clear choice would have been Tank (DCII), Capacity (Expanded Cargohold), Align time/speed (Nano), or re-Jump time (Cap Flux Coil)... Would the impact have been significant? particularly compared to the current changes.
It would push T1 freighter EHP to 500-600K and Jump Freighters to well over 1M EHP.
This would massively increase the value of cargo able to be moved across highsec without ganking risk in a single trip.
The (remote) risk of being ganked is some of the only 'friction' left that causes leads to some measure of market inefficiency. And at current EHP levels (150-200K and 250-300K for T1 and T2) the chance of losing a freighter is already very, very low. Massively increasing EHP nearly removes it, unless Taloses get their DPS tripled - or Concord response time is tripled as well to compensate.
'Frictionless' movement of goods around highsec is undesirable. It leads to all regions of empire having nearly identical prices, as any differential in item prices between regions is quickly 'zeroed' when massive quantities can be autopiloted around in a single trip. Bad for traders and makes for a very uninteresting economic landscape.
|
Oxide Ammar
131
|
Posted - 2014.05.26 12:41:00 -
[2516] - Quote
ban JF from hi sec, make the last stop for them in low sec then they have to use freighters.
undock > warp to safe spot > align > get webbed > warp to the first gate to hisec.
Problem solved. |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3567
|
Posted - 2014.05.26 13:52:00 -
[2517] - Quote
Jacob Holland wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Either way that's a discussion for another thread since these ships cannot fit Damage Controls. I'd be interested to know why not (not in terms of "they don't have enough CPU"), why the decision was made to restrict the fitting to prevent the fitting of Damage Controls. Doing so on a combat ship would be impossible (without applying strip miner or cov ops cloaking device fitting restrictions, due to the requirements of all of the other modules they require, not least their guns...) but I can't imagine it even being considered. Similarly, when Rigs were the method of choice, the nerfs which "allowed" rigs to be fitted were out of place; when rigs were first introduced there were no such global changes to balance the potential for rig fitting. When I first became aware of the sort of threads which (probably) led to this change I envisaged a minimalist approach - a counter to packaged capital ships (the current increase in packaged size being sufficient, a ban on packaged ships in freighter holds and the allowance of ships in freight containers would also have worked) and a single lowslot: The clear choice would have been Tank (DCII), Capacity (Expanded Cargohold), Align time/speed (Nano), or re-Jump time (Cap Flux Coil)... Would the impact have been significant? particularly compared to the current changes.
If you balance freighters with lowslots to allow them to use a DCU without having 500k+ EHP simply by virtue of having a DC II fitted, the resulting stats look like this. You get 250k-280k EHP top end with a full tank, and 60-100k EHP with a full cargo fit.
That is why. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1977
|
Posted - 2014.05.26 14:48:00 -
[2518] - Quote
i just remembered this thread. nice to see change happening the way you want.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
61
|
Posted - 2014.05.26 16:12:00 -
[2519] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Barune Darkor wrote:The gankers are unhappy and the industrialists/freighter pilots are unhappy. Must mean that it's pretty well balanced. Both groups are generally pretty happy, so I don't know what you're looking at. Well, consider this: The carebears are complaining about not getting > 1 Million EHP via (passive) DCII's because they want to be invincible. They're dumb and don't matter. Herr Wilkus wrote:Experienced gankers understand its a problem when 720K EHP JFs move 6-8 Billion in cargo in highsec with negligible risk. I'm pretty sure carrying 6-8 billion ISK in a jump freighter doesn't have negligible risk, even at 720k EHP.
Carrying 100 Bil in a JF is a very small risk as long as you have an exit cyno
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
10113
|
Posted - 2014.05.26 21:10:00 -
[2520] - Quote
I was obviously not talking about that use case, but thanks for assuming I don't know how jump drives work. "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
|
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
61
|
Posted - 2014.05.26 21:35:00 -
[2521] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:I was obviously not talking about that use case, but thanks for assuming I don't know how jump drives work.
Obviously for people who use their jump freighters to move stuff between high (Jita in other words) and low/null, the risk is minimal regardless of how little or how much tank your JF has. What about those that use theirs entirely in highsec (e.g. Tippia) to take advantage of its extra agility, warp speed, and tank? Those people don't generally have exit cynos.
But Warr Akini is right, 720k EHP is pretty ridiculous. It's true then, I guess, that they do have way too much tank.
For those that use JF in high sec for extra agi etc
Buy 4 freighters in place of a single JF, tank them all and move twice as much per run and have twice as much gank threshold per freighter
I guess null use and high sec are so vastly different, hard to see the other person POV
You can get Anshar and Ark above 800K (CorelliA-type ANP x3) with full bonuses from a navy implant and a CS running 5 links. Of course if you are going to spend this much effort, just have a cyno in carrou or ignoitton and it is only 3-5 jumps to jita and you have an insta exit cyno if needed.
|
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
36
|
Posted - 2014.05.26 21:54:00 -
[2522] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:
A) In the original post, with the rig implementation, T2 rigs were needed to get to the same level of cargo as your charon can get prior to change. If you went for the charon because it had the max cargo, I assume you still want at least that capacity.
B) The change is slated to be to provide flexibility, why should we go with the implementation that grant less fo it?
C) That does not justify doubling the effective cost of some ship.
D) Lossmails would only look sexyer for a small time until everybody got used to freighter lossmail starting around 3 bill instead of 1,5 because of the added rig cost always being there.
A) I wasn't proposing going back to the first iteration, just saying that if rigs are the device used to give freighters more flexibility, there is more latitude to give them higher stats (due to the inherent inflexibility of rigs) Its simple: If Low slots used = easy, cheap modification - freighter stats should be objectively weaker. If Rigs used = expensive, less flexible modifcation - freighter stats could be bumped up relative to the lowslot iteration. Still, no matter what 'means' is used, the current abilities need to be dialed back, as the 2nd iteration is clearly a very large buff to freighters and highsec logistics in general. As I said, the highsec 'Break-Even Cargohold ISK value' number is going to easily triple, from 2-3 Billion up to 6-8 Billion, and this is not good for the game. Hauling that kind of loot should not be an 'set autopilot, AFK haul' affair. B) explained above. C) its a side benefit that helps fix the ridiculously low salvage price issue. D) Are you saying gankers would prefer smaller lossmails? HTFU?
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1349
|
Posted - 2014.05.26 22:01:00 -
[2523] - Quote
mynnna wrote:If you balance freighters with lowslots to allow them to use a DCU without having 500k+ EHP simply by virtue of having a DC II fitted, the resulting stats look like this. You get 250k-280k EHP top end with a full tank, and 60-100k EHP with a full cargo fit. That is why. Would you still get similar results if you gave them a capital ship slot layout, including high slots similar to carriers? And put most of their cargo into a special hold while leaving about a 100k base cargo hold that expanders would improve significantly but not game breakingly.
Or is that only using the gimped three slot 'customisation' option of fitting. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
10113
|
Posted - 2014.05.26 22:02:00 -
[2524] - Quote
Walter Hart White wrote:HTFU?
That's not a valid reply to someone bringing up legitimate points in a balance thread. Shut up and go away. "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
Vhelnik Cojoin
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
55
|
Posted - 2014.05.26 22:11:00 -
[2525] - Quote
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:A freighter receiving remote-reps or supported by dedicated ECM boats is already capable of fending off a large group of attackers. I remember a jump freighter during jita which survived the coordinated attack of ~120 people due to receiving remote reps. Hilarious statement. Do we even play the same game?
Freighter and JFs currently have most of their EHP as hull, which has zero resistances. Additionally remote hull reppers are extremely inefficient.
I wonder if we were at the same event with the 'repped' JF. There was one, which survived two coordinated ganking waves and yet died to the third, but it didn't survive the first two rounds due to either RR or ECM during the actual attack.
What happened was the CFC was using fleets of catalysts, yet during this attack at the perimeter gate, there were around a few hundred 'defenders'. As soon as the CFC fleet turned flashy at the beginning of the attack, then the whole blob was *massively* counter-ganked by the defenders. Despite this the JF survived with something like just 3% hull remaining, after which people reshipped to logistics ships and began repping it back up.
It was only just barely repped up when the CFC timers of 15 minutes had expired and they had had time to reship, so it took around *20 minutes* or so for the combined 'defender' fleet to do so. So yeah, RR during the actual attack, which lasted mere seconds, did zilch.
The exact same thing happened a second time, as catalysts evaporated left and right before they had time to do their full complement of damage prior to CONCORD stepping in. The third time the CFC reshipped to a fleet of Tornadoes and alpha'ed the JF down. That is how and why it died.
RR and ECM did nothing. There were hardly any ECM ships on the defender's side. Just brutal, brutal amounts of fast locking DPS able to counter-gank.
So yes, you can currently defend a JF against ~120 catalysts if you bring a huge number of defenders. Happy logistics, everyone. 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
10113
|
Posted - 2014.05.26 22:23:00 -
[2526] - Quote
Vhelnik Cojoin wrote:Freighter and JFs currently have most of their EHP as hull, which has zero resistances. Additionally remote hull reppers are extremely inefficient. Currently, yes. That's changing. So stop whining.
Vhelnik Cojoin wrote:I wonder if we were at the same event with the 'repped' JF. There was one, which survived two coordinated ganking waves and yet died to the third, but it didn't survive the first two rounds due to either RR or ECM during the actual attack. When was this? Burn Jita? He shouldn't have been flying his JF then. First mistake.
Vhelnik Cojoin wrote:What happened was the CFC was using fleets of catalysts, yet during this attack at the perimeter gate, there were around a few hundred 'defenders'. As soon as the CFC fleet turned flashy at the beginning of the attack, then the whole blob was *massively* counter-ganked by the defenders. Despite this the JF survived with something like just 3% hull remaining, after which people reshipped to logistics ships and began repping it back up.
It was only just barely repped up when the CFC timers of 15 minutes had expired and they had had time to reship, so it took around *20 minutes* or so for the combined 'defender' fleet to do so. So yeah, RR during the actual attack, which lasted mere seconds, did zilch.
The exact same thing happened a second time, as catalysts evaporated left and right before they had time to do their full complement of damage prior to CONCORD stepping in. The third time the CFC reshipped to a fleet of Tornadoes and alpha'ed the JF down. That is how and why it died. Yep, Burn Jita.
Vhelnik Cojoin wrote:RR and ECM did nothing. There were hardly any ECM ships on the defender's side. Just brutal, brutal amounts of fast locking DPS able to counter-gank. So yes, you can currently defend a JF against ~120 catalysts if you bring a huge number of defenders. Happy logistics, everyone. This is totally an every day occurrence everyone, we should balance against this. "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
10113
|
Posted - 2014.05.26 22:24:00 -
[2527] - Quote
"You can only defend a JF against a 120 catalysts if you bring a huge number of defenders." Yeah dude, because 120 catalysts is a huge number of gankers and you will ONLY see that during Burn Jita. If you fly during Burn Jita and get ganked, it's entirely your fault and you have no cause to cry about it. Although feel free to cry about it because it's ******* hilarious. "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
15661
|
Posted - 2014.05.26 22:35:00 -
[2528] - Quote
Vhelnik Cojoin wrote:Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:A freighter receiving remote-reps or supported by dedicated ECM boats is already capable of fending off a large group of attackers. I remember a jump freighter during jita which survived the coordinated attack of ~120 people due to receiving remote reps. Hilarious statement. Do we even play the same game? Freighter and JFs currently have most of their EHP as hull, which has zero resistances. Additionally remote hull reppers are extremely inefficient. I wonder if we were at the same event with the 'repped' JF. There was one, which survived two coordinated ganking waves and yet died to the third, but it didn't survive the first two rounds due to either RR or ECM during the actual attack. What happened was the CFC was using fleets of catalysts, yet during this attack at the perimeter gate, there were around a few hundred 'defenders'. As soon as the CFC fleet turned flashy at the beginning of the attack, then the whole blob was *massively* counter-ganked by the defenders. Despite this the JF survived with something like just 3% hull remaining, after which people reshipped to logistics ships and began repping it back up. It was only just barely repped up when the CFC timers of 15 minutes had expired and they had had time to reship, so it took around *20 minutes* or so for the combined 'defender' fleet to do so. So yeah, RR during the actual attack, which lasted mere seconds, did zilch. The exact same thing happened a second time, as catalysts evaporated left and right before they had time to do their full complement of damage prior to CONCORD stepping in. The third time the CFC reshipped to a fleet of Tornadoes and alpha'ed the JF down. That is how and why it died. RR and ECM did nothing. There were hardly any ECM ships on the defender's side. Just brutal, brutal amounts of fast locking DPS able to counter-gank. So yes, you can currently defend a JF against ~120 catalysts if you bring a huge number of defenders. Happy logistics, everyone.
Why shouldn't it take " a huge number" of defenders to defend against 120 attackers?
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!" |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
36
|
Posted - 2014.05.26 22:40:00 -
[2529] - Quote
Vhelnik Cojoin wrote:Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:A freighter receiving remote-reps or supported by dedicated ECM boats is already capable of fending off a large group of attackers. I remember a jump freighter during jita which survived the coordinated attack of ~120 people due to receiving remote reps. Hilarious statement. Do we even play the same game? Freighter and JFs currently have most of their EHP as hull, which has zero resistances. Additionally remote hull reppers are extremely inefficient. I wonder if we were at the same event with the 'repped' JF. There was one, which survived two coordinated ganking waves and yet died to the third, but it didn't survive the first two rounds due to either RR or ECM during the actual attack. What happened was the CFC was using fleets of catalysts, yet during this attack at the perimeter gate, there were around a few hundred 'defenders'. As soon as the CFC fleet turned flashy at the beginning of the attack, then the whole blob was *massively* counter-ganked by the defenders. Despite this the JF survived with something like just 3% hull remaining, after which people reshipped to logistics ships and began repping it back up. It was only just barely repped up when the CFC timers of 15 minutes had expired and they had had time to reship, so it took around *20 minutes* or so for the combined 'defender' fleet to do so. So yeah, RR during the actual attack, which lasted mere seconds, did zilch. The exact same thing happened a second time, as catalysts evaporated left and right before they had time to do their full complement of damage prior to CONCORD stepping in. The third time the CFC reshipped to a fleet of Tornadoes and alpha'ed the JF down. That is how and why it died. RR and ECM did nothing. There were hardly any ECM ships on the defender's side. Just brutal, brutal amounts of fast locking DPS able to counter-gank. So yes, you can currently defend a JF against ~120 catalysts if you bring a huge number of defenders. Happy logistics, everyone. I was there. Was brutal. Got popped the moment I left my warp. Never got podded though. I guess i can say I survived burn jita. Lost only 10m catalyst.
At any rate, this is totally unrelated. Higher tank is good. More kudos when you successfully gank pinata and maybe some logistic could be done safer than now.
|
Sarah Flynt
Federation Interstellar Resources
35
|
Posted - 2014.05.26 22:51:00 -
[2530] - Quote
Vhelnik Cojoin wrote:Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:A freighter receiving remote-reps or supported by dedicated ECM boats is already capable of fending off a large group of attackers. I remember a jump freighter during jita which survived the coordinated attack of ~120 people due to receiving remote reps. Hilarious statement. Do we even play the same game? Hehe, the fairy tale of the easy to defend freighter gank again. Once a freighter gets bumped it's as good as dead. Even with defenders present you basically have no chance to defend it as the gankers can just keep bumping it and throw wave after wave at it. Repping up the hull takes far too long to be effective. I've seen enough single freighter ganks going on for far more than an hour, the victim being constantly bumped (and aggressed with noobships of course) without the slightest chance to escape. In the end they *always* died. None of them were during Burn Jita btw.
In light of people now ganking even empty jump freighters for the luls, doubling jump freighter EHP if the pilot is willing to accept a very heavy drawback of the primary function of his ship is more than justified and long long overdue.
All in all I find the second iteration of the changes well balanced. Freighter pilots finally get a real choice and there will still be enough people with two or three cargo expanders flying around that can easily be ganked. |
|
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
890
|
Posted - 2014.05.26 23:28:00 -
[2531] - Quote
Sarah Flynt wrote:
In light of people now ganking even empty jump freighters for the luls, doubling jump freighter EHP if the pilot is willing to accept a very heavy drawback of the primary function of his ship is more than justified and long long overdue.
No, this isn't misleading at all. Empty JF's are getting ganked on a daily basis. Thats funny.
What you are missing about the 'drawback' is that it really isn't a much of a drawback at all.
Its not the m^3, its the ISK value of what you can move without serious worry of a profitable gank. There is a huge range of tradable items that are needed all over highsec, and moving them is extremely easy - ganking being the only extant risk.
If this iteration is used, moving goods within highsec just became far, far easier because with triple EHP you can move 3x as many of those items in a single trip.
The only items contrained by the 'drawback' are expensive, but bulky items, like finished T2 ships. We aren't talking about moving tritanium here.
Trade in mods, rigs, mid-to-high end raw materials will become much more fluid and therefore, less profitable, simply because its moving around highsec far more easily than it was previously.
Bad for EVE, because we are already at a state where prices are incredibly flat across empire. If anything, logistics needs to be MORE difficult.
Perhaps a lengthening of Concord response time - to 40-45 seconds in 0.5 is in order. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
10118
|
Posted - 2014.05.26 23:32:00 -
[2532] - Quote
Sarah Flynt wrote:Vhelnik Cojoin wrote:Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:A freighter receiving remote-reps or supported by dedicated ECM boats is already capable of fending off a large group of attackers. I remember a jump freighter during jita which survived the coordinated attack of ~120 people due to receiving remote reps. Hilarious statement. Do we even play the same game? Hehe, the fairy tale of the easy to defend freighter gank again. Once a freighter gets bumped it's as good as dead. Even with defenders present you basically have no chance to defend it as the gankers can just keep bumping it and throw wave after wave at it. No you moron this only applies to an annual event that's like 3 days long.
Sarah Flynt wrote:Repping up the hull takes far too long to be effective. I've seen enough single freighter ganks going on for far more than an hour, the victim being constantly bumped (and aggressed with noobships of course) without the slightest chance to escape. In the end they *always* died. None of them were during Burn Jita btw. Abloo bloo bloo.
Sarah Flynt wrote:In light of people now ganking even empty jump freighters for the luls Yeah I'm sure this happens regularly. "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
36
|
Posted - 2014.05.26 23:39:00 -
[2533] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:some crap So you asked for examples and got example which you then disregard? GG, no RE. |
Warr Akini
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
135
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 02:35:00 -
[2534] - Quote
Sarah Flynt wrote:All in all I find the second iteration of the changes well balanced. Freighter pilots finally get a real choice and there will still be enough people with two or three cargo expanders flying around that can easily be ganked.
I'm definitely all for choice - as is EVE/CCP.
However, "there will still be enough people" and "can easily be ganked" are two wild assumptions, based on no data whatsoever (for the first part) and a very skewed perception of the ease of freighter ganking (for the second part).
And to me, they are easy. At least when they're sitting in 0.5 without a webber (or if they don't have an exit cyno). But you have to realize, your perception of the ease of ganking is based on my organization, the single most successful suicide freighter-ganking group in EVE Online (not trying to brag, trying to illustrate a point - if I wanted to brag, I would have been on EVE-O a lot more before this thread came up). We are good at what we do because we have manpower and logistics and a freakishly loud-yelling Head Minister telling people exactly what to do and where/when to do it. I have seen maybe one other organization put up sustained ganking on a small scale (CODE) - everyone else flops after 2-3 days and maybe comes back every now and again. So, if you were to sit down and look at 'number of freighters ganked' versus 'number of freighters flying at any one time,' the ratio would be absolutely minuscule. Even the number of freighters or jump freighters ganked in Niarja, Uedama, other chokepoint 0.5 pipes, versus the freighters being flown in those areas in a 24-hour cycle would -still- be minuscule.
And yet, the argument comes again down to numbers - we bring ten (or in the case of JFs or higher-sec systems much more), and all you have to do is bring two and/or have a little intelligence to survive.
Meanwhile, freighters and JFs gain between 60 and 150% of their EHP in tank mode and either don't lose any EHP or lose a maximum of 20% in cargo-fit mode. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
890
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 02:36:00 -
[2535] - Quote
I just don't think Fozzie really thought this balance round through very well because he's creating a gamestate that is radically different than before - significantly in favor of greater safety and carebear-ism.
Today, pre-Kronos - if you want to move multiple billions in valuable goods of moderate volume, your choices are:
1. Orcas can be tanked up to around 270K EHP - and they can haul around 60-70K m^3. (This hauling profile obsoletes DSTs which have both smaller EHP, less utility, and less cargo.) 2. Freighters are around 150-200K EHP, for 900K+ m^3. 3. Jump Freighters between 250-300K EHP, with 350K+ m^3.
See the pattern? All of the large-volume haulers top out in the 250-300K EHP range. At those EHP levels, you aren't interesting to gankers until your cargo value goes north of 2.5-3 Billion ISK. In addition to this, JF's are ALREADY invulnerable to highsec ganking simply by having a cyno alt on standby in nearby lowsec. Bumping does not prevent jumping.
I envisioned the balance round to involve marginally increasing the maximum EHP with severe penalties in both alignment and cargo capacity. In addition, the use of rigs had a significant cost involved.
This new iteration is a mess however, as large-volume cargo movers are having their practical EHP doubled....or tripled. This radically increases the ISK-value of mid-range cargo that can be moved without risk of a 'profitable' gank occurring.
1.Kronos Orcas are going to see their EHP pushed above 500K EHP range, if not more, due the combination of the new Hull Rigs and DC II, and still hauling around 60-70K m^3 general cargo, plus additional specialized bays. 2.Kronos Freighters are going to have a EHP/cargo profile superior to what JFs have today. (300-350K EHP with 350K m^3 cargo.) 3.Kronos Jump Freighters are going completely into carebear wet-dream world, shielding a whopping 130m^3 or so behind 620-720K EHP. (and they naturally retain the 'easy gank escape button')
I submit that this is a radically different game state to what we have today (and have always had) in EVE, and changes of this nature should be done with far more care than this knee-jerk reaction to whine-naught death threats.
Fozzie - trust me, I understand. I know how much it hurts inside when the nasty carebears say ugly things about you in the forums. But that doesn't mean we need three-quarters of a million hit point heavy haulers to make them like you again.
Oh yes - and to the idiots who are invariably going to come back with "Freighters were fine until Taloses were invented, now freighters need a buff" - Taloses DID exist before. Before the insurance nerf, they were called Insured Megathrons. And before the Concord-drone nerf, they were Insured Dominixes. Nor have bumping mechanics changed.
Gank ships haven't changed all that much at all. But on the freighter side - call this iteration what it is - a radical swing in favor of safer freighters and risk-free hauling.
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
10118
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 02:40:00 -
[2536] - Quote
Walter Hart White wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:some crap So you asked for examples and got example which you then disregard? GG, no RE. You gave a bad example, so yeah. "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
Elvis Preslie
NRDS Securities Apocalypse Now.
65
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 05:06:00 -
[2537] - Quote
Lazei wrote:How are overloaded cargoholds handled when the patch hits for people who had logged off in space with full pre patch cargos? Tough luck that they didn't read patch notes?
Probably nothing happens until they dock. they just cant undock again until they fix the cargo. |
Christopher Mabata
Dominion Tenebrarum New Eden's Misfits Alliance
4
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 05:06:00 -
[2538] - Quote
As of right now the Jump Fuel Conservation units appear to only be for Jump Freighters, that said is there any chance a similar ( Maybe slightly less effective module ) that could be added later for Black Ops, Carriers, Dreads, and Supers? Im only Asking because i think a module or an implant set that slightly reduces fuel costs would be super beneficial not only for bigger alliances for moving cap fleets but also for smaller corps and alliances to move their goods in Carriers long distances or other jump capable assets. Christopher "The Mabata" CEO, Black Ops Admiral, And Head US TZ Diplo Dominion Tenebrarum / New Eden's Misfits Alliance / The Dark Corner Coalition |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
15662
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 05:32:00 -
[2539] - Quote
Yes another power projection buff is what eve needs "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!" |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
10120
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 05:46:00 -
[2540] - Quote
Christopher Mabata wrote:As of right now the Jump Fuel Conservation units appear to only be for Jump Freighters No, as of right now there's no information on them at all. Wait for that thread. "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
161
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 06:45:00 -
[2541] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Christopher Mabata wrote:As of right now the Jump Fuel Conservation units appear to only be for Jump Freighters No, as of right now there's no information on them at all. Wait for that thread. Indeed..
But I doubt they will limit it to just JF's.. after all, if you wanna sacrifice tank/dps for saving in fuel, I don't see CCP wanting to stop you :)
Plus maybe it'll save Fuel, at the cost of max range or something.. Either way, we'll know by Jula 22nd lol |
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
280
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 07:19:00 -
[2542] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:'Frictionless' movement of goods around highsec is undesirable. It leads to all regions of empire having nearly identical prices, as any differential in item prices between regions is quickly 'zeroed' when massive quantities can be autopiloted around in a single trip. Bad for traders and makes for a very uninteresting economic landscape. I don't recall a significantly flatter market existing in the days when freighters didn't drop loot. The profitability of moving goods is dependent on more than the friction of transport. There may well be a break-point at which freighter EHP really tips - but I don't know what it is and I'm not sure anyone else does either. Ignoring the persistence of outdated information the value of goods being shipped in higher EHP would either remain the same (bulk goods constrained by capacity) or increase in proportion according to the most publically recognised "gank threshhold". Only the risk takers, those who fill their freighter with Cal Navy Invulns or PLEX, would form any reduction in gank profit... Perhaps I'm not thinking about enough aspects, not taking enough things into account, I'm still trying to work out how to get a fittable freighter back to at least the utility of a current freighter... |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
10125
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 07:32:00 -
[2543] - Quote
Sacrificing tank/dps makes no difference at all to carriers/dreadnoughts/jump freighters/black ops jumping to stations. "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
Sarah Flynt
Federation Interstellar Resources
36
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 13:02:00 -
[2544] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Today, pre-Kronos - if you want to move multiple billions in valuable goods of moderate volume, your choices are:
1. Orcas can be tanked up to around 270K EHP - and they can haul around 60-70K m^3. (This hauling profile obsoletes DSTs which have both smaller EHP, less utility, and less cargo.) 2. Freighters are around 150-200K EHP, for 900K+ m^3. 3. Jump Freighters between 250-300K EHP, with 350K+ m^3.
See the pattern? All of the large-volume haulers top out in the 250-300K EHP range. If you'd get your numbers right, you'd realize that there is no such pattern. Freighters are currently between 174k-201k EHP, Jumpfreighters between 315k-364k EHP.
Herr Wilkus wrote:At those EHP levels, you aren't interesting to gankers until your cargo value goes north of 2.5-3 Billion ISK Ah, that legend again. 2.5-3 billion might be the threshold for you personally, it certainly is far far lower for many other ganker groups. Just check the killboard of the last few weeks. Half or more of the ganked freighters don't even reach that value even if you include the price for the hull and I already let the ones out which have plastic wraps in it. I didn't include Burn Jita btw. Ganking freighters is cheap compared to the value of the target. 15 T2 Catalysts and you kill any freighter in a 0.5 system. At the current price of 10 mil per T2 gank Catalyst and a droprate of 50% you already break even at 300 mil - hell, let's say 500 mil to be generous. After that it's pure profit. How much profit is "enough" to execute a gank depends solely on the gank group and a great many are obviously far cheaper than you. There is a good reason why Red Frog doesn't accept cargo values beyond 1 bil for T1 freighter hauls. But why am I telling you all this? I'm pretty sure that you already know it.
Herr Wilkus wrote: This new iteration is a mess however, as large-volume cargo movers are having their practical EHP doubled....or tripled. This radically increases the ISK-value of mid-range cargo that can be moved without risk of a 'profitable' gank occurring.
1.Kronos Orcas are going to see their EHP pushed above 500K EHP range, if not more, due the combination of the new Hull Rigs and DC II, and still hauling around 60-70K m^3 general cargo, plus additional specialized bays. 2.Kronos Freighters are going to have a EHP/cargo profile superior to what JFs have today. (300-350K EHP with 350K m^3 cargo.) 3.Kronos Jump Freighters are going completely into carebear wet-dream world, shielding a whopping 130m^3 or so behind 620-720K EHP. (and they naturally retain the 'easy gank escape button')
Again some real numbers that are not pulled out of thin air: 1. Kronos Orca: 415k EHP with DC II, T2 bulkheads in lowslot and rigs, 2x LSE, 2x Invu Field. 423,5k overheated and a pitiful cargohold of below 70k which is even split into regular and fleet hangar (not counting the ore hangar for obvious reasons). You can't even put a single BS sized hull in it. 2. Kronos Freighters: 282k-367k EHP with 3x T2 Bulkheads and 410k-438k cargo, 165k-169k EHP with 3x cargo expanders 3. Kronos Jump Freighters: 507k-662k EHP with 3x T2 Bulkheads and <130k cargo, 297k-313k EHP with 3x cargo expanders
You see: EHP values aren't tripled as you claim, not even doubled, not even close to doubled.
Herr Wilkus wrote:I submit that this is a radically different game state to what we have today (and have always had) in EVE, and changes of this nature should be done with far more care than this knee-jerk reaction to whine-naught death threats. It is, but other than you think. What makes you think that all people will suddenly grow a brain and fit for an appropriate tank? Did that happen with mining barges after they were buffed? Hell, no. What you're also forgetting is that when the industrial changes hit far more people have to move stuff around in order to use cheap manufacturing slots. Do you really think they all fit for tank and not for convenience?
Herr Wilkus wrote:Fozzie - trust me, I understand. I know how much it hurts inside when the nasty carebears say ugly things about you in the forums. But that doesn't mean we need three-quarters of a million hit point heavy haulers to make them like you again. Really?
Disclaimer: above numbers originate from the updated EFT with Kronos data files. Skills all V, no boosters/implants.
P.S.: Apart from underlining and bold text markup, I'd also use different colors next time. Makes it all the more convincing. Maybe Fozzie likes pink ;) |
Sarah Flynt
Federation Interstellar Resources
36
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 13:16:00 -
[2545] - Quote
Warr Akini wrote:Sarah Flynt wrote:All in all I find the second iteration of the changes well balanced. Freighter pilots finally get a real choice and there will still be enough people with two or three cargo expanders flying around that can easily be ganked. I'm definitely all for choice - as is EVE/CCP. As long as it works in your favor, no doubt about that.
Warr Akini wrote:However, "there will still be enough people" and "can easily be ganked" are two wild assumptions, based on no data whatsoever (for the first part) and a very skewed perception of the ease of freighter ganking (for the second part). So, you really think all the lazy "highsec pubby shitlords" or whatever you call them today, suddenly grow a brain and fit for tank instead of convenience? Now *that's* what I'd call a "wild assumption". I'm sure an analysis of fittings of ganked mining barges would support your argument *ahem*.
For the rest, see my reply to Herr Wilkus. |
Jin d'SaanGo
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 15:56:00 -
[2546] - Quote
It's about time that we also get some hull tanking warfare links. That will work well with the proposed changes. |
Warr Akini
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
135
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 16:17:00 -
[2547] - Quote
Sarah Flynt wrote:So, you really think all the lazy "highsec pubby shitlords" or whatever you call them today, suddenly grow a brain and fit for tank instead of convenience? Now *that's* what I'd call a "wild assumption". I'm sure an analysis of fittings of ganked mining barges would support your argument *ahem*.
For the rest, see my reply to Herr Wilkus.
You'll notice I didn't try to make the assumption as to who will take what option - only the skewed EHP scale of said options. Of course, you probably did notice, and are trying to make a petty unjustified point anyway accentuated by sarcastic emotes and whatever it is you kids call them these days.
Mining barges can always find utility in expanding their cargohold or adding mining upgrade boosts and extending their time out in the fields or making themselves more time-efficient - freighters only having to carry a smaller courier have no utility in expanding their cargohold, something they can easily do when necessary, safely in dock. Apples and oranges.
For the rest, you still are not qualified to speak to the motivation of gankers.
We also spell it 'pubbie.' |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5120
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 16:40:00 -
[2548] - Quote
Sarah Flynt wrote:Freighter pilots finally get a real choice and there will still be enough people with two or three cargo expanders flying around that can easily be ganked.
Yes they get to choose to lower their hull for the extra cargo space, which isn't a drawback at all because all of their tank is now in the armour or shields which gives them more EHP than they had previously. This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal & proud member of the popular gay hookup site, somethingawful.com |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
36
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 17:14:00 -
[2549] - Quote
Ganking tears, best tears. |
Silvetica Dian
Manson Family Advent of Fate
1051
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 17:15:00 -
[2550] - Quote
Hoshi Sorano wrote:Kaius Fero wrote:Hoshi Sorano wrote:Kaius Fero wrote:I totally love how come the ganker rednecks dictate hot to use a freighter in a sandbox. This is better than any monthy python sketch. Well, better than the ex-parrot perhaps, but I don't know if I'd say better than the Spanish Inquisition; that one is pretty hard to top. Spanish Inquisition is pretty close. "All right; we'll call it a draw."
Nobody expected that...... Money at its root is a form of rationing. When the richest 85 people have as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion (50% of humanity) it is clear where the source of poverty is. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/20/trickle-down-economics-broken-promise-richest-85 |
|
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
891
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 17:33:00 -
[2551] - Quote
Sarah Flynt wrote: >>Ah, that legend again. 2.5-3 billion might be the threshold for you personally, it certainly is far far lower for many other ganker groups. Just check the killboard of the last few weeks. Half or more of the ganked freighters don't even reach that value even if you include the price for the hull and I already let the ones out which have plastic wraps in it. I didn't include Burn Jita btw. Ganking freighters is cheap compared to the value of the target. 15 T2 Catalysts and you kill any freighter in a 0.5 system. At the current price of 10 mil per T2 gank Catalyst and a droprate of 50% you already break even at 300 mil
>>Again some real numbers that are not pulled out of thin air:
>>It is, but other than you think. What makes you think that all people will suddenly grow a brain and fit for an appropriate tank? Did that happen with mining barges after they were buffed? Hell, no. What you're also forgetting is that when the industrial changes hit far more people have to move stuff around in order to use cheap manufacturing slots. Do you really think they all fit for tank and not for convenience?
>>P.S.: Apart from underlining and bold text markup, I'd also use different colors next time. Makes it all the more convincing. Maybe Fozzie likes pink ;)
I was obviously estimating some of the EHP values from memory - and was including cheap 5% hull implants because people actually use those - and they are very significant. Rubicon JFs are even harder to kill than I'd estimated. My numbers were surprisingly good, especially on future Orcas. (And for someone being so pedantic - you do a remarkably bad job of estimating the cost of a T2 Catalyst. Thats also from memory.)
My point remains, this represents a massive EHP buff which will allow traders to convey FAR larger values of cargo around highsec with negligible risk. (and the risk is already quite low)
Further, Catalysts aren't the 'gank ship' of choice for freighters simply because they require 3x larger coordinated fleets. Merely using 15 of them is 'bare bones' and increases the chance of something going wrong and failing the gank. Sure, some people gank empty freighters, a few others might use ISBoxed Catalysts. But Talos fleets of 7 or more are the gold standard, by far the most likely ganking 'for profit' scenario - so that is what I use.
No, I'm quite sure that some people will fail-fit. And carebears never fail to impress me in that regard. But a random Retriever in a belt and a trader hauling billions in a freighter or Jump Freighter are two completely different things. 'Full' freighters tend to be full of low value items like tritanium - making the Tanked Freighter the most likely scenario for potential for high value gank targets. When profitting from trade, M^3 is not as important as ISK value. M^3 it merely limits the range of items you can trade in. When dealing in mid-range market items (vs bulk raw materials) that can lead to a gank attack - 130 m^3 is a hell of a lot. A radical expansion in safety and capabilities.
Even today, waiting for a 2-3 Billion ISK freighter to come along can take quite a long time. As Warr Akini said - keeping a large number of people on standby waiting for a target is easier said than done - when they could be doing other things. Why do low value freighters sometimes get ganked? Its the "eh, we have this fleet together, but its late so we might as well blow up something" effect.
Try this - sit in Uedama, Niarja, or Balle. Sit there scanning freighters until a 6-8 Billion ISK freighter comes along. How long do you think you can keep 20-25 or so Talos pilots sitting still waiting for that kind of target to come by? Because that is what it will take to threaten Kronos Jump Freighters.
And hell, Orcas haven't even gotten their balance pass yet. 450K EHP and 70K M^3 for a ship that costs only 350M? Sounds like a bargain when you consider it would take 15+ or so Taloses costing more than 1.5 Billion to kill.
P.S. Its just my way of telling Fozzie, "Bro, I've been there. I know how much carebear rage stings. Everytime miners send me hateful, threatening EVEmails, I cry a little inside. But Fozzie, you have to stay strong. We are doing it.....for them." |
Vhelnik Cojoin
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
56
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 21:45:00 -
[2552] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Why shouldn't it take " a huge number" of defenders to defend against 120 attackers? It should, not trying to suggest otherwise. I was pointing out that neither RR nor ECM was used to save the infamous 'repped' JF during Burn Jita.
So for gankers using catalysts you need around the same number of defender pilots to have a chance to fend off the attack, and it only works as long as the attacking fleet uses fragile ships like catalysts. Against an Alphanado fleet nothing helps. The freighter or JF just dies.
If the average risk of getting suicide ganked while flying a freighter in HiSec outside a wardec is low, then consider the boredom and strain on the 'defender fleet', who has to shepherd it everywhere. Seen in this context I find the comment from another post about the poor Talos ganker pilots, who have to wait *ages* for a sufficiently well stuffed JF to show itself, quite hilarious.
There is no practical defense against suicide ganking for everyday logistics or trading. Your only choice is to cross your fingers and hope you won't be selected for 'special treatment'. Have you Communicated with your fellow capsuleers today? It is good for the EVE-oconomy and o-kay for you. |
Vhelnik Cojoin
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
56
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 21:48:00 -
[2553] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:And hell, Orcas haven't even gotten their balance pass yet. 450K EHP and 70K M^3 for a ship that costs only 350M? Sounds like a bargain when you consider it would take 15+ or so Taloses costing more than 1.5 Billion to kill. Orcas currently cost around 640M ISK. Have you Communicated with your fellow capsuleers today? It is good for the EVE-oconomy and o-kay for you. |
Ice Coldon
Coldon Mining Axion Bionics
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 23:30:00 -
[2554] - Quote
One small point. If you are going to web your freighter, last I did it you needed 2 webber ships. This was because the webber got agression and had a timer before jumping thru the gate. Unless it was really far between gates the freighter would get their before the webber could jump.
So unless the mechanics have changed, you need 2 webber pilots so they can leap frog.
I expect most high sec freighters to go for tank. but I don't know the statistics of how many run full loads or partial. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
891
|
Posted - 2014.05.28 00:07:00 -
[2555] - Quote
Vhelnik Cojoin wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote:And hell, Orcas haven't even gotten their balance pass yet. 450K EHP and 70K M^3 for a ship that costs only 350M? Sounds like a bargain when you consider it would take 15+ or so Taloses costing more than 1.5 Billion to kill. Orcas currently cost around 640M ISK.
Ack, bad typo. Build about 6 a month, I should know that......
|
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
162
|
Posted - 2014.05.28 01:06:00 -
[2556] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Vhelnik Cojoin wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote:And hell, Orcas haven't even gotten their balance pass yet. 450K EHP and 70K M^3 for a ship that costs only 350M? Sounds like a bargain when you consider it would take 15+ or so Taloses costing more than 1.5 Billion to kill. Orcas currently cost around 640M ISK. Ack, bad typo. Build about 6 a month, I should know that...... If you're building and selling for 350, sign me up :) lol
Either way, Orca/Rorq balance will come at some point.. |
Marsan
226
|
Posted - 2014.05.28 02:23:00 -
[2557] - Quote
Jin d'SaanGo wrote:It's about time that we also get some hull tanking warfare links. That will work well with the proposed changes.
That would rock for battle orcas;-) Former forum cheerleader CCP, now just a grumpy small portion of the community. |
Rab See
Fool Mental Junket
72
|
Posted - 2014.05.28 12:19:00 -
[2558] - Quote
Its been said, but any Dev input on the issue of the armour freighters having an advantage on tanking using low slots?
Adaptive Nanos and the variants:
3x Coreli ANP on Provi: 46000 EHP with minimum 60% on explosive.
The same on a Charon ... 15000 EHP with minimum 60% on explosive.
The Fenrir and Obelisk sit in the middle of course, Fenrir worse for armour significantly.
Thats a massive fundamental difference. Understandably hard to balance with no midslots and resulting penalties for using bulkheads to tank. This is amplified on the T2 variants ... the sudden change to lowslots from rigs may have created this blind spot.
Can we add some flavour to the shield variants - agility for the Fenrir, speed for the Charon ... make them worthwhile. Otherwise the tiny differences mean its a nerf in all but name. |
Tramar
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2014.05.28 19:20:00 -
[2559] - Quote
So having to use cargohold expanders to achieve the same level of cargo is good. But it will make freighters even slower. Srsly, they are slow enough. |
Axe Coldon
42
|
Posted - 2014.05.28 20:16:00 -
[2560] - Quote
Rab See wrote:Its been said, but any Dev input on the issue of the armour freighters having an advantage on tanking using low slots?
Adaptive Nanos and the variants:
3x Coreli ANP on Provi: 46000 EHP with minimum 60% on explosive.
The same on a Charon ... 15000 EHP with minimum 60% on explosive.
The Fenrir and Obelisk sit in the middle of course, Fenrir worse for armour significantly.
Thats a massive fundamental difference. Understandably hard to balance with no midslots and resulting penalties for using bulkheads to tank. This is amplified on the T2 variants ... the sudden change to lowslots from rigs may have created this blind spot.
Can we add some flavour to the shield variants - agility for the Fenrir, speed for the Charon ... make them worthwhile. Otherwise the tiny differences mean its a nerf in all but name.
Well if they don't do anything about shield tanked freighters I plan to switch to the Amarr Freighter.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________ No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced. |
|
Ronny Hugo
Dark Fusion Industries Limitless Inc.
69
|
Posted - 2014.05.28 21:20:00 -
[2561] - Quote
So now we'll be able to modify our freighters with 3 low slot modules, what's next, nitrous oxide and a big stereo? Slippery slope :P |
ashley Eoner
310
|
Posted - 2014.05.28 22:30:00 -
[2562] - Quote
Axe Coldon wrote:Rab See wrote:Its been said, but any Dev input on the issue of the armour freighters having an advantage on tanking using low slots?
Adaptive Nanos and the variants:
3x Coreli ANP on Provi: 46000 EHP with minimum 60% on explosive.
The same on a Charon ... 15000 EHP with minimum 60% on explosive.
The Fenrir and Obelisk sit in the middle of course, Fenrir worse for armour significantly.
Thats a massive fundamental difference. Understandably hard to balance with no midslots and resulting penalties for using bulkheads to tank. This is amplified on the T2 variants ... the sudden change to lowslots from rigs may have created this blind spot.
Can we add some flavour to the shield variants - agility for the Fenrir, speed for the Charon ... make them worthwhile. Otherwise the tiny differences mean its a nerf in all but name. Well if they don't do anything about shield tanked freighters I plan to switch to the Amarr Freighter. Yeah at least teh providence is cool looking
|
Ivy Lyn Relintolde
Viziam Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.28 23:44:00 -
[2563] - Quote
Alright So I haven't decided if i want to train for a freighter or not yet, I know with the Nerfed cargo it would still suit all my needs but with 3 low slots as well? That is interesting. Anyone have any Idea how much tank say a Providence would get out of a T2 Damage Control and 2 RF Bulkheads ( T2 )??
Because the way I see it you need like 5-6 Talos to Gank a freighter as is, and like 15 catalysts ( Depends on system level of course ). So would adding the DC II and RFB II's really make a big enough difference to allow freighter pilots to carry more than 600m at a time without extreme risk of getting ganked by a catalyst gang? Or 800m to avoid a Talos Gang? Or is it not enough tank to really matter? |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
698
|
Posted - 2014.05.29 00:03:00 -
[2564] - Quote
Ivy Lyn Relintolde wrote:Alright So I haven't decided if i want to train for a freighter or not yet, I know with the Nerfed cargo it would still suit all my needs but with 3 low slots as well? That is interesting. Anyone have any Idea how much tank say a Providence would get out of a T2 Damage Control and 2 RF Bulkheads ( T2 )??
Because the way I see it you need like 5-6 Talos to Gank a freighter as is, and like 15 catalysts ( Depends on system level of course ). So would adding the DC II and RFB II's really make a big enough difference to allow freighter pilots to carry more than 600m at a time without extreme risk of getting ganked by a catalyst gang? Or 800m to avoid a Talos Gang? Or is it not enough tank to really matter? You can't fit a DCII because of fitting requirements and it won't happen because you would be able to effectively double your tank which is more than 3 bulkheads can do alone and still have the ability to fit other mods. |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
38
|
Posted - 2014.05.29 10:20:00 -
[2565] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Try this - sit in Uedama, Niarja, or Balle. Sit there scanning freighters until a 6-8 Billion ISK freighter comes along. How long do you think you can keep 20-25 or so Talos pilots sitting still waiting for that kind of target to come by? Because that is what it will take to threaten Kronos Jump Freighters. "
And you don't have to do none of that. You need one person. Bumper. He can bump the ship until all of your mates assemble, which can be hours and hours. Then you can gank it. |
Warr Akini
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
135
|
Posted - 2014.05.29 10:39:00 -
[2566] - Quote
Walter Hart White wrote:And you don't have to do none of that. You need one person. Bumper. He can bump the ship until all of your mates assemble, which can be hours and hours. Then you can gank it.
Incorrect, and you clearly have never run a fleet of actual people-cats (i.e. a formup that takes longer than thirty minutes will not happen). |
Lahingingel
KolliURG
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.29 10:45:00 -
[2567] - Quote
What about JF fuel consumption? Will it be remaining the same as it is (other than 50% increase across the board) and has anyone bothered to run already the numbers for isotopes / m3 after the summer patch?
Assuming ofc, max skills and max expanded (of for comparison it would be interesting also to see with JF skill at 4 for non-dedicated hauling alts). |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
62
|
Posted - 2014.05.29 11:23:00 -
[2568] - Quote
Lahingingel wrote:What about JF fuel consumption? Will it be remaining the same as it is (other than 50% increase across the board) and has anyone bothered to run already the numbers for isotopes / m3 after the summer patch?
Assuming ofc, max skills and max expanded (of for comparison it would be interesting also to see with JF skill at 4 for non-dedicated hauling alts).
Yes, I have run the numbers, no it didn't change much cause M3 didn't change much and isotopes used haven't changed much other than the 50% increase. |
Lahingingel
KolliURG
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.29 12:26:00 -
[2569] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:Lahingingel wrote:What about JF fuel consumption? Will it be remaining the same as it is (other than 50% increase across the board) and has anyone bothered to run already the numbers for isotopes / m3 after the summer patch?
Assuming ofc, max skills and max expanded (of for comparison it would be interesting also to see with JF skill at 4 for non-dedicated hauling alts). Yes, I have run the numbers, no it didn't change much cause M3 didn't change much and isotopes used haven't changed much other than the 50% increase.
Mmmm would have been nice to get the numbers as well.
Did the numbers. Max cargo, max skills. 50% increased fuel consumption. Ark 349 763 m3, 1163 iso / ly - 321.5 m3 / isotope per ly Rhea 373 080 m3, 1238 iso / ly - 301.4 m3 / isotope per ly Anshar 356 240 m3, 1163 iso / ly - 306.3 m3 / isotope per ly Nomad 341 990 m3, 1013 iso / ly - 337.6 m3 / isotope per ly
Dunno why I had the impression that something has changed in that regard. I guess I assumed that as they all are more uniform now they would also get fuel consumption normalized. Ignoring the isotope prices for now as that is not something ships can be balanced on bcos of all the fluctuations and FOTM fleet compositions. |
Oppih Nogard
Omega Engineering Inc.
12
|
Posted - 2014.05.29 18:44:00 -
[2570] - Quote
Well ...... Will this allow warp stabs to be installed in the lows? |
|
Ydnari
Estrale Frontiers Project Wildfire
331
|
Posted - 2014.05.29 18:46:00 -
[2571] - Quote
Oppih Nogard wrote:Well ...... Will this allow warp stabs to be installed in the lows? no my teapot is ready |
Weed Probe
Dynaco Manufacturing
11
|
Posted - 2014.05.29 20:50:00 -
[2572] - Quote
As a manufacturing oriented player, I am very pleased with those freighter changes ! I probe weed.
|
Barbara Nichole
Cryogenic Consultancy
612
|
Posted - 2014.05.29 21:51:00 -
[2573] - Quote
I am not seeing a solution to create current stats on a regular freighter. The closest I can get are one T2 bulkhead and two T2 cargo expanders. This still leaves the freighter light by ~100k cargo space. What have I missed? -á-á- remove the cloaked from local; free intel is the real problem, not-á "afk" cloaking-á-
[IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG] |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1594
|
Posted - 2014.05.29 21:57:00 -
[2574] - Quote
Barbara Nichole wrote: What have I missed?
that ur not meant to be able to create the old freighters?
there are ways to improve upon certain stats at the expense of others. 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" |
Dibble Dabble
Capital Assets Inc
23
|
Posted - 2014.05.29 22:03:00 -
[2575] - Quote
I would like to thank the CSM and CCP for continuing to kill the game.
Lets kill industry a little more and make hauling crap more fun. Lets add some low slots but you can't fit much too. Let make freighters smaller so you get to haul more often. Lets screw industry carebears again with the worst upgrade in the memory of man.
Thank god I only have a few more weeks on this account.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6578
|
Posted - 2014.05.29 22:05:00 -
[2576] - Quote
Dibble Dabble wrote:I would like to thank the CSM and CCP for continuing to kill the game.
Lets kill industry a little more and make hauling crap more fun. Lets add some low slots but you can't fit much too. Let make freighters smaller so you get to haul more often. Lets screw industry carebears again with the worst upgrade in the memory of man.
Thank god I only have a few more weeks on this account.
Feel free to contract me your stuff. I will put it to good use. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Dibble Dabble
Capital Assets Inc
23
|
Posted - 2014.05.29 22:16:00 -
[2577] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Dibble Dabble wrote:I would like to thank the CSM and CCP for continuing to kill the game.
Lets kill industry a little more and make hauling crap more fun. Lets add some low slots but you can't fit much too. Let make freighters smaller so you get to haul more often. Lets screw industry carebears again with the worst upgrade in the memory of man.
Thank god I only have a few more weeks on this account.
Feel free to contract me your stuff. I will put it to good use.
I will send you a free torpedo, you can suck on that for a change |
Coop207
Corporate Disaster Final Resolution.
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.29 22:18:00 -
[2578] - Quote
Who's stupid idea was this? What happened to making the game better? I guess that idea is out. ******* retards
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6580
|
Posted - 2014.05.29 22:18:00 -
[2579] - Quote
Dibble Dabble wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Dibble Dabble wrote:I would like to thank the CSM and CCP for continuing to kill the game.
Lets kill industry a little more and make hauling crap more fun. Lets add some low slots but you can't fit much too. Let make freighters smaller so you get to haul more often. Lets screw industry carebears again with the worst upgrade in the memory of man.
Thank god I only have a few more weeks on this account.
Feel free to contract me your stuff. I will put it to good use. I will send you a free torpedo, you can suck on that for a change
If you're really quitting, nothing shows commitment like giving away all of your assets. That way, you won't be tempted to return. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
703
|
Posted - 2014.05.29 22:21:00 -
[2580] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Dibble Dabble wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Dibble Dabble wrote:I would like to thank the CSM and CCP for continuing to kill the game.
Lets kill industry a little more and make hauling crap more fun. Lets add some low slots but you can't fit much too. Let make freighters smaller so you get to haul more often. Lets screw industry carebears again with the worst upgrade in the memory of man.
Thank god I only have a few more weeks on this account.
Feel free to contract me your stuff. I will put it to good use. I will send you a free torpedo, you can suck on that for a change If you're really quitting, nothing shows commitment like giving away all of your assets. That way, you won't be tempted to return. Better yet, take all your belongings, put them in max cargo freighter and pay bankers all your money to kill you. That's true dedication. |
|
Dibble Dabble
Capital Assets Inc
23
|
Posted - 2014.05.29 22:23:00 -
[2581] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Dibble Dabble wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Dibble Dabble wrote:I would like to thank the CSM and CCP for continuing to kill the game.
Lets kill industry a little more and make hauling crap more fun. Lets add some low slots but you can't fit much too. Let make freighters smaller so you get to haul more often. Lets screw industry carebears again with the worst upgrade in the memory of man.
Thank god I only have a few more weeks on this account.
Feel free to contract me your stuff. I will put it to good use. I will send you a free torpedo, you can suck on that for a change If you're really quitting, nothing shows commitment like giving away all of your assets. That way, you won't be tempted to return.
My industry accounts are all but done. My two remaining accounts are being funded by the assets I leave behind. But I shall make sure you get a torpedo in due course. |
|
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
1442
|
Posted - 2014.05.29 22:35:00 -
[2582] - Quote
I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. As always I let some edge cases stay. Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil!
The Rules: 3. Ranting is prohibited.
A rant is a post that is often filled with angry and counterproductive comments. A free exchange of ideas is essential to building a strong sense of community and is helpful in development of the game and community. Rants are disruptive, and incite flaming and trolling. Please post your thoughts in a concise and clear manner while avoiding going off on rambling tangents.
4. Personal attacks are prohibited.
Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.
5. Trolling is prohibited.
Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.
26. Off-topic posting is prohibited.
Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued.
ISD Ezwal Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
170
|
Posted - 2014.05.29 22:48:00 -
[2583] - Quote
Barbara Nichole wrote:I am not seeing a solution to create current stats on a regular freighter. The closest I can get are one T2 bulkhead and two T2 cargo expanders. This still leaves the freighter light by ~100k cargo space. What have I missed? Welcome to choice.
You now don't get your cake and eat it too, you have to chose between Cargo Space, Tank, More warp speed, Agility, etc.
Also, seriously, go back and look at what you haul.. And think how much often you haul enough to be WORTH Ganking, AND fill your Freighter.. It'll be less than you think.. I haul a LOT, and 95% of the time it's either a lot of cheap stuff, or something "small" and really expensive.
As someone who hauls a fair bit, I love the changes.. I can fit max tank and haul something expensive to Jita.. then fit warp mods to get home faster, or cargo and bring a lot of worthless stuff home.. More choice.. And the fact that there's no one fit to get it back what it is now, doesn't bother me.. Cause everyone else has had to deal with their ship changing at some point.. You think it's a hit on Haulers, look at the changes that happened when the other lines of ships were rebalanced.. some lost, some gained, most changed in some way. Adapt. |
Dibble Dabble
Capital Assets Inc
23
|
Posted - 2014.05.29 22:53:00 -
[2584] - Quote
So the ISD censor the opinions of paid up subscribers many of them angry at the proposed changes. I am sure had I been a goon, PL or member of one of the large alliances then I would be ok. But as a small nobody it don't matter. Sure I am angry with the crappy patch, but I have a right to express an opinion, or maybe its only the good opinions you want?
I was part of a small group of players who ran a rather specialised industry "alliance". We adapted to many of the changes over the years and enjoyed our life outside of the realities of work and family life.
I have already posted my thoughts on the changes to industry and the reasons why I and 15 or so other accounts have or will be leaving eve in the coming weeks. We are now down to 1 POS. In the scheme of things we are small. Our assets amounted to more than we thought and have now exceed 700 bil and the final tally could be near to a trillion. This will keep our remaining characters in eve for some years to come, if indeed we can be arsed.
Had we remained in industry then the changes to Freighters would be another reason to quit the grind of industry. The lower volume would mean more trips, albeit a little bit safer with a bit of tank, at least for a time. We know however the gankers will adapt as they always do and thus we will be back to the situation we are in now. Only this time we would be faced with doing even more runs increasing the risk of being ganked.
As I have said before, thanks CCP but we already have jobs in RL and we really don't need another. Thanks for making Eve so damn tedious. |
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
170
|
Posted - 2014.05.29 23:04:00 -
[2585] - Quote
ISD's are simply removing trolling or otherwise rulebreaking posts.. If you read the whole thread you'd know your position has been represented.. but it's not gonna devolve into a slapfest.. otherwise we end up with the Pirate Battleship thread that had to be locked because ISD's were deleting more posts a day than could be left, 90% of new posts were trolling, flamebate, personal attacks, or responses to those.
In short, be civil or be silent. The forums are not supposed to be Jita Local.
You can haul more if you want, or faster if you want, or in a more tanky ship if you want.. I'll take that all day long over being stuck with a ship, no fit, no choice.. No way to add a little extra tank, or speed, or cargo..
And making an attack on Null and the Alliances down there.. oh they are thrilled.. their fav change is, if you didn't notice, the fact that their fuel bills for jumping/bridging is near double overnight.. combined with the changes to JF's are no where near as good as the changes to the standard Freighter.
But sure, all the changes are a PL lot.. Grr.. Garath. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1594
|
Posted - 2014.05.29 23:09:00 -
[2586] - Quote
dibble if u break the rules, post gets removed. simple as. dnt take it personally, it happens.
ppl on both sides have expressed themselves within the rules, u can too. 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" |
Dibble Dabble
Capital Assets Inc
23
|
Posted - 2014.05.29 23:20:00 -
[2587] - Quote
Sniper Smith wrote:ISD's are simply removing trolling or otherwise rulebreaking posts.. If you read the whole thread you'd know your position has been represented.. but it's not gonna devolve into a slapfest.. otherwise we end up with the Pirate Battleship thread that had to be locked because ISD's were deleting more posts a day than could be left, 90% of new posts were trolling, flamebate, personal attacks, or responses to those.
In short, be civil or be silent. The forums are not supposed to be Jita Local.
You can haul more if you want, or faster if you want, or in a more tanky ship if you want.. I'll take that all day long over being stuck with a ship, no fit, no choice.. No way to add a little extra tank, or speed, or cargo..
And making an attack on Null and the Alliances down there.. oh they are thrilled.. their fav change is, if you didn't notice, the fact that their fuel bills for jumping/bridging is near double overnight.. combined with the changes to JF's are no where near as good as the changes to the standard Freighter.
But sure, all the changes are a PL lot.. Grr.. Garath.
Thanks for your input sniper. I am sure the ISD are following their own interpretation of their own rules and strive for consistency. It cant be easy being in ISD when most of them have characters in Eve that also have a personnel view on the changes.
My heart bleeds for the null sec alliances, we know how little ISK they got and how tough it will be for them to afford their fuel bills with the crappy ice, moons and ore they have in abundance. Hell maybe they will have to work for a living or put the bot renters rent up. Maybe CCP should buff industry in null sec and screw high sec industry into the stone age just to give them a boost to ensure CCP can sell more titan battles. I don't seem to recall CCP posting a tween about an ice belt being mined out or my old corp making 200 T2 cruisers in a week?
Anyways I have a right to be able to express my anger at the changes due to come in. It may offend some people but the post is never designed to be offensive. Sadly some people are easily offended. |
Dibble Dabble
Capital Assets Inc
23
|
Posted - 2014.05.29 23:29:00 -
[2588] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:dibble if u break the rules, post gets removed. simple as. dnt take it personally, it happens.
ppl on both sides have expressed themselves within the rules, u can too.
Thanks for the input. ISD do their best but they don't always get it right. Its their opinion V my opinion. Their opinion is always right even when its wrong. Just because ISD deleted some of my posts does not mean I am in the wrong, it just means one person with a delete button has taken a different view to my own.
Of course I take it personally as I happen to believe I have not broken any rules. You should not believe that ISD are always right. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6580
|
Posted - 2014.05.29 23:34:00 -
[2589] - Quote
Dibble Dabble wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:dibble if u break the rules, post gets removed. simple as. dnt take it personally, it happens.
ppl on both sides have expressed themselves within the rules, u can too. Thanks for the input. ISD do their best but they don't always get it right. Its their opinion V my opinion. Their opinion is always right even when its wrong. Just because ISD deleted some of my posts does not mean I am in the wrong, it just means one person with a delete button has taken a different view to my own. Of course I take it personally as I happen to believe I have not broken any rules. You should not believe that ISD are always right.
You aren't allowed to post rants or "I'm quitting posts".
The latter is only permitted in OOPE, and the former is not permitted at all.
It's not "opinions", you were in the wrong.
Now, if you wish to amend that with remuneration towards certain parties, be my guest. But if you ask me you are over reacting. The industry changes streamline the manufacturing process, the new interface is the best it has ever been among other things.
And the freighter changes are hardly the end of the world, especially compared to the original iteration. Now, they are straight up getting buffed. Before they were eating an across the board nerf only fixable with expensive rigs. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
170
|
Posted - 2014.05.29 23:36:00 -
[2590] - Quote
As someone who lives in highsec, and stays here most of the time, we've had it easy..
I mean outside of producing supers, nullsec has virtually NO industry.. Why? Because what's the point.. Highsec could do it cheaper, with less risk, and a very high degree of reliability..
I mean why should's a Nullsec outpost be at LEAST as good as a Highsec one, and without the NPC corp tax? Why should we you be able to move and refine modules easier than the minerals that went into it? The nerfs to refining only really affect mission runners anyway, as mining itself is getting buffed to makeup for the losses in refining efficiency.. If you have PERFECT refining skills, you actually come out better in highsec than you did before (except refining loot)..
I have a feeling you haven't read through ALL the changes.. and I can't blame you, there are a LOT.. And it's a lot of math and figuring it out.. but with the exception of reprocessing modules, there's no real nerf to highsec. It's changing, don't get me wrong, a lot of changes, but the the final numbers are near identical.. What is changing is there are buffs to low/wh/nullsec.
Also, I think you overestimate the changes anyway.. Just because industry is viable in Null doesn't mean that Goons, and the others are just gonna start doing it all themselves.. They aren't.. I mean there will be more down there than before, but in the grand scheme, the people down there are there for pvp, they don't want to build stuff.. They are gonna get it/import it from Highsec.
Grand scheme, theres some skills you need to max out that you didn't need to before.. other than that.. it's not the end of the world. Just like changing the Rattlesnake to only use 2 Drones isn't the end of the world, as much as I still hate it lol I'll adapt, or change ships.. C'est la vie. |
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1594
|
Posted - 2014.05.29 23:51:00 -
[2591] - Quote
Dibble Dabble wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:dibble if u break the rules, post gets removed. simple as. dnt take it personally, it happens.
ppl on both sides have expressed themselves within the rules, u can too. Thanks for the input. ISD do their best but they don't always get it right. Its their opinion V my opinion. Their opinion is always right even when its wrong. Just because ISD deleted some of my posts does not mean I am in the wrong, it just means one person with a delete button has taken a different view to my own. Of course I take it personally as I happen to believe I have not broken any rules. You should not believe that ISD are always right.
dnt think of it as whos right or wrong. take it as a strong suggestion to re-word ur opinions, and pay attention to the rules when re-writing.
ive had several 'opinions' deleted by Ezwal. but i dnt think he hates me...or at least i hope not. And dnt be surprised if all these posts are deleted too. discussing forum moderation is prohibited. 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" |
Dibble Dabble
Capital Assets Inc
23
|
Posted - 2014.05.30 00:04:00 -
[2592] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald
I was not aware that "This game is so bad I have decided to quit and spend my money with a supplier that can best meet my needs as a customer" was against the rules.
I was not aware I could not say "this patch is bad for Eve and will be another nail in its coffin" was also against the rules.
As a customer I think I can tell CCP how their changes will impact the game i.e. less people playing including this account. I think I can also say that I believe this patch will make the game worse. Remember I am customer, a paying customer and whilst I will continue to play I will be playing with fewer characters and this is a direct result of the changes coming in over the coming months. Its called an opinion and I see it as a duty to share my concerns with CCP, if only ISD will let me.
If ISD want to sling me a mail telling me where my posts have broken the rules then maybe I will pay attention to them. As it happens they have cut and pasted a rather bland bit of text so to be honest I am none the wiser as to the errors I made. The result is a confused and irritated paying customer.
As you are not a member of ISD and I suspect did not read my posts then whilst I welcome your input I don't feel your are in a position to comment any further and I request you keep your comments to the topic.
The industry changes will make some thing easier for sure. The problem is that high sec industry will have to pay a significant premium to exist and the use of POS Labs will be suicidal due to security. Moving BPO's around empire to find "cheap" slots will also increase risk whilst the rewards will be far less. If your a small corp with maybe 20 or 30 BPO's maybe not a problem but when you have over 1000 BPO's it makes life rather complex. So much so we have decided to mothball our industry corps, liquidate our assets and do something else, anything else but industry. We know we are not alone in this.
As for the freighters we moved 20-30 freighters a week at times. We got thought a lot of minerals and ice and they take some shifting. Not our problem anymore. |
Flyinghotpocket
Amarrian Vengeance Team Amarrica
399
|
Posted - 2014.05.30 00:20:00 -
[2593] - Quote
CCP you need to make all these freighters armor tanked. otherwise nobody is gonna be flying the shield ones because the provi gets huge armor tank even more than structure tanking.
if you read these threads as you claim you will heed this advice. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6580
|
Posted - 2014.05.30 00:20:00 -
[2594] - Quote
Dibble Dabble wrote:Kaarous Aldurald
I was not aware that "This game is so bad I have decided to quit and spend my money with a supplier that can best meet my needs as a customer" was against the rules.
I was not aware I could not say "this patch is bad for Eve and will be another nail in its coffin" was also against the rules.
They both are. Even if they weren't explicitly, they would fall under the "post constructively" clause. No matter how much of a "paying customer" you are, that does not entitle you to a damned thing beyond your user agreement. No one here cares.
Oh, and as Daichi mentioned, discussing moderation is also against the rules.
And if you guys are quitting industry, good. That was kind of the point of these changes. To make people who can't be asked to put in the effort, have to give way to people who want to. To remove people just like you, who have served as a barrier to entry for newer industrialists for some time now. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Dibble Dabble
Capital Assets Inc
23
|
Posted - 2014.05.30 00:28:00 -
[2595] - Quote
Sniper Smith wrote:As someone who lives in highsec, and stays here most of the time, we've had it easy..
I mean outside of producing supers, nullsec has virtually NO industry.. Why? Because what's the point.. Highsec could do it cheaper, with less risk, and a very high degree of reliability..
I mean why should's a Nullsec outpost be at LEAST as good as a Highsec one, and without the NPC corp tax? Why should we you be able to move and refine modules easier than the minerals that went into it? The nerfs to refining only really affect mission runners anyway, as mining itself is getting buffed to makeup for the losses in refining efficiency.. If you have PERFECT refining skills, you actually come out better in highsec than you did before (except refining loot)..
I have a feeling you haven't read through ALL the changes.. and I can't blame you, there are a LOT.. And it's a lot of math and figuring it out.. but with the exception of reprocessing modules, there's no real nerf to highsec. It's changing, don't get me wrong, a lot of changes, but the the final numbers are near identical.. What is changing is there are buffs to low/wh/nullsec.
Also, I think you overestimate the changes anyway.. Just because industry is viable in Null doesn't mean that Goons, and the others are just gonna start doing it all themselves.. They aren't.. I mean there will be more down there than before, but in the grand scheme, the people down there are there for pvp, they don't want to build stuff.. They are gonna get it/import it from Highsec.
Grand scheme, theres some skills you need to max out that you didn't need to before.. other than that.. it's not the end of the world. Just like changing the Rattlesnake to only use 2 Drones isn't the end of the world, as much as I still hate it lol I'll adapt, or change ships.. C'est la vie.
Lets take your 1st point. No industry in null sec. I would class PI as industry, its sure more rewarding that empire PI and very popular form of passive income for many null sec members. Also helps with POS fuel. Lets get to the POS and Moon. Lots of moon industry in null sec maybe because they have the best moons. Quite a bit of mining going on as they have the best roids and lets not forget about ICE. So there is no industry in null sec other than the best PI, the best roids and the best Moons.
Lets look at PVE. Lots of nice PVE going on, maybe because they got the best PVE rewards.
Sure no one is going to make ammo and crap mods in null sec the limited factories are full making PVE and PVP ships. That may well change when there are more factories and workers available for production.
You say that empire is not changing? Maybe empire was a tad easy before but the changes are going to far. We will not put BPO's in a POS, we will not fly around with 5 bil of BPO's simply to find a cheaper station and we will not move 5 freighters of minerals and moon goo to make a few ships that will be made so much cheaper in null sec. The type of ships we made will be made in null sec a good client has told as much. We were invited to join them but only one of our rabble is considering it. I am not sure they will be making T2 mods but neither did we.
So null sec will have the best Roids, Moons, Rats, PI and factories. This make Empire what exactly? Shite is the answer.
We will do something else but I really don't think we will be around for long, the fire is slowly going out, the world cup starts in 2 weeks and the beer gardens may just be more fun.
|
Dibble Dabble
Capital Assets Inc
23
|
Posted - 2014.05.30 00:47:00 -
[2596] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Dibble Dabble wrote:Kaarous Aldurald
I was not aware that "This game is so bad I have decided to quit and spend my money with a supplier that can best meet my needs as a customer" was against the rules.
I was not aware I could not say "this patch is bad for Eve and will be another nail in its coffin" was also against the rules.
They both are. Even if they weren't explicitly, they would fall under the "post constructively" clause. No matter how much of a "paying customer" you are, that does not entitle you to a damned thing beyond your user agreement. No one here cares. Oh, and as Daichi mentioned, discussing moderation is also against the rules. And if you guys are quitting industry, good. That was kind of the point of these changes. To make people who can't be asked to put in the effort, have to give way to people who want to. To remove people just like you, who have served as a barrier to entry for newer industrialists for some time now.
Any organisation who does not value and respect the opinion of their customers is a damn poor one.
Your opinion that CCP would deliberately make changes to force long established players to quit is an interesting idea. I have never come across that before in any field. Most organisations usually see their long established players as being their bread and butter income but maybe the idea will catch on with Apple, Ford and other organisations who want to change their customer base.
We have made our ISK, tonnes of it and will now become consumers for as long as we can be bothered and as long as it lasts. When its gone its gone.
I take it you do not care. This saddens me but I will not lose any sleep. I post here because I care.
You seem to have dim view on ISD and an interesting take on rule breakers maybe the police can adopt it. You have broken the law, we have deleted the evidence, we are not telling your what you did wrong, we will not discuss it, you can not discuss it, you are guilty? Sounds like it could work. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6580
|
Posted - 2014.05.30 00:51:00 -
[2597] - Quote
Dibble Dabble wrote: Any organisation who does not value and respect the opinion of their customers is a damn poor one.
One of the most harmful lies I have ever heard is that all opinions are equal and of equal merit.
I would address the rest of your post but it's just ranting. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
171
|
Posted - 2014.05.30 00:55:00 -
[2598] - Quote
This is why things are changing:
http://web.ccpgamescdn.com/newssystem/media/64511/1/productionVsDestruction2012_HQ.png http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/65749/1/productionVsDestruction_2013.png
Production.. look at Nullsec.. there is none. Outside of some minor stuff, and supers..
Sorry if you're losing business, but that's Broken. |
Dibble Dabble
Capital Assets Inc
23
|
Posted - 2014.05.30 01:03:00 -
[2599] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Dibble Dabble wrote: Any organisation who does not value and respect the opinion of their customers is a damn poor one.
One of the most harmful lies I have ever heard is that all opinions are equal and of equal merit. I would address the rest of your post but it's just ranting.
Its not a rant I can assure you. I was simply destroying your argument in a polite and constructive manner trying not to insult you.
You made a point that the patch was, in part, designed to force people like myself and my friends to quit. I was simply trying to illustrate that maybe this was not something CCP would deliberately intend and I would be surprised if any organisation would do such a thing. You can't address this issue as I am sure on reflection you realise that maybe you made a mistake
All organisations should value and respect the opinion of its consumers. The organisation may not agree with the customer but the fact a customer has expressed an opinion should be noted. CCP have created these boards just for that very reason and use ISD and others to moderate them so that matters do not get out of hand.
I would agree that my opinion will have no merit with CCP as they have decided on the direction they will take. But if a 1000 people have similar view and 1000 industry accounts lie dormant every week then maybe CCP will review the negative feedback at a later date? Of course if 2000 new accounts are created because the game offers something for new players then CCP can say their changes made Eve better.
|
Dibble Dabble
Capital Assets Inc
23
|
Posted - 2014.05.30 01:10:00 -
[2600] - Quote
I would agree with you. Null sec production is not attractive and for good reason. But null sec industry is very much alive. As I said, mining, PI, Ice, Moons. Null sec is the best for industry but not production. Now it will have the best production as well. Win Win Null Sec.
As I said we are not losing business, we no longer have one. We just have a shed load of ISK and assets and 15 less accounts to plex, We were spending 40bil a week sometimes more on raw materials. Life just got a lot simpler.
|
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6580
|
Posted - 2014.05.30 01:12:00 -
[2601] - Quote
Dibble Dabble wrote: Its not a rant I can assure you. I was simply destroying your argument in a polite and constructive manner trying not to insult you.
No, you weren't actually. You were making inappropriate comparisons to real life, and wildly missing the mark.
Quote:
All organisations should value and respect the opinion of its consumers.
Fundamentally untrue. If their opinion is not of merit, it should be discarded outright.
Quote: I would agree that my opinion will have no merit with CCP as they have decided on the direction they will take. But if a 1000 people have similar view and 1000 industry accounts lie dormant every week then maybe CCP will review the negative feedback at a later date? Of course if 2000 new accounts are created because the game offers something for new players then CCP can say their changes made Eve better.
I can tell you, straight up, you are over-estimating your own importance in this regard. Opening up industry to the wider playerbase is not a bad thing. Highsec has, for far too long, had a stranglehold over industrial production in every single way possible. The only exception is capital production, which cannot be done in highsec.
Something MUST change. This stagnation cannot be allowed to continue.
If your sub is the price of the balance finally being redressed, if having some small part of the overwhelming advantage you previously held taken away is where you draw the line, so be it. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
171
|
Posted - 2014.05.30 01:26:00 -
[2602] - Quote
I'll put money on the fact that the two maps I linked above, next year the Industry map will look more like it does currently, and less like the destruction map :p
You over-estimate how well industry will do in Null.. Most of it will continue to be done in Highsec cause it's easier. It's safer. Some will move down there, but rest assured, it will be the Minority.
Most ice comes from Highsec. Most ORE comes from highsec. Most will continue to be produced in Highsec. |
Dibble Dabble
Capital Assets Inc
23
|
Posted - 2014.05.30 01:28:00 -
[2603] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Dibble Dabble wrote: Its not a rant I can assure you. I was simply destroying your argument in a polite and constructive manner trying not to insult you.
No, you weren't actually. You were making inappropriate comparisons to real life, and wildly missing the mark. Quote:
All organisations should value and respect the opinion of its consumers.
Fundamentally untrue. If their opinion is not of merit, it should be discarded outright. Quote: I would agree that my opinion will have no merit with CCP as they have decided on the direction they will take. But if a 1000 people have similar view and 1000 industry accounts lie dormant every week then maybe CCP will review the negative feedback at a later date? Of course if 2000 new accounts are created because the game offers something for new players then CCP can say their changes made Eve better.
I can tell you, straight up, you are over-estimating your own importance in this regard. Opening up industry to the wider playerbase is not a bad thing. Highsec has, for far too long, had a stranglehold over industrial production in every single way possible. The only exception is capital production, which cannot be done in highsec. Something MUST change. This stagnation cannot be allowed to continue. If your sub is the price of the balance finally being redressed, if having some small part of the overwhelming advantage you previously held taken away is where you draw the line, so be it.
CCP are a real life organisation, they exist in the real work and make commercial decisions. I was comparing real life with real life and my comparison was fair and valid. No organisation in their right mind would want to lose long standing profitable customers. You may be happy to see the back of me and I can live with that.
I have no illusion that I have any importance what so ever, I am just your non entity, I have played eve for over 10 years and never caused CCP any problems with the expectation of a warning for telling a ganker to xxxxx off and a bit more in local. I do not for one minute think CCP care about the lost 15 accounts, we never actually spent any money just plex for the last few years.
I maintain I do not believe the changes will encourage many to venture into high sec industry as I believe null sec will dominate over most things other than T1 ships and ammo and maybe small T2 mods. I believe that Eve will be a worse place than it is now and CCP will regret the changes. I am also prepared to admit I could be wrong and time will tell. Let be honest its been many a year since the concurrent user record was broken and player numbers are not what they were.
I take it you do not work in customer services or maybe you do in a bank or tax office |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6580
|
Posted - 2014.05.30 01:29:00 -
[2604] - Quote
Sniper Smith wrote:I'll put money on the fact that the two maps I linked above, next year the Industry map will look more like it does currently, and less like the destruction map :p
You over-estimate how well industry will do in Null.. Most of it will continue to be done in Highsec cause it's easier. It's safer. Some will move down there, but rest assured, it will be the Minority.
Most ice comes from Highsec. Most ORE comes from highsec. Most will continue to be produced in Highsec.
The important thing is that it be mechanically and mathematically viable to manufacture in more than one area of space. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Mike Azariah
DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited
1181
|
Posted - 2014.05.30 06:47:00 -
[2605] - Quote
Sorry to interrupt this discussion but I came looking for a discussion of Freighter and JF's
Only comment I found relevant on this page was a request to make all of them armor tank.
I disagree. Each race has its own flavour and its own design choices. Homogenization of the freighters would negate the need for the choices and we might as well just can the lot of them and go with one Freighter and one JF both made by Ore.
I do not want that, do you?
m Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9 |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
704
|
Posted - 2014.05.30 07:14:00 -
[2606] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:Sorry to interrupt this discussion but I came looking for a discussion of Freighter and JF's
Only comment I found relevant on this page was a request to make all of them armor tank.
I disagree. Each race has its own flavour and its own design choices. Homogenization of the freighters would negate the need for the choices and we might as well just can the lot of them and go with one Freighter and one JF both made by Ore.
I do not want that, do you?
m when am i gonna get isk hardeners for my isk tanked fenrir? |
Udonor
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
59
|
Posted - 2014.05.30 08:41:00 -
[2607] - Quote
Well played. Well played.
Smooth. The simple minds won't even notice that you are actually decreasing real Freighter capabilities.
Distract them to think they are getting more carrying capacity with expanders then increase most significant cargo sizes (ore, packaged, capitals, station containers, etc) to take it away. And while the wise heads are busy saying "no net change in cargo carried" -- few notice they also gave up speed and hits to use those cargo expanders to break even. JFs can't even break even.
And then there are all those options that tempt players to accept major reduction and carrying capacity for inertial stabs etc.
Freighters were too powerful and too easily guarded. These changes will increase freighter exposure to pirates by requiring more trips and possibly spreading the protective fleets more thinly.
|
Silvetica Dian
Manson Family Advent of Fate
1060
|
Posted - 2014.05.30 10:53:00 -
[2608] - Quote
Dibble Dabble wrote:Sniper Smith wrote:ISD's are simply removing trolling or otherwise rulebreaking posts.. If you read the whole thread you'd know your position has been represented.. but it's not gonna devolve into a slapfest.. otherwise we end up with the Pirate Battleship thread that had to be locked because ISD's were deleting more posts a day than could be left, 90% of new posts were trolling, flamebate, personal attacks, or responses to those.
In short, be civil or be silent. The forums are not supposed to be Jita Local.
You can haul more if you want, or faster if you want, or in a more tanky ship if you want.. I'll take that all day long over being stuck with a ship, no fit, no choice.. No way to add a little extra tank, or speed, or cargo..
And making an attack on Null and the Alliances down there.. oh they are thrilled.. their fav change is, if you didn't notice, the fact that their fuel bills for jumping/bridging is near double overnight.. combined with the changes to JF's are no where near as good as the changes to the standard Freighter.
But sure, all the changes are a PL lot.. Grr.. Garath. Thanks for your input sniper. I am sure the ISD are following their own interpretation of their own rules and strive for consistency. It cant be easy being in ISD when most of them have characters in Eve that also have a personnel view on the changes. My heart bleeds for the null sec alliances, we know how little ISK they got and how tough it will be for them to afford their fuel bills with the crappy ice, moons and ore they have in abundance. Hell maybe they will have to work for a living or put the bot renters rent up. Maybe CCP should buff industry in null sec and screw high sec industry into the stone age just to give them a boost to ensure CCP can sell more titan battles. I don't seem to recall CCP posting a tweet about an ice belt being mined out or my old corp making 200 T2 cruisers in a week? Anyways I have a right to be able to express my anger at the changes due to come in. It may offend some people but the post is never designed to be offensive. Sadly some people are easily offended.
hiya, null sec alliance reporting in. what moons? what renters? we don't mine. not everyone in null is cfc /n3 you know. nonetheless the frieghter changes are actually good when i feared they would be awful (see rigs) the indie changes seem interesting (high sec industry funds my pvp). read, think, adapt, profit. it is better than read, tantrum, unsub. Money at its root is a form of rationing. When the richest 85 people have as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion (50% of humanity) it is clear where the source of poverty is. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/20/trickle-down-economics-broken-promise-richest-85 |
Rab See
Fool Mental Junket
72
|
Posted - 2014.05.30 11:30:00 -
[2609] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:Sorry to interrupt this discussion but I came looking for a discussion of Freighter and JF's
Only comment I found relevant on this page was a request to make all of them armor tank.
I disagree. Each race has its own flavour and its own design choices. Homogenization of the freighters would negate the need for the choices and we might as well just can the lot of them and go with one Freighter and one JF both made by Ore.
I do not want that, do you?
m
There is no choice when one of the 4 choices can armour tank using its new lowlsots, and one is so undertanked in the same way that its pointless using it.
Its not hard to see that the Fenrir/Charon will be used less. Hauling is about space and survivability, then secondly about 'speed'. Unless the shiled tankers are improved significantly in this respect, they just wont get used. They will slowly die to gankers over time and be migrated to the heavier tanked ships.
Lets just reiterate - 3 low slow Coreli ANP on the Provi/ Obelisk is a huge advantage. Tank with no penalties. It cannot be matched without gimping even more the shield tankers. The can only buff their hull, slower and smaller cargo.
Can you tell me why you would fly a Charon over a Provi?
To tackle your key question .. I do not want 'no choice', but I am being forced to choose Provi. The other two are pointless and the Obelisk is just not as good. |
tuvoksg1
Gekko's Creed
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.30 13:02:00 -
[2610] - Quote
This change sucks ass big time. I use my freighter to move my operations from region to region and at 1M capacity (with skills trained), it did that job perfectly. Now some wise guy decides to strip off 320K of that capacity - WHY?
Yeah I can add cargo expanders but that weakens and slows down the ship and the point of the freighter is that you can move your most treasured stuff around in the knowledge that only the most determined gangs will even give you a second look.
This change sucks ass big time! |
|
stoicfaux
4899
|
Posted - 2014.05.30 15:15:00 -
[2611] - Quote
Yeah, it's a bit of a nerf if you squint while looking at it sideways, in that you can't get back to the original balance of cargo+EHP in Kronos. For example:
Current Providence: * cargo: 981,570 * EHP: 193,690
Kronos Providence w/ 3xExpanders * cargo: 1,127,015 * EHP: 166,247
Kronos Providence w/ 2xExpanders * cargo: 883,933 * EHP: 182,427
Kronos Providence w/ 2xExpanders + ANP II * cargo: 883,933 * EHP: 202,669
tl;dr - Shield tankers, haw haw!
WASABI: Warp Acceleration System Ancillary Boost Injected(Gäó)
|
Kaius Fero
48
|
Posted - 2014.05.30 15:16:00 -
[2612] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:Sorry to interrupt this discussion but I came looking for a discussion of Freighter and JF's
Only comment I found relevant on this page was a request to make all of them armor tank.
I disagree. Each race has its own flavour and its own design choices. Homogenization of the freighters would negate the need for the choices and we might as well just can the lot of them and go with one Freighter and one JF both made by Ore.
I do not want that, do you?
m Really? Is that all you found in this topic? :|
Maybe because there is no actual professional hauler/logistic guy opinion let be heard, every single fuking feedback is buried in the redneck gankers vomit. Actually.. it's all about how to gank a freighter. It's like all of EVE population is living in hi sec. There is no null sec, there is no war.. everything is only about ganking non combat ships.
And best of all.. the ALOD of the week is considered this. So again.. why the CSM want the indy people to leave hi sec and build shiat in null? Maybe Mynna (10bux) can explain for retards like me why I should go to null.
|
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
704
|
Posted - 2014.05.30 15:44:00 -
[2613] - Quote
Kaius Fero wrote:Mike Azariah wrote:Sorry to interrupt this discussion but I came looking for a discussion of Freighter and JF's
Only comment I found relevant on this page was a request to make all of them armor tank.
I disagree. Each race has its own flavour and its own design choices. Homogenization of the freighters would negate the need for the choices and we might as well just can the lot of them and go with one Freighter and one JF both made by Ore.
I do not want that, do you?
m Really? Is that all you found in this topic? :| Maybe because there is no actual professional hauler/logistic guy opinion let be heard, every single fuking feedback is buried in the redneck gankers vomit. Actually.. it's all about how to gank a freighter. It's like all of EVE population is living in hi sec. There is no null sec, there is no war.. everything is only about ganking non combat ships. And best of all.. the ALOD of the week is considered this. So again.. why the CSM want the indy people to leave hi sec and build shiat in null? Maybe Mynna (10bux) can explain for retards like me why I should go to null. no one said you have to go null. In fact you might want to stay in highsec with that attitude. |
Kaius Fero
48
|
Posted - 2014.05.30 15:46:00 -
[2614] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Kaius Fero wrote:Mike Azariah wrote:Sorry to interrupt this discussion but I came looking for a discussion of Freighter and JF's
Only comment I found relevant on this page was a request to make all of them armor tank.
I disagree. Each race has its own flavour and its own design choices. Homogenization of the freighters would negate the need for the choices and we might as well just can the lot of them and go with one Freighter and one JF both made by Ore.
I do not want that, do you?
m Really? Is that all you found in this topic? :| Maybe because there is no actual professional hauler/logistic guy opinion let be heard, every single fuking feedback is buried in the redneck gankers vomit. Actually.. it's all about how to gank a freighter. It's like all of EVE population is living in hi sec. There is no null sec, there is no war.. everything is only about ganking non combat ships. And best of all.. the ALOD of the week is considered this. So again.. why the CSM want the indy people to leave hi sec and build shiat in null? Maybe Mynna (10bux) can explain for retards like me why I should go to null. no one said you have to go null. In fact you might want to stay in highsec with that attitude. Fuk you! I wana go to null. But.. gimme a reason.
Anselmo & The Illegals |
Kaius Fero
48
|
Posted - 2014.05.30 15:55:00 -
[2615] - Quote
And oh... NO.. I will no participate in ur stupid wars, I give a fuk about who you hate &shiat. I make ships so all ur ****** pilots can fly it. More enemy u have..more money I make! Anselmo & The Illegals |
GreenSeed
1018
|
Posted - 2014.05.30 18:40:00 -
[2616] - Quote
@op
both lowslots and rigs are bad ideas and this thread naught is full of good arguments to base that assertion on. so just use the subsystem code, its already there. then add subsystems only for the freighter hulls and balance them directly.
voil+á, you avoid all the balance issues of using lowslots, and the unacceptable limitations of capital rigs.
all they need is two or three subsystem slots, and 3 subsystem types, one warp speed, one racial tank, and last one agility/speed. each subsystem eating up different values of cargo and all of them using the racial industrial skill for their values.
if you make all three subsystems fit in any slot, people can mix and match subsystems to configure the freighter for what they need. and making them use the industrial skill for their stats will keep old people from bitching, since they already have the racial industrial at V due to the old freighter skill prereqs.
and as far as dev time goes, copy paste the T3 code, its fairly recent so stuff should explode for no reason. and as far as assets and UI... its already there.
i'll say the same thing i said about the T1 indus rebalance, go nuts. there's no preconception on what a freighter should be, other than "it moves stuff, lots of it" whether it be subsystems or fixed stats, people don't care so long as they still can "move a lot of stuff".
also, make the subsystems use PI stuff for manufacture. because im sitting on a lot of that crap and NOONE IS BUYING IT.
ty in advance. |
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
172
|
Posted - 2014.05.30 21:34:00 -
[2617] - Quote
GreenSeed wrote:@op
both lowslots and rigs are bad ideas and this thread naught is full of good arguments to base that assertion on. so just use the subsystem code, its already there. then add subsystems only for the freighter hulls and balance them directly.
voil+á, you avoid all the balance issues of using lowslots, and the unacceptable limitations of capital rigs.
all they need is two or three subsystem slots, and 3 subsystem types, one warp speed, one racial tank, and last one agility/speed. each subsystem eating up different values of cargo and all of them using the racial industrial skill for their values.
if you make all three subsystems fit in any slot, people can mix and match subsystems to configure the freighter for what they need. and making them use the industrial skill for their stats will keep old people from bitching, since they already have the racial industrial at V due to the old freighter skill prereqs.
and as far as dev time goes, copy paste the T3 code, its fairly recent so stuff should explode for no reason. and as far as assets and UI... its already there.
i'll say the same thing i said about the T1 indus rebalance, go nuts. there's no preconception on what a freighter should be, other than "it moves stuff, lots of it" whether it be subsystems or fixed stats, people don't care so long as they still can "move a lot of stuff".
also, make the subsystems use PI stuff for manufacture. because im sitting on a lot of that crap and NOONE IS BUYING IT.
ty in advance.
Subsystems are for T3's.. Freighters are not T3's, ergo no subsystems.
And if you can't sell your PI, you're probably doing something wrong :p
|
|
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
1460
|
Posted - 2014.05.30 22:45:00 -
[2618] - Quote
I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. As always I let some edge cases stay. Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil!
The Rules: 4. Personal attacks are prohibited.
Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.
11. Discussion of forum moderation is prohibited.
The discussion of EVE Online forum moderation actions generally leads to flaming, trolling and baiting of our ISD CCL moderators. As such, this type of discussion is strictly prohibited under the forum rules. If you have questions regarding the actions of a moderator, please file a petition under the Community & Forums Category.
26. Off-topic posting is prohibited.
Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued.
Also, I don't hate anyone. No matter who they are or on which side of the fence they stand in a discussion an any topic on this forum. As long as posts are reasonably complying to the forum rules, I am quite indifferent to which standpoint people choose to take. ISD Ezwal Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
GreenSeed
1018
|
Posted - 2014.05.30 23:59:00 -
[2619] - Quote
Sniper Smith wrote:GreenSeed wrote:@op
both lowslots and rigs are bad ideas and this thread naught is full of good arguments to base that assertion on. so just use the subsystem code, its already there. then add subsystems only for the freighter hulls and balance them directly.
voil+á, you avoid all the balance issues of using lowslots, and the unacceptable limitations of capital rigs.
all they need is two or three subsystem slots, and 3 subsystem types, one warp speed, one racial tank, and last one agility/speed. each subsystem eating up different values of cargo and all of them using the racial industrial skill for their values.
if you make all three subsystems fit in any slot, people can mix and match subsystems to configure the freighter for what they need. and making them use the industrial skill for their stats will keep old people from bitching, since they already have the racial industrial at V due to the old freighter skill prereqs.
and as far as dev time goes, copy paste the T3 code, its fairly recent so stuff should explode for no reason. and as far as assets and UI... its already there.
i'll say the same thing i said about the T1 indus rebalance, go nuts. there's no preconception on what a freighter should be, other than "it moves stuff, lots of it" whether it be subsystems or fixed stats, people don't care so long as they still can "move a lot of stuff".
also, make the subsystems use PI stuff for manufacture. because im sitting on a lot of that crap and NOONE IS BUYING IT.
ty in advance. Subsystems are for T3's.. Freighters are not T3's, ergo no subsystems. And if you can't sell your PI, you're probably doing something wrong :p
what?
i find reading posts like yours highly frustrating.
subsystems are not "for" anything, they are a special form of modules that can only fit on a particular hull. from a design and balance standpoint they are perfect because you don't have to worry about what would happen if someone decides not to fit inertia stabs, bulkheads or whatever, and instead fits a high meta resist plate.
the idea i proposed fixes that problem by using the CODE for subsystems that's already in place to force owners of freighters to choose between a predefined subset of fittings. thus, the designer already knows how much tank it can have, how fast it can align and how much it can carry and there are no variations outside of the predefined ones.
if you really need to, you can call them "Retrofits" or "hull specializations" or better yet call them "lets not get hung up in semantics and understand that the problem as presented is this: we don't want the ship to be boring, we want people to feel in control, but we don't want to create a balance nightmare where people feel they must fly one type of ship or they are terrible at eve. given the budget and time constraints we work with, we cant spend months redesigning the hull, so we work with we already have."
hows that for a name? |
Traedar
InterStellar Trading Syndicate
26
|
Posted - 2014.05.31 00:12:00 -
[2620] - Quote
I think that giving freighters low slots and not giving them access to a DCU is a bit underwhelming of a change.
Also it is pretty well known they are very gankable and carrying more than a couple bil in the cargo is taking a chance. So you give it less EHP? Boggle.
|
|
poeetje
Aliastra Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.31 00:44:00 -
[2621] - Quote
hi I think you need to take a look at the number for the charon freighters because by my number it should read 430000 not 465000 |
Scynonymz
Industrial Combat Mercenaries
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.31 01:00:00 -
[2622] - Quote
Traedar wrote:I think that giving freighters low slots and not giving them access to a DCU is a bit underwhelming of a change.
Also it is pretty well known they are very gankable and carrying more than a couple bil in the cargo is taking a chance. So you give it less EHP? Boggle.
Yeah.. why give them 100% CPU reduction to Reinforced Bulkheads and not just 100% CPU reduction to modules requiring Hull Upgrades? |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1187
|
Posted - 2014.05.31 01:09:00 -
[2623] - Quote
Scynonymz wrote:Traedar wrote:I think that giving freighters low slots and not giving them access to a DCU is a bit underwhelming of a change.
Also it is pretty well known they are very gankable and carrying more than a couple bil in the cargo is taking a chance. So you give it less EHP? Boggle.
Yeah.. why give them 100% CPU reduction to Reinforced Bulkheads and not just 100% CPU reduction to modules requiring Hull Upgrades? Because they specifically don't want them fitting DCU's would be my guess. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
707
|
Posted - 2014.05.31 01:13:00 -
[2624] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Scynonymz wrote:Traedar wrote:I think that giving freighters low slots and not giving them access to a DCU is a bit underwhelming of a change.
Also it is pretty well known they are very gankable and carrying more than a couple bil in the cargo is taking a chance. So you give it less EHP? Boggle.
Yeah.. why give them 100% CPU reduction to Reinforced Bulkheads and not just 100% CPU reduction to modules requiring Hull Upgrades? Because they specifically don't want them fitting DCU's would be my guess. What he said.
1 DCUII > 3 bulkheads. And still allow for other mods. |
Sgt Ocker
Last Bastion of Freedom
237
|
Posted - 2014.05.31 01:38:00 -
[2625] - Quote
Sniper Smith wrote:GreenSeed wrote:@op
both lowslots and rigs are bad ideas and this thread naught is full of good arguments to base that assertion on. so just use the subsystem code, its already there. then add subsystems only for the freighter hulls and balance them directly.
voil+á, you avoid all the balance issues of using lowslots, and the unacceptable limitations of capital rigs.
all they need is two or three subsystem slots, and 3 subsystem types, one warp speed, one racial tank, and last one agility/speed. each subsystem eating up different values of cargo and all of them using the racial industrial skill for their values.
if you make all three subsystems fit in any slot, people can mix and match subsystems to configure the freighter for what they need. and making them use the industrial skill for their stats will keep old people from bitching, since they already have the racial industrial at V due to the old freighter skill prereqs.
and as far as dev time goes, copy paste the T3 code, its fairly recent so stuff should explode for no reason. and as far as assets and UI... its already there.
i'll say the same thing i said about the T1 indus rebalance, go nuts. there's no preconception on what a freighter should be, other than "it moves stuff, lots of it" whether it be subsystems or fixed stats, people don't care so long as they still can "move a lot of stuff".
also, make the subsystems use PI stuff for manufacture. because im sitting on a lot of that crap and NOONE IS BUYING IT.
ty in advance. Subsystems are for T3's.. Freighters are not T3's, ergo no subsystems. And if you can't sell your PI, you're probably doing something wrong :p Subsystem is the most viable and "fair" balance proposal but is not as straight forward and easily implemented as low slots.
Jump Freighters - The available choices are not "real choices" for many jump freighter pilots. Maximum cargo capacity is the only real option they have. Players aren't suddenly going to start paying 100% more to have things moved via JF. I don't fly a JF to be nice, I fly it to make isk. As a Rhea pilot I have 2 choices here - Lose 50% income - Or - Earn the same income and be the highest risk JF. 112,500 shield with next to no resist and no way to increase them is just very POOR balance.
When balancing, T 2 ships they are all balanced individually, shield ships have more shield slots and less armor slots. Not all lowslots and NO tanking slots.
Here we have 4 different factions being balanced the same way (poorly) with only 2 of the 4 having the ability to fit optimally.
The only real way Jump Freighters can be "Balanced" is - Rigs or Subsystems. Subsystems are by far the best option - These are T2 ships, so 2 Subsystem slots is not moving away from T2 functionality.
Subsystems could be, 1, Shield - Passive Invul > 25% increase to all resists > - 25% to cargo capacity 2, Armor - Adaptive Nano > 25% increase to all resists > -25% to cargo capacity 3, Cargo - Cargo Hold Optimizer > 50% increase to cargo capacity > -25% to speed, -2% agility 4, Covert Align > Ship will remain passively cloaked for an additional 5 seconds while aligning > only 1 can be installed, -37.5% to cargo capacity 5, Escape Velocity > 500% increase to speed for 5 seconds > only 1 can be installed, -37.5% Cargo capacity
How did subsystems for freighters come about? New technology has been discovered, which will lead to major changes to the way the largest haulers are utilized.
A small group of enterprising young capsuleers have discovered new components through salvaging large, so far unidentified wrecks, in previously unknown space. Through reverse engineering, it was found these components could be made into subsystems suitable for use on freighters. Due to the nature and limited availability of these new modules, they are expected to fetch extremely high prices. It has also been discovered through testing that there is a possibility these modules will drop as loot if the ship they a on is destroyed. They are often damaged when the ship is destroyed which requires repair before they can be reused. Thankfully the repair can be carried out by obtaining a repair BPC, these BPC's are generated as a by product of the reverse engineering. The cost of repair is estimated to be around 50% of the actual build cost, this is made possible due to the skill of the original capsuleers when reverse engineering the primary components. The main components of these subsystems are rare and will be extremely expensive but the secondary items, required for manufacturing & repair are readily available T2 salvage items.
I could go on but your already bored and hate the idea, like it (but don't want to read my ramblings), or just don't care either way. My opinions are mine. -á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-áIf you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK. Just don't bother Hating - I don't care.. |
Celly S
Concord Attraction Services The Ditanian Alliance
271
|
Posted - 2014.05.31 02:35:00 -
[2626] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Ramona Quimby wrote:all you who were saying if freighters were given rigs then everyone would be sorry because it would be a nerf. not sure if you noticed; but they did get a nerf. that's why there were 60 pages of whining, and ccp had to change it for low slots.
Which Kinda sucks because I went and bought 4 BPOs only to later read about the change... *sigh*
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. |
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
172
|
Posted - 2014.05.31 03:10:00 -
[2627] - Quote
GreenSeed wrote:if you really need to, you can call them "Retrofits" or "hull specializations" or better yet call them "lets not get hung up in semantics and understand that the problem as presented is this: we don't want the ship to be boring, we want people to feel in control, but we don't want to create a balance nightmare where people feel they must fly one type of ship or they are terrible at eve. given the budget and time constraints we work with, we cant spend months redesigning the hull, so we work with we already have."
hows that for a name? Your "problem" doesn't exist.
The changes as proposed are fine, far better than Rigs were, and the whole Subsystem idea, which IS for T3's, that's what they are coded around, is just silly.. You want to use a system T3's use, in a way they don't use them.. then say it's simple cause the code is new.. no.. what you're asking for is a whole new form of slot that isn't needed.
All the issues are addressed by lowslots.. If needed CCP can add more low slot items like they are with Jump Fuel Conservation, and with the Warpspeed, but wanting them to white up a whole new system for a non-issue for ships used by a very small amount of New Eden is silly.
The ships are fine, you pick the hull for cargo, agility, speed, or tank, then you fit it the way you want.. more tank less space, more space less tank, more warp speed, more agility.. you pick.. No new mods to invent, research, manufacture, etc [well some new ones, but those are for things they couldn't do in the first place..].
No what you are asking for is for a whole new slot to be added, with new modules, new balance to be tested, all for one class of ship.. Then you want to push it to the live server, which means if, like subs you REQUIRE them for the ship to do anything, means no freighters can do anything for the weeks and months it takes to manufacture the modules, that will be sold at costs that make current capital rigs look cheap.. all so I can do what I can do right now on Sisi with 3 low slots.
The fact you can fit a few BAD armor mods on ships doesn't make them viable for tanking. They add **** all to the EHP, and are far worse than a bulkhead. There's no special advancement that the Armor ships are getting over shield ones.. I will have no problem continuing to fly my Charon on the 3rd.. I will have a problem flying my Fenrir, but that's just because it's still gonna be an ugly ass sandcrawler.
You're taking edge case scenarios, that no one out side of EFT users give a hoot about, and trying to make a big deal about it. By your logic there are only 2 Freighters used now, most cargo, and most tank.. why would anyone use the others ? Yet I know for a fact they are all widely used.
And the idea that there's only one JF used is just as silly.. sure the tank and the like isn't as big an issue, but the FUEL is.. Many people pick their JF by Fuel type, be it the type they already use for their caps/supers, or the one most available in their region of space.
Pull your heads out of stats and look around Eve.. Eve in the few cases where there really is a truly OPTIMAL ship to use, it's still not used by everyone.. Even when the Procuror was the most useless ship in Eve, I had no problems selling them. And that's when using that ship was bad on every level.. You're arguing about such minor differences only 12 people notice, and I bet half of them don't even use the ships in question. |
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
172
|
Posted - 2014.05.31 03:15:00 -
[2628] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Scynonymz wrote:Traedar wrote:I think that giving freighters low slots and not giving them access to a DCU is a bit underwhelming of a change.
Also it is pretty well known they are very gankable and carrying more than a couple bil in the cargo is taking a chance. So you give it less EHP? Boggle.
Yeah.. why give them 100% CPU reduction to Reinforced Bulkheads and not just 100% CPU reduction to modules requiring Hull Upgrades? Because they specifically don't want them fitting DCU's would be my guess. Correct.
If you get DCU II's, then CCP is taking away 2/3rd of the base tank, meaning you ALWAYS need to have a DCU II, or be hauling stuff so cheap you should probably just trash it. They are not gonna make freighters invincible, or nearly so. The way it is now you can already get more tank than you ever could before. Just be happy with that, and be happy it's not Rigs that you can't swap (and cost as much as your Freighter) or some silly subsystems that won't be available for weeks or months, and will cost more JF's do for months if not years.. |
Christopher Mabata
Dominion Tenebrarum New Eden's Misfits Alliance
10
|
Posted - 2014.05.31 03:41:00 -
[2629] - Quote
As underwhelming as it may seem a T2 Damage Control on a freighter would give it too much tank, especially with 2 RF Bulkheads attached to supplement. You may be moving valuable cargo and across long distances but you don't need 60-80% of the Hull hit-points of an Unfitted carrier in total. Not for a 1.2 Bil Cargo hold with an engine and optional Jump Drive that comes with a free cool paint job.
Lets admit it, most normal freighters don't leave high sec space, where they don't need that kind of tank, if anything jump freighters should be able to fit them because despite their situation they are still in more danger than a normal freighter going from Jita to Amarr 6 times a day.
There has to Risk involved in everything you do in EVE, if your really that concerned about a gank be smart about it and take steps to better protect such an investment. You know like don't go through Niarja with 6,000,000,000 In Cargo during prime time?
Just a thought Christopher "The Mabata" CEO, Black Ops Admiral, And Head US TZ Diplo Dominion Tenebrarum / New Eden's Misfits Alliance / The Dark Corner Coalition |
Sgt Ocker
Last Bastion of Freedom
237
|
Posted - 2014.05.31 04:53:00 -
[2630] - Quote
Sniper Smith wrote:GreenSeed wrote:if you really need to, you can call them "Retrofits" or "hull specializations" or better yet call them "lets not get hung up in semantics and understand that the problem as presented is this: we don't want the ship to be boring, we want people to feel in control, but we don't want to create a balance nightmare where people feel they must fly one type of ship or they are terrible at eve. given the budget and time constraints we work with, we cant spend months redesigning the hull, so we work with we already have."
hows that for a name? Your "problem" doesn't exist. The changes as proposed are fine, far better than Rigs were, and the whole Subsystem idea, which IS for T3's, that's what they are coded around, is just silly.. You want to use a system T3's use, in a way they don't use them.. then say it's simple cause the code is new.. no.. what you're asking for is a whole new form of slot that isn't needed. All the issues are addressed by lowslots.. If needed CCP can add more low slot items like they are with Jump Fuel Conservation, and with the Warpspeed, but wanting them to white up a whole new system for a non-issue for ships used by a very small amount of New Eden is silly. The ships are fine, you pick the hull for cargo, agility, speed, or tank, then you fit it the way you want.. more tank less space, more space less tank, more warp speed, more agility.. you pick.. The fact you can fit a few BAD armor mods on ships doesn't make them viable for tanking. They add **** all to the EHP, and are far worse than a bulkhead. And the idea that there's only one JF used is just as silly.. sure the tank and the like isn't as big an issue, but the FUEL is.. Many people pick their JF by Fuel type, be it the type they already use for their caps/supers, or the one most available in their region of space. So your saying a Jump Freighter with 669,626 EHP resist profile of E78.3% T71.8% K71.5% X73.9% is no better off than one with, 583,129 EHP, resist profile E50.0% T35.0% K34.4% X40.0%. NB; Both profiles are the same max skill jump freighter, both max tank fits,1 fit for Armor, the other fit for hull.
Sorry but I think you need to take a lesson in how tanking works. Those "BAD" armor mods (adaptive nano plating) add 86k EHP, more than T2 bulkheads and increase the chances of survival enormously.
Why is it not possible to create subsystems for Freighters? You say "because they are for T3's" - How did T3's come about? Why should T3's be the "only" ships able to fit subsystems?
What is so hard about asking CCP (who have people who write code and invent new things for a living) to do something new (mobile depots, mobile tractor units, micro jump drives, etc) and create a subsystem platform suitable for freighters? Is it because they don't have time? Or because it is too hard? Or just because you say it is not needed?
People pick the best ship for their needs, if you do logistics for a large alliance, you want a JF that has the most cargo space. Whether your super uses the same fuel as your JF is not a big deal. Naglfar and Moros are the 2 favoured Dreads, Archon is the favoured Carrier. I have and use 1 of each but use a Rhea for a JF because when I am doing logistics, I want to be able to carry as much as possible. What fuel it uses is secondary, why add to the already high risk of moving JF's around by having to do a 2nd trip because you couldn't fit as much in. As for using the most readily available fuel, I and many other JF pilots cover a LOT of space, what is most readily available in my home system is not so readily available where i operate most.
There is an opportunity here for Devs to do something unique, add something new to TQ that involves more than just T2 blueprint - It would add new exploration, add a new facet to Reverse Engineering, create valid choices for freighter pilots, add to the income of those who hunt freighters for a living and more.
I chose the Rhea as my base due to having 1 and knowing what I expect and would like from it but the same applies to every freighter. Right now 4 of the 8 available T1 and T2 freighters have a real choice in how they fit, why not do something new and give all freighters real and valid choices?
Time delay of subsystems becoming available is not an issue, CCP have delayed introducing updates in the past. Freighters could easily continue on as they do now for a few more months. None of the proposed changes are set in stone and simply because you see them as acceptable doesn't mean they are the best option or can't be changed. Originally freighters were to be given rigs, now it is lowslots, why not subsystems (or even call them removable rigs if it helps with your T3 issue) I'm looking at something new that could add content - Your saying, it can't be done. That is a little narrow minded My opinions are mine. -á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-áIf you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK. Just don't bother Hating - I don't care.. |
|
Christopher Mabata
Dominion Tenebrarum New Eden's Misfits Alliance
10
|
Posted - 2014.05.31 05:00:00 -
[2631] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Sniper Smith wrote:GreenSeed wrote:if you really need to, you can call them "Retrofits" or "hull specializations" or better yet call them "lets not get hung up in semantics and understand that the problem as presented is this: we don't want the ship to be boring, we want people to feel in control, but we don't want to create a balance nightmare where people feel they must fly one type of ship or they are terrible at eve. given the budget and time constraints we work with, we cant spend months redesigning the hull, so we work with we already have."
hows that for a name? Your "problem" doesn't exist. The changes as proposed are fine, far better than Rigs were, and the whole Subsystem idea, which IS for T3's, that's what they are coded around, is just silly.. You want to use a system T3's use, in a way they don't use them.. then say it's simple cause the code is new.. no.. what you're asking for is a whole new form of slot that isn't needed. All the issues are addressed by lowslots.. If needed CCP can add more low slot items like they are with Jump Fuel Conservation, and with the Warpspeed, but wanting them to white up a whole new system for a non-issue for ships used by a very small amount of New Eden is silly. The ships are fine, you pick the hull for cargo, agility, speed, or tank, then you fit it the way you want.. more tank less space, more space less tank, more warp speed, more agility.. you pick.. The fact you can fit a few BAD armor mods on ships doesn't make them viable for tanking. They add **** all to the EHP, and are far worse than a bulkhead. And the idea that there's only one JF used is just as silly.. sure the tank and the like isn't as big an issue, but the FUEL is.. Many people pick their JF by Fuel type, be it the type they already use for their caps/supers, or the one most available in their region of space. So your saying a Jump Freighter with 669,626 EHP resist profile of E78.3% T71.8% K71.5% X73.9% is no better off than one with, 583,129 EHP, resist profile E50.0% T35.0% K34.4% X40.0%. NB; Both profiles are the same max skill jump freighter, both max tank fits,1 fit for Armor, the other fit for hull. Sorry but I think you need to take a lesson in how tanking works. Those "BAD" armor mods (adaptive nano plating) add 86k EHP, more than T2 bulkheads and increase the chances of survival enormously. Why is it not possible to create subsystems for Freighters? You say "because they are for T3's" - How did T3's come about? Why should T3's be the "only" ships able to fit subsystems? What is so hard about asking CCP (who have people who write code and invent new things for a living) to do something new (mobile depots, mobile tractor units, micro jump drives, etc) and create a subsystem platform suitable for freighters? Is it because they don't have time? Or because it is too hard? Or just because you say it is not needed? People pick the best ship for their needs, if you do logistics for a large alliance, you want a JF that has the most cargo space. Whether your super uses the same fuel as your JF is not a big deal. Naglfar and Moros are the 2 favoured Dreads, Archon is the favoured Carrier. I have and use 1 of each but use a Rhea for a JF because when I am doing logistics, I want to be able to carry as much as possible. What fuel it uses is secondary, why add to the already high risk of moving JF's around by having to do a 2nd trip because you couldn't fit as much in. As for using the most readily available fuel, I and many other JF pilots cover a LOT of space, what is most readily available in my home system is not so readily available where i operate most. There is an opportunity here for Devs to do something unique, add something new to TQ that involves more than just T2 blueprint - It would add new exploration, add a new facet to Reverse Engineering, create valid choices for freighter pilots, add to the income of those who hunt freighters for a living and more. I chose the Rhea as my base due to having 1 and knowing what I expect and would like from it but the same applies to every freighter. Right now 4 of the 8 available T1 and T2 freighters have a real choice in how they fit, why not do something new and give all freighters real and valid choices? Time delay of subsystems becoming available is not an issue, CCP have delayed introducing updates in the past. Freighters could easily continue on as they do now for a few more months. None of the proposed changes are set in stone and simply because you see them as acceptable doesn't mean they are the best option or can't be changed. Originally freighters were to be given rigs, now it is lowslots, why not subsystems (or even call them removable rigs if it helps with your T3 issue) I'm looking at something new that could add content - Your saying, it can't be done. That is a little narrow minded
========= If you realized how sub-systems came about you would know it was the reverse engineering of Sleeper technology that lead to an evolution of fitting and designing ship platforms, specifically on cruiser sized hulls. Ship platforms built off of Certain fullerides and requiring reverse engineered sleeper tech. All of which freighters do not require in the current meta, so to give freighters subs not only would make no sense ( as subsystems offer bonuses to mods fitted to ships such as weapons or propulsion ((Which freighters don't have ) and also change the dynamic look of the ship, which freighters dont need either )) but also requires an overhaul of their manufacturing system and in a way that stays in the confines of the lore of the game as well. You know for the RP Guys and gals out there and for balance ( Not me BTW ) Christopher "The Mabata" CEO, Black Ops Admiral, And Head US TZ Diplo Dominion Tenebrarum / New Eden's Misfits Alliance / The Dark Corner Coalition |
Sgt Ocker
Last Bastion of Freedom
237
|
Posted - 2014.05.31 05:27:00 -
[2632] - Quote
Christopher Mabata wrote: ========= If you realized how sub-systems came about you would know it was the reverse engineering of Sleeper technology that lead to an evolution of fitting and designing ship platforms, specifically on cruiser sized hulls. Ship platforms built off of Certain fullerides and requiring reverse engineered sleeper tech. All of which freighters do not require in the current meta, so to give freighters subs not only would make no sense ( as subsystems offer bonuses to mods fitted to ships such as weapons or propulsion ((Which freighters don't have ) and also change the dynamic look of the ship, which freighters dont need either )) but also requires an overhaul of their manufacturing system and in a way that stays in the confines of the lore of the game as well. You know for the RP Guys and gals out there and for balance ( Not me BTW )
Sorry but there is that narrow minded - We can't look outside the box, attitude again.
The only thing stopping freighters being given subsystems is - well nothing really. All subsystems affect different things on different ships. Why would it not be possible to create something similar for Freighters, or even Frigates for that matter.
A subsystem is just that - A SUB SYSTEM - it is not tied to "certain" fullerides or production techniques, that is a restriction you just placed on them and is not a real restriction.
Each subsystem offers a unique enhancement which is only restricted by imagination and willingness of Devs.
If it is the name "SubSystem" that is your only sticking point, by all means call them something else - The principal is sound.
If low slots are the only alternative, then make all freighters Armor and Hull tankers so the available low slots give equal benefit to all. So all 8 freighters can have valid choices, the balance needs to lend itself to all freighters being able to fit max racial tank. Or, open the box and do something new. (I vote for new) My opinions are mine. -á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-áIf you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK. Just don't bother Hating - I don't care.. |
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
172
|
Posted - 2014.05.31 05:29:00 -
[2633] - Quote
Yes making Freighters T3 would add all of those things.. and would be stupid.
I don't want to wait 6 months for people to find the tech to reverse engineer, research it, make BPC's, manufacture it, and get it in such quantities that I can afford it.
If this was some NEW line of ships, then by all means suggest it.. But this is an existing line of ships. Ships without subsystems DO NOT FUNCTION. You cannot fly it, or undock it. And day one of your grand idea, there would be 0 subsystems.. Now while that would be great if I was someone who manufactured Orca's, since I don't that would be nothing but a clusterfuckl.
Also, yes, I'm saying that that Jumpfreighter is just as screwed. If JF's get caught, they die. It's also while you'll never see one with those resists, you'll see bulkheads when it's empty moving around, and Cargo when it's not, cause it jumps from Highsec to a station cyno in low/null.. or jumps from Null to a highsec gate in low/null that's scouted and free of danger.. it'll then dock, and transfer it's cargo to regular freighters. If it's caught in Null/Low, it dies, regardless. If it's ganked in Highsec is dies, regardless.. no one flys a freighter around with Logi, and boosters, etc.. The only time it might even be a little thing is Burn Jita.. but building a game around that is stupid.
Get your heads out of EFT and back into how people actually play the game. |
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
172
|
Posted - 2014.05.31 05:36:00 -
[2634] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote: Sorry but there is that narrow minded - We can't look outside the box, attitude again.
The only thing stopping freighters being given subsystems is - well nothing really. All subsystems affect different things on different ships. Why would it not be possible to create something similar for Freighters, or even Frigates for that matter.
A subsystem is just that - A SUB SYSTEM - it is not tied to "certain" fullerides or production techniques, that is a restriction you just placed on them and is not a real restriction.
Each subsystem offers a unique enhancement which is only restricted by imagination and willingness of Devs.
If it is the name "SubSystem" that is your only sticking point, by all means call them something else - The principal is sound.
If low slots are the only alternative, then make all freighters Armor and Hull tankers so the available low slots give equal benefit to all. So all 8 freighters can have valid choices, the balance needs to lend itself to all freighters being able to fit max racial tank. Or, open the box and do something new. (I vote for new)
Well it's being released in 3 days.. so new isn't happening.
Second, you want to toss out the Lore. That's also not happening. For examples of CCP following Lore over what they "want" to do, see Mordu's Legion being Cal+Gal rather than Cal+Minm like they planned.
Last, the Subsystem Code is built around T3's, you are talking about them writing all new code, for an all new class of ship, and applying it to an existing class of ships retroactively.
Lastly, all the Freighters have their choices.. Want to max out Armor tank, do it. Nothing is stopping you.. But that hull will never also max out Cargo, or Speed..
I never want to see another ship with Subsystems.. T3's have, since their introduction, had to be rebalanced yearly because it's so hard to keep everything in check. No thanks.
Lastly, this has been talked about since Fanfest.. you come in 3 days before release and what all new.. sorry.. Shoulda been paying attention and posting day one.. Hell posting when they first announced the Hull Rigs.. |
Sgt Ocker
Last Bastion of Freedom
237
|
Posted - 2014.05.31 05:39:00 -
[2635] - Quote
Sniper Smith wrote:Yes making Freighters T3 would add all of those things.. and would be stupid.
I don't want to wait 6 months for people to find the tech to reverse engineer, research it, make BPC's, manufacture it, and get it in such quantities that I can afford it.
If this was some NEW line of ships, then by all means suggest it.. But this is an existing line of ships. Ships without subsystems DO NOT FUNCTION. You cannot fly it, or undock it. And day one of your grand idea, there would be 0 subsystems.. Now while that would be great if I was someone who manufactured Orca's, since I don't that would be nothing but a clusterfuckl.
Also, yes, I'm saying that that Jumpfreighter is just as screwed. If JF's get caught, they die. It's also while you'll never see one with those resists, you'll see bulkheads when it's empty moving around, and Cargo when it's not, cause it jumps from Highsec to a station cyno in low/null.. or jumps from Null to a highsec gate in low/null that's scouted and free of danger.. it'll then dock, and transfer it's cargo to regular freighters. If it's caught in Null/Low, it dies, regardless. If it's ganked in Highsec is dies, regardless.. no one flys a freighter around with Logi, and boosters, etc.. The only time it might even be a little thing is Burn Jita.. but building a game around that is stupid.
Get your heads out of EFT and back into how people actually play the game. If that is in fact the case, then everything in the changes is a waste of time. Devs have just wasted everyone's time by adding lowslots. That is a shame, freighters will be no better or worse than they are now. Did you even read my proposal or just get as far as the word "subsystem" and stop?
I hope that box is big enough that you don't get cramped, seems you will be in it a good while.
My opinions are mine. -á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-áIf you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK. Just don't bother Hating - I don't care.. |
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
172
|
Posted - 2014.05.31 05:45:00 -
[2636] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:If that is in fact the case, then everything in the changes is a waste of time. Devs have just wasted everyone's time by adding lowslots. That is a shame, freighters will be no better or worse than they are now.
Funny.. I consider having the option of More cargo, More tank, More Agility, More Speed, More Warp Speed, whenever I want on any freighter I want to be rather big changes..
My Charon can hold WAY more than did before, if I chose to sacrifice tank. Or be WAY more tanky than it was, if I chose to sacrifice cargo. All for the low cost of about 3mil isk.. Not whole new hulls at every station, or new rigs, or waiting a year for new subsystems or whatever you want to call them to be reverse engineered, and manufactured in numbers large enough to bring the price down to something even close to sane. My Fenrir is still Ugly.. So some things stay the same. |
Sgt Ocker
Last Bastion of Freedom
237
|
Posted - 2014.05.31 12:02:00 -
[2637] - Quote
Sniper Smith wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:If that is in fact the case, then everything in the changes is a waste of time. Devs have just wasted everyone's time by adding lowslots. That is a shame, freighters will be no better or worse than they are now.
Funny.. I consider having the option of More cargo, More tank, More Agility, More Speed, More Warp Speed, whenever I want on any freighter I want to be rather big changes.. My Charon can hold WAY more than did before, if I chose to sacrifice tank. Or be WAY more tanky than it was, if I chose to sacrifice cargo. All for the low cost of about 3mil isk.. Not whole new hulls at every station, or new rigs, or waiting a year for new subsystems or whatever you want to call them to be reverse engineered, and manufactured in numbers large enough to bring the price down to something even close to sane. My Fenrir is still Ugly.. So some things stay the same. Like I said, I hope the box you hide in is big enough to sustain & contain your narrow minded views. There is no hope at all if your "vision" of what is acceptable spreads.
My opinions are mine. -á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-áIf you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK. Just don't bother Hating - I don't care.. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6602
|
Posted - 2014.05.31 12:09:00 -
[2638] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote: Like I said, I hope the box you hide in is big enough to sustain & contain your narrow minded views. There is no hope at all if your "vision" of what is acceptable spreads.
It's hardly narrow minded at all.
The ones being narrow minded are the people trying to claim that if they can't get the exact original stats back on their freighter through some combination of modules, that the rebalance is useless.
That's myopic to the extreme. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Dibble Dabble
Capital Assets Inc
24
|
Posted - 2014.05.31 15:06:00 -
[2639] - Quote
ISD Ezwal wrote:I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. As always I let some edge cases stay. Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil! The Rules:4. Personal attacks are prohibited.
Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.11. Discussion of forum moderation is prohibited.
The discussion of EVE Online forum moderation actions generally leads to flaming, trolling and baiting of our ISD CCL moderators. As such, this type of discussion is strictly prohibited under the forum rules. If you have questions regarding the actions of a moderator, please file a petition under the Community & Forums Category. 26. Off-topic posting is prohibited.
Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued. Also, I don't hate anyone. No matter who they are or on which side of the fence they stand in a discussion on any topic on this forum. As long as posts are reasonably complying to the forum rules, I am quite indifferent to which standpoint people choose to take. (Or what corporation/alliance they reside in, their status or their Tag for that matter.)
Guess I best file a petition then, and we know how well that will go. Guilty until proved even more guilty. Wonder if your forum logs will show anything?
One fed up and disillusioned small time nobody in eve.
|
Barbara Nichole
Cryogenic Consultancy
614
|
Posted - 2014.05.31 16:31:00 -
[2640] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Barbara Nichole wrote: What have I missed? that ur not meant to be able to create the old freighters? there are ways to improve upon certain stats at the expense of others. so you are saying it's a nerf..
I'm not asking to have the base line brought back to the original.. I'm asking that we don't lose anything to gain a few low slots. It seems pretty petty to me that it would be made impossible to achieve the original stats. -á-á- remove the cloaked from local; free intel is the real problem, not-á "afk" cloaking-á-
[IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG] |
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6607
|
Posted - 2014.05.31 16:52:00 -
[2641] - Quote
Barbara Nichole wrote: I'm not asking to have the base line brought back to the original.. I'm asking that we don't lose anything to gain a few low slots.
Those two statements are equivalent. People cried enough to get this, claiming they only wanted customizable freighters.
Now they're revealed as having just been fishing for a buff, and their tears are delightful.
If you're getting slots (and there's no disputing that it's happening now), then you are getting nerfs to compensate. As a matter of fact, they weren't harsh enough, the freighters got too much EHP in shield and armor in this phase, compared to the rigs iteration. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
708
|
Posted - 2014.05.31 16:55:00 -
[2642] - Quote
Barbara Nichole wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:Barbara Nichole wrote: What have I missed? that ur not meant to be able to create the old freighters? there are ways to improve upon certain stats at the expense of others. so you are saying it's a nerf.. I'm not asking to have the base line brought back to the original.. I'm asking that we don't lose anything to gain a few low slots. It seems pretty petty to me that it would be made impossible to achieve the original stats. It's only a nerf if you consider having options a nerf. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
891
|
Posted - 2014.05.31 20:59:00 -
[2643] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Barbara Nichole wrote: I'm not asking to have the base line brought back to the original.. I'm asking that we don't lose anything to gain a few low slots.
Those two statements are equivalent. People cried enough to get this, claiming they only wanted customizable freighters. Now they're revealed as having just been fishing for a buff, and their tears are delightful. If you're getting slots (and there's no disputing that it's happening now), then you are getting nerfs to compensate. As a matter of fact, they weren't harsh enough, the freighters got too much EHP in shield and armor in this phase, compared to the rigs iteration.
Exactly. They'd have been happy with the first iteration if the stat buffs were larger. Like the 2nd iteration. Except they also packaged it with MUCH easier and cheaper customization. If anything, the stats should have taken a serious hit once low-slots became the customization method of choice.
It seemed that the first iteration was far more balanced because:
A) the base stats were low enough they didn't result in ridiculous 650-720 EHP Jump Freighters. EHP was topping out below 500K in the first run.
B) There was a significant ISK cost associated with those increases in performance. (Rigs) Higher costs are a sacrifice for the freighter operator - and mean larger killmails for the gankers.
C) Bonus for the EVE economy - creating a huge 'salvage' sink - much needed due to CCP adding so many things to make it exclusively easier for carebears (yet, interestingly, not salvage ninjas) to do.
Massively tanked ships holding 130 m^3 or more are out of line with anything that is currently available in highsec, and represent a significant shift in game balance in favor of haulers - and I didn't realize that was the goal of this balance pass.
|
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
891
|
Posted - 2014.06.01 00:33:00 -
[2644] - Quote
Oh, great. Patch notes are out, 2nd iteration going through as is.
2012 = Massive mining barge buff gets 150 page threadnaught of complaints from gankers. Dev team ignored, buffs go forward without modification. Then, even more anti-ganking buffs added in 2014, because the Procurer wasn't ridiculous enough at 10M ISK, and the Hulk was being ignored.
2014 = Initial Freighter rebalance isn't enough of a buff for the carebears, so they fuel a 120 page threadnaught of complaints, I quit posts, and threats. Dev team responds within days, by throwing the doors of the icecream truck open wide. 720K EHP Jump Freighters and 450K EHP Orcas now a thing at minimal fitting cost. Bears, never happy, whine for even more. Gankers point out obvious problems with the over-buffed 2nd version, are duly ignored.
And thats setting aside the significant 'more safety' buffs for both DST's and Blockade Runners, completely overshadowed by the freighters.
Sounds like DEVs are mistaking 'popularity' with 'balance', yet again.
|
Warr Akini
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
135
|
Posted - 2014.06.01 01:14:00 -
[2645] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Oh, great. Patch notes are out, 2nd iteration going through as is. 2012 = Massive mining barge buff gets 150 page threadnaught of complaints from gankers. Dev team ignored, buffs go forward without modification. Then, even more anti-ganking buffs added in 2014, because the Procurer wasn't ridiculous enough at 10M ISK, and the Hulk was being ignored. 2014 = Initial Freighter rebalance isn't enough of a buff for the carebears, so they fuel a 120 page threadnaught of complaints, I quit posts, and threats. Dev team responds within days, by throwing the doors of the icecream truck open wide. 720K EHP Jump Freighters and 450K EHP Orcas now a thing at minimal fitting cost. Bears, never happy, whine for even more. Gankers point out obvious problems with the over-buffed 2nd version, are duly ignored. And thats setting aside the significant 'more safety' buffs for both DST's and Blockade Runners, completely overshadowed by the freighters. Sounds like DEVs are mistaking 'popularity' with 'balance', yet again.
I'm not big on drama-laden posts, but when I saw the horribly skewed new EHP graph I had thought it was our turn to point out inconsistencies - which I think we did with no shortage of class and logic.
Still, we seem to be being ignored pretty solidly.
|
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
172
|
Posted - 2014.06.01 01:25:00 -
[2646] - Quote
I wish people would stop throwing numbers that you are never gonna see.
No one is flying a Freighter/JF around with perfect boosts.. It's not realistic, and it simply means the gankers will blow up the booster while bumping the freighter, then blow it up..
Funny how people think hauling, something done 95% of the time currently by autopiloting freighters from AFK people, is somehow going to turn into fleet operations with Logi's and Boosters escorting them all.
I'm not gonna hold my breath on that.. |
Warr Akini
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
135
|
Posted - 2014.06.01 05:10:00 -
[2647] - Quote
Sniper Smith wrote:I wish people would stop throwing numbers that you are never gonna see.
No one is flying a Freighter/JF around with perfect boosts.. It's not realistic, and it simply means the gankers will blow up the booster while bumping the freighter, then blow it up..
Funny how people think hauling, something done 95% of the time currently by autopiloting freighters from AFK people, is somehow going to turn into fleet operations with Logi's and Boosters escorting them all.
I'm not gonna hold my breath on that..
I read a couple of points in your post, as follows:
1) People are exaggerating EHP gains -If I may direct your attention to http://themittani.com/news/kronos-freighter-rebalance-revisited and the EHP chart: as I've said a whole lot of times, maximum EHP downside is 20% (and in some cases no loss whatsoever) versus Rubicon, maximum upside is 157%, and only in one situation (3 expanders) do freighters or JFs lose EHP. As mentioned before, if Fozzie's looking to make a serious bump to F/JF EHP and prohibitively raise the barrier to entry for suicide ganking, then he ought to stop by and say so. However, see below quotation from Fozzie in original post:
Quote:The base EHP of all Freighters and Jump Freighters is being increased (since Expanded Cargoholds affect freighter hp more than cargo rigs do) and more emphasis is being placed on armor and shield than before (although all Freighters still gain the majority of their hitpoints from hull).
It seems to me like Fozzie was naturally concerned about the penalty provided by expanded cargoholds, and shifted the entire graph to the right. Well, as it turns out, that graph got thrown pretty far to the right - preserving a minimal EHP downside but giving up to 150% gain in EHP for those not carrying much.
2) Because people autopilot now they're going to be just as defenseless in the future. -You are making grand assumptions about how people will be fitting their freighters, which you have no place or data to make. Those comparing to miners are comparing apples and oranges, since mining upgrades always give benefit to miners while expanded cargoholds are useless to those not carrying big big big packages.
3) Gankers will gank anything and everything, and have a limitless supply of manpower and resources -Blatantly false, and another example of someone trying to make assumptions on exactly what we gankers do.
Let me instead take you back to 2012 - Burn Jita 1 had just concluded nicely a few months ago, my little infant Ministry of Love was scrambling around highsec dying to wartargets (not so much changed, that has) and ganking miners here and there. And then 'lo, we figure out we can hit freighters, and suddenly we notice people carrying multiple dozens of billions of isk in their holds. In the next year, those freighters very very swiftly die, and like Japan's 'scientific' operations in the Pacific and Antarctic, threatens the ecosystem of really really big-money whales.
People begin to get cautious, especially around 0.5s and about hauling big money in general - we see a far lower average of money being run around, with a higher incidence of webbers and other escorts for those carrying more than a couple of billion. Once upon a time we would see ten to twenty billion isk freighters as a matter of course, with the big ones at 50b. Now, the top-end is ten, and anything above that is a unicorn.
Either people have no money, or people are and have already been adapting. So then, you tell me how much you know about things staying the same. |
amarr alt2
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
7
|
Posted - 2014.06.01 05:52:00 -
[2648] - Quote
-1 Nerfs never get the notes added, just the attributes changed and CCP hope it goes unnoticed. Freighters that now have almost 50% less cargo hold but still retain huge ass heavy alignment and other attributes of capitals. How the **** are we meant to believe a mackinaw has a 35k m3 hold at its size and freighters can't hold squat. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
892
|
Posted - 2014.06.01 10:39:00 -
[2649] - Quote
Sniper Smith wrote:I wish people would stop throwing numbers that you are never gonna see.
No one is flying a Freighter/JF around with perfect boosts.. It's not realistic, and it simply means the gankers will blow up the booster while bumping the freighter, then blow it up..
Funny how people think hauling, something done 95% of the time currently by autopiloting freighters from AFK people, is somehow going to turn into fleet operations with Logi's and Boosters escorting them all.
I'm not gonna hold my breath on that..
The numbers I'm quoting is not 'perfect boosts', or logi or any of that. Last time I played around with the numbers, 720K EHP is the Anshar with a 5% hull implant, LVL 5 skills and Bulkheads.
Which is, incidentally, what I'm going to be using for hauling going forward. I like the Nomad, but its EHP is significantly worse and it needed to be babysat while hauling more than 3 Billion in goods.
It will be nice to haul 6-7 Billion in it, while autopiloting, without seriously worrying about getting ganked - simply due to gank math.
But Fozzie really shat the bed on this one.
A potentially interesting rebalance turned into 'yet another carebear patch'.
|
Sgt Ocker
Last Bastion of Freedom
237
|
Posted - 2014.06.01 10:44:00 -
[2650] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote: Like I said, I hope the box you hide in is big enough to sustain & contain your narrow minded views. There is no hope at all if your "vision" of what is acceptable spreads.
It's hardly narrow minded at all. The ones being narrow minded are the people trying to claim that if they can't get the exact original stats back on their freighter through some combination of modules, that the rebalance is useless. That's myopic to the extreme. 4 hours on SISI acouple of hours playing with EFT and Pilot Optimizer - My comment is far from myopic.
Rhea; Honestly I care less about the others - I didn't spend months of training and 7 bil on any of them. Any combination of modules reduces their current capability in multiple areas. 3 X Cargo Expanders - 5k more cargo hold - Less EHP, Slower 2 X Cargo Expanders + 1 Bulkhead - Smaller Cargo hold, +39kEHP, slower
No other combination of modules comes close to current stats. There is no "buff" for RHEA, just various combinations of nerfs.
3rd most expensive class of ships in the game - Just got nerfed by devs who promised change but were too lazy to balance it.
PLAN - Give rigs to freighters - that won't work - Give them lowslots - All carefully planned out and tested in - A few days.
If Devs gave every Battleship an additional 75 EHP but removed 2/3rds of their DPS to do it -Would this be acceptable? Would getting back that DPS +3%, at the cost of 2/3rds of their EHP and speed be acceptable? My opinions are mine. -á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-áIf you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK. Just don't bother Hating - I don't care.. |
|
Warr Akini
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
138
|
Posted - 2014.06.01 10:53:00 -
[2651] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:If Devs gave every Battleship an additional 75 EHP but removed 2/3rds of their DPS to do it -Would this be acceptable? Would getting back that DPS +3%, at the cost of 2/3rds of their EHP and speed be acceptable?
It would not - but the numbers you just threw out are not in fact appropriately scaled to the current attribute change to freighters and jump freighters. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
892
|
Posted - 2014.06.01 11:19:00 -
[2652] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Rhea; Honestly I care less about the others - I didn't spend months of training and 7 bil on any of them. Any combination of modules reduces their current capability in multiple areas. 3 X Cargo Expanders - 5k more cargo hold - Less EHP, Slower 2 X Cargo Expanders + 1 Bulkhead - Smaller Cargo hold, +39kEHP, slower
No other combination of modules comes close to current stats. There is no "buff" for RHEA, just various combinations of nerfs.
Aside from the fact that you can sell your Rhea and buy any other Jump Freighter, the Rhea did just fine.
Its max-cargo version is essentially what it is today - a tiny cargohold bonus and a tiny EHP loss. The alignment speed is the same. Nobody seriously cares about 'freighter speed' because warp to zero makes speed irrelevant. And if you are talking about nulsec, really, who cares about anything but the cargo statistic?
Yet you conveniently ignore the cases that are being addressed here - the max EHP versions which allow for far larger amounts of ISK to be hauled without risk of an 'economical' gank occurring.
Here's your buff, you insufferable whiner, with 126 m^3 cargo space, you can have 620K EHP or so. This is TWICE as much as before, with no loss of alignment speed. (thats agility- you know, that thing that makes it hard to bump and gank JFs?) Assuming you don't have an exit cyno, and simply can't align and escape a bumping gank squad - It will take about 22 max-skilled Talos gankers to drop your freighter in 0.5. Thats a massive investment in both ships and high-SP players, and a kill is far from assured. Just taking a chance costs over 2.5 Billion ISK - likely significantly more when T2 costs go up in the near future.
So provided you can find some combination of items that are valued less than 5-6 Billion and fit in 125 m^3 cargospace. (not hard at all) - you are essentially gank-proof.
|
Sgt Ocker
Last Bastion of Freedom
237
|
Posted - 2014.06.01 11:47:00 -
[2653] - Quote
Warr Akini wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:If Devs gave every Battleship an additional 75 EHP but removed 2/3rds of their DPS to do it -Would this be acceptable? Would getting back that DPS +3%, at the cost of 2/3rds of their EHP and speed be acceptable? It would not - but the numbers you just threw out are not in fact appropriately scaled to the current attribute change to freighters and jump freighters. As the changes to Rhea (the only one to which I am referring) are not scaled, unless the overall goal was to reduce one or more of the current attributes by allowing the fitting of modules.
2 if fit for max cargo 2 if fit for max tank 2 if fit for agility and so on.
Rhea - 2 X Cargo Expanders, 1 X Bulkhead ll; 40k additional EHP at a cost of 107k cargo space. Closer numbers for you - 40k extra EHP at a cost of over 1/3rd DPS & 20% speed. My opinions are mine. -á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-áIf you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK. Just don't bother Hating - I don't care.. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
892
|
Posted - 2014.06.01 19:48:00 -
[2654] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:
2 if fit for max cargo 2 if fit for max tank 2 if fit for agility and so on.
Rhea - 2 X Cargo Expanders, 1 X Bulkhead ll;
Max cargo, your EHP drops by 3%. Your agility isn't effected at all. You keep trying to pretend that a loss in speed means something. It doesn't. Maybe you should knock it off.
Max Tank fit has a smaller cargohold. Agility is the same. And again, it appears you are pretending speed matters. Is the smaller cargohold really a penalty? Only if you are hauling bulkier, lower value items. But then, nobody is ganking you for a load of tritanium either, so who cares about EHP in this context? The real benefit is now being able to cram twic as much ISK into a still spacious cargobay without worry of a profitable gank - because the cost would be greater than the likely drop.
If you fit for agility: You lose potential cargo space - but you gain both EHP (over current versions) AND get a massive decrease in alignment time. (and JF's were already pretty quick) So. yet again your statements are inaccurate.
When you say specious things like this, it makes it very hard to take you seriously. It looks more like forum metagaming. (As in, I can't acknowledge the massive buff received in fear it will be rolled back, so I will declare the patch a nerf and carry on complaining.....)
Especially with that fit. I mean, yes - I too put Overdrive II's on Cargohold Expanded ships. Placing mods that essentially wipe out each other's attributes is not a good use of low slots.
|
Zen Dijun
Xoth Inc Usurper.
26
|
Posted - 2014.06.02 00:32:00 -
[2655] - Quote
Adding my -1 to nerfing Freighters and Jump Freighers.
They're perfectly balanced as is... please quit screwing with things for the sake of screwing things. Please don't break something that isn't broken.
Two thumbs down to these changes.
-- Zen
|
Chick Sauce
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2014.06.02 00:55:00 -
[2656] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Oh, great. Patch notes are out, 2nd iteration going through as is. 2012 = Massive mining barge buff gets 150 page threadnaught of complaints from gankers. Dev team ignored, buffs go forward without modification. Then, even more anti-ganking buffs added in 2014, because the Procurer wasn't ridiculous enough at 10M ISK, and the Hulk was being ignored. 2014 = Initial Freighter rebalance isn't enough of a buff for the carebears, so they fuel a 120 page threadnaught of complaints, I quit posts, and threats. Dev team responds within days, by throwing the doors of the icecream truck open wide. 720K EHP Jump Freighters and 450K EHP Orcas now a thing at minimal fitting cost. Bears, never happy, whine for even more. Gankers point out obvious problems with the over-buffed 2nd version, are duly ignored. And thats setting aside the significant 'more safety' buffs for both DST's and Blockade Runners, completely overshadowed by the freighters. Sounds like DEVs are mistaking 'popularity' with 'balance', yet again. Yes and no.
The Procurer is not getting a buff, it is getting a nerf. It is losing a mid-slot. More speed and drone bandwidth won't help being suicide ganked while AFK mining in high-sec. T2 barges will have more yield than it comparatively than before too.
The rest of your post is correct though. The changes to all industrials ships in Kronos is an overall buff and I have absolutely no freakin' idea how anyone is complaining. |
Chick Sauce
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2014.06.02 00:58:00 -
[2657] - Quote
DP |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1190
|
Posted - 2014.06.02 01:44:00 -
[2658] - Quote
Chick Sauce wrote:The Procurer is not getting a buff, it is getting a nerf. It is losing a mid-slot. More speed and drone bandwidth won't help being suicide ganked while AFK mining in high-sec. The loss of the mid on the procurer was retraced some time ago.
|
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
892
|
Posted - 2014.06.02 07:34:00 -
[2659] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Chick Sauce wrote:The Procurer is not getting a buff, it is getting a nerf. It is losing a mid-slot. More speed and drone bandwidth won't help being suicide ganked while AFK mining in high-sec. The loss of the mid on the procurer was retraced some time ago.
Confirmed. I reviewed the Barge thread. All I see are buffs. More speed, faster alignment, more slots, more fitting, smaller crystals, more yield, longer range miners.
When they initially did their 2012 'balance' pass on mining barges, we told them repeatedly that the Mackinaw/Retrievers were too good and should be toned down. We were ignored.
So now, rather than tone down the Mack - their solution to the imbalance is, predictably - lets buff everything else. Even the already ridiculous Proc and Skiff. Talk about power creep.....
When carebear ships are 'rebalanced', its only in one direction. Safer, easier ISK. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
537
|
Posted - 2014.06.02 07:47:00 -
[2660] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Chick Sauce wrote:The Procurer is not getting a buff, it is getting a nerf. It is losing a mid-slot. More speed and drone bandwidth won't help being suicide ganked while AFK mining in high-sec. The loss of the mid on the procurer was retraced some time ago. Confirmed. I reviewed the Barge thread. All I see are buffs. More speed, faster alignment, more slots, more fitting, smaller crystals, more yield, longer range miners. When they initially did their 2012 'balance' pass on mining barges, we told them repeatedly that the Mackinaw/Retrievers were too good and should be toned down. We were ignored. So now, rather than tone down the Mack - their solution to the imbalance is, predictably - lets buff everything else. Even the already ridiculous Proc and Skiff. Talk about power creep..... When carebear ships are 'rebalanced', its only in one direction. Safer, easier ISK.
When PVP ships are rebalanced, it's only one direction. Faster, easier, non-escapable, non-effort PVP.
|
|
Cardano Firesnake
Les chevaliers de l'ordre Goonswarm Federation
167
|
Posted - 2014.06.02 10:49:00 -
[2661] - Quote
I am happy to see that carebears are not the lone to whine... Gankers are not happy because it will be far less easier to crush their targets... It is well balanced. It was too easy to destroy freighters and barges. It will not be impossible to do it after this patch. It will just be harder. And less lucrative. In Low sec and 0.0, the better tank and drones bonuses will not save the barges most of the time....
So stop whining and be objective. Posted - 2010.07.01 11:24:00 - [4] Erase learning skills, remap all SP. That's all. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
10674
|
Posted - 2014.06.02 15:13:00 -
[2662] - Quote
Hey everyone, just wanted to remind you all that we will be keeping a close eye on these changes as they hit TQ and we are of course committed to a balanced environment between defense and offense.
We don't believe that these changes skew the balance too far against suicide gankers, although they do provide some good options for smart players to manage their risk. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Warr Akini
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
138
|
Posted - 2014.06.02 15:28:00 -
[2663] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone, just wanted to remind you all that we will be keeping a close eye on these changes as they hit TQ and we are of course committed to a balanced environment between defense and offense.
We don't believe that these changes skew the balance too far against suicide gankers, although they do provide some good options for smart players to manage their risk.
Well, I'm glad you at least stopped by. |
Clara Trevlyn
Carry on Capsuleering
2
|
Posted - 2014.06.02 17:15:00 -
[2664] - Quote
Last week i saw a Charon explode near me in a 0.5. It took sixteen ships, fourteen of which were catalysts with t2 fittings, the other two were a brutix and a vexor. The brutix/vexor did not out perform the catalysts, so presumably sixteen catalysts at approximately 10 million each would do the job.
So pre-patch we're looking at 160 million isk to explode a freighter. You have a 50% drop rate, which gives you a return on freighter loads of above 320 million isk. That's if you need to do if for profit, and are not funding the catalysts some other way.
I appreciate people who fly around in catalysts ganking freighters will have difficulty seeing that there is a problem here, but nevertheless there is a problem...
|
Flyinghotpocket
Amarrian Vengeance Team Amarrica
399
|
Posted - 2014.06.02 17:22:00 -
[2665] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone, just wanted to remind you all that we will be keeping a close eye on these changes as they hit TQ and we are of course committed to a balanced environment between defense and offense.
We don't believe that these changes skew the balance too far against suicide gankers, although they do provide some good options for smart players to manage their risk. fozzie the freighter need to all be armor tanked. those of us who want to A-type res against kinetic and thermal will have to buy a provi. instead of keep our caldari/minmatar freighters. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1192
|
Posted - 2014.06.02 20:22:00 -
[2666] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Chick Sauce wrote:The Procurer is not getting a buff, it is getting a nerf. It is losing a mid-slot. More speed and drone bandwidth won't help being suicide ganked while AFK mining in high-sec. The loss of the mid on the procurer was retraced some time ago. Confirmed. I reviewed the Barge thread. All I see are buffs. More speed, faster alignment, more slots, more fitting, smaller crystals, more yield, longer range miners. When they initially did their 2012 'balance' pass on mining barges, we told them repeatedly that the Mackinaw/Retrievers were too good and should be toned down. We were ignored. So now, rather than tone down the Mack - their solution to the imbalance is, predictably - lets buff everything else. Even the already ridiculous Proc and Skiff. Talk about power creep..... When carebear ships are 'rebalanced', its only in one direction. Safer, easier ISK. Mack got a yield and lock time nerf. It also got it's resist bonus moved to the exhumer skill, meaning a reduction in tank for anyone without exhumer V. Saying it wasn't toned down is inaccurate as it's losing in 1 or depending on skill training 2 categories by which the ships are measured. |
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
173
|
Posted - 2014.06.02 20:39:00 -
[2667] - Quote
Flyinghotpocket wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone, just wanted to remind you all that we will be keeping a close eye on these changes as they hit TQ and we are of course committed to a balanced environment between defense and offense.
We don't believe that these changes skew the balance too far against suicide gankers, although they do provide some good options for smart players to manage their risk. fozzie the freighter need to all be armor tanked. those of us who want to A-type res against kinetic and thermal will have to buy a provi. instead of keep our caldari/minmatar freighters. As someone who flies Charon's, I look forward to your Caldari Freighter firesale :) |
Shane Merol
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
8
|
Posted - 2014.06.03 00:44:00 -
[2668] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:So we expect that most Freighter and Jump Freighter pilots will use their three low slots to mix and match the following modules to meet their needs:
- (For certain armor tanking fits) Adaptive Nano Platings
- (For Jump Freighters after the Crius release) Jump Fuel Conservation Modules
Two questions:
1) Was it intentional to give the armor freighters a massive edge in EHP potential by allowing them passive resistance/layering modules?
With the added advantage of extra EHP shifted to armor, slave implants, and t2 resist profile on JFs, this gives the armor freighters a rather unfair advantage in EHP over the shield variants, without any drawbacks. The minmatar freighters are especially at a disadvantage as the Fenrir/Nomad don't have the cargohold advantage the Charon/Rhea do, and have an even more pathetic pool of EHP.
2) Can we PLEASE have more details on that jump-drive fuel reducing module that was mentioned above?
Will it be a capital module? (~4000m3 and massive fitting) Will it be a % reduction in fuel consumption? If so, does that imply a limited number of them can be fit, or stacking penalty? Can I put 7 of them on a Redeemer and bridge forever? Or will it be like a nanofiber, with zero fitting but with a crippling drawback, like cap regen or EHP? |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
896
|
Posted - 2014.06.03 04:40:00 -
[2669] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone, just wanted to remind you all that we will be keeping a close eye on these changes as they hit TQ and we are of course committed to a balanced environment between defense and offense.
We don't believe that these changes skew the balance too far against suicide gankers, although they do provide some good options for smart players to manage their risk.
Aside from the vast disparity in EHP numbers between the first iteration and the second - switching the from rigs to low-slots as a means of giving flexibility didn't need to come packaged with 50% larger EHP values.
Good arguments have been demonstrated about why it is bad to allow cargo ships to move that kind of ISK with negligible risk. Packing around 6 Billion ISK in cargo in highsec, while shielding it safely behind 700+ EHP is a RADICAL change from the status quo, one that overwhelmingly favors haulers.
Replying with a statement like 'We don't believe these changes skew the balance too far against suicide gankers' indicates two things:
The goal was, from the outset, to shift the balance against gankers. Why not just admit it? Second, replying to solid arguments with "We believe differently", sounds like simple denial.
I mean, if Concord response times were doubled in length, (back to what it used to be in 2008) - the carebears would scream bloody murder and cry that it makes life easier for gankers. And it would be objectively true.
My saying something inane like "I simply believe differently" doesn't make it so.
DOUBLING achievable EHP on ships that are currently ganked only in the most rare of circumstances (and have a built-in easy escape button) is totally unwarranted.
|
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
543
|
Posted - 2014.06.03 06:28:00 -
[2670] - Quote
Totally unwanted? I am very sure that this is absolutely not totally unwanted.
If you want to gank, there will be still enough freighters flying around as paper thin, max cargo boats that you can easily gank with 10 Catalysts, even less than it used to be. If you really want to gank a JF with full EHP mods and filled with 6-10+ in loot, do so in Low sec where they jump in or invest the proper amount of Tornados/Talos/Brutix/Vexor. The ISK efficiency on such a gank is still vastly in your favor as you do not need to invest 13B+ in the gank. If you cannot get enough gankers to gank this kind of EHP, it's not the fault of the game, it's your fault for failing to prepare yourself properly.
Now stop complaining and recruit some gankers into your corp so that you can gank 800k EHP in Uedama.
Or instead: Get your brain working on how you can entice more people to go to 00 sec so that this kind of JF don't need to come to High sec in the first place and instead only fly around in 00 sec or Low sec to local trade hubs. You are probably not able to break Jita completely, but you can at least try to diminish its influence. |
|
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
896
|
Posted - 2014.06.03 06:48:00 -
[2671] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Totally unwanted? I am very sure that this is absolutely not totally unwanted.
I'm guessing english isn't your first language. Or you failed grammar school.
Forum tip: Read first, then think, then type. don't try to change up the order or we end up with posts like........yours.
|
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
543
|
Posted - 2014.06.03 06:50:00 -
[2672] - Quote
Oh dear, I misread your unwarranted. Shall I reformulated my post? I can assure you that nothing is going to change, except for the wording in the first line. |
Knoppaz
distress signals borealis
29
|
Posted - 2014.06.03 09:32:00 -
[2673] - Quote
Shane Merol wrote: ...
Two questions:
1) Was it intentional to give the armor freighters a massive edge in EHP potential by allowing them passive resistance/layering modules?
With the added advantage of extra EHP shifted to armor, slave implants, and t2 resist profile on JFs, this gives the armor freighters a rather unfair advantage in EHP over the shield variants, without any drawbacks. The minmatar freighters are especially at a disadvantage as the Fenrir/Nomad don't have the cargohold advantage the Charon/Rhea do, and have an even more pathetic pool of EHP.
...
Was about to ask the same. Strange decision to leave shield tankers (and especially Minmatar) in such a bad position compared to the rest..
__________________________________________________ Knoppaz /-ádistressSIGNALS http://distresssignals.tumblr.com
a capsuleer's way to insanity |
Rab See
Fool Mental Junket
73
|
Posted - 2014.06.03 14:27:00 -
[2674] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone, just wanted to remind you all that we will be keeping a close eye on these changes as they hit TQ and we are of course committed to a balanced environment between defense and offense.
We don't believe that these changes skew the balance too far against suicide gankers, although they do provide some good options for smart players to manage their risk.
So, Faction ANPs on Slaved, Boosted Providence only from now on. No tanking options for the Charon or Fenrir. Simply gimped with bulkheads instead.
Wicked balancing. |
Valterra Craven
253
|
Posted - 2014.06.03 17:05:00 -
[2675] - Quote
So I just got on TQ and it appears the numbers were worse then we were lead to believe
Charon before with my skills (all lvl 5 except racial freighter)
165k HP 942km3 cargo
Charon after, with 2x t2 cargo expanders and 1x t2 ANP
150k HP 907k cargo
Charon after, with 2x t2 cargo expanders and 1x t2 Bulkhead
160k HP 807k cargo
So like I said all along, this was a nerf with no way to achieve the same freighter that you had before patch without massive sacrifices. |
Valterra Craven
253
|
Posted - 2014.06.03 17:07:00 -
[2676] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: We don't believe that these changes skew the balance too far against suicide gankers, although they do provide some good options for smart players to manage their risk.
How could they? These are massive HP nerfs in favor of gankers! |
cynomakinggirl
No Risk No ISK
9
|
Posted - 2014.06.03 17:34:00 -
[2677] - Quote
This is just a massive nerf, FU ccp.
To get the same amount of cargohold on my freighter I now must fit 3 expanded cargoholds, which will lower structure HP by -60%.
Considering that reinforced bulkheads will now give -11% cargo capacity each (https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=340217), it means that this is a super nerf. FU ccp.
FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU "The internet is a reliable source of information." - Abraham Lincoln |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
722
|
Posted - 2014.06.03 18:48:00 -
[2678] - Quote
cynomakinggirl wrote:This is just a massive nerf, FU ccp.
To get the same amount of cargohold on my freighter I now must fit 3 expanded cargoholds, which will lower structure HP by -60%.
Considering that reinforced bulkheads will now give -11% cargo capacity each (https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=340217), it means that this is a super nerf. FU ccp.
FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU yes this is exactly how you give constructive feedback I'm sure theyre going to change it for you now |
Av Ra
Aliastra Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2014.06.03 20:20:00 -
[2679] - Quote
Death to Freighters. Get sh*t on. |
Von Reichenbach
Maraque Enterprises Brothers of Tangra
11
|
Posted - 2014.06.03 20:21:00 -
[2680] - Quote
Ok, after some testing, the Charon was batted pretty badly. The Obby is my new GO-TO boat. Close to the same hold, higher EHP.
CCP, you might want to look at what you did to the shield boats... |
|
Ame Umida
Quovis The Bastion
14
|
Posted - 2014.06.03 21:46:00 -
[2681] - Quote
I endorse this -9 trillion %.
I say if you hate them that much just remove them from the game. |
Xiofromata Drakonius
Stellavasi Phantom Armada
3
|
Posted - 2014.06.03 22:25:00 -
[2682] - Quote
So CCP nerfted Freighters to get industry to nullsec.....News Flash CCP nobody is going to do industry in nullsec the risk is too high.
More Risk...more cost....less Risk less cost. Congratz CCP hauling just became more expensive to all! Will pass it on customers. |
Paranoid Loyd
567
|
Posted - 2014.06.03 22:33:00 -
[2683] - Quote
cynomakinggirl wrote:Tears
I find your corp name quite hilarious in regards to your post.
"PvE in EVE is a trap to turn you into PvP content, don't confuse it for actual gameplay." Lipbite |
NotaPost AltAtAll
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.03 22:42:00 -
[2684] - Quote
SUUUUPER FREIGHTER NEEEERFFF ACTIVATED!!!!
Sweet I guess CCP is trying to kill that section of their dwindling botting % of playerbase by making freighters into paper thin giant ISK loss death traps good move I guess =0
|
Yuri Fedorov
Serenity Profits
8
|
Posted - 2014.06.03 23:38:00 -
[2685] - Quote
The only modules worth fitting are 2x Istabs and 1x warp speed thingy, or 3x cargohold for all freighters. The negligibly increased tank won't change anything since they will just gank you anyway. |
Adaleen
Phoenix Productions Headshot Gaming
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.03 23:41:00 -
[2686] - Quote
I hardly flew a freighter before...I most definitely will not be now. Id rather move stuff in an orca multiple times, at least it gets better cargo per hp. |
Chris Winter
Zephyr Corp V.A.S.T.
437
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 01:58:00 -
[2687] - Quote
Yuri Fedorov wrote:The only modules worth fitting are 2x Istabs and 1x warp speed thingy, or 3x cargohold for all freighters. The negligibly increased tank won't change anything since they will just gank you anyway. The tank can actually be significantly increased on the Obelisk or Providence. The Charon and Fenrir are just boned. |
JP Boirelle
Shinn Enterprises
1
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 04:07:00 -
[2688] - Quote
I wonder how all these changes will effect Red Frog's business model.
I have a Charon and doubt I will use it anymore. Probably swap to one of the armor tanking Freighter/JFs |
ASadOldGit
School of Applied Knowledge
284
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 04:21:00 -
[2689] - Quote
I've noticed, over the last few pages, that the arguments (both good and bad) seem to swing between either the gankers or freighters being nerfed or buffed, depending on the scenario, but I haven't noticed any other factors being discussed with regards to balancing.
The previously-argued balancing techniques either result in an upwards spiral of power creep, as freighters and gankers alternately receive buffs, depending on who screams the loudest, or a repeating cycle of nerf / buff / nerf of one side of the argument.
To me, another significant factor is the time to recover.
It is much easier to just get another catalyst / talos (even for 20 people), than to go and get another freighter plus equivalent cargoload. Hell, the gankers probably even have a pre-fitted pile of them lying around, but there aren't many people that have a pile of freighters lying around. 10 million ISK is slightly easier to get a hold of than 10 billion.
I realise that cost is apparently not a balancing factor, but there must be something that could help reduce the sting of losing a freighter. After all, you do want the freighter pilot back in the game as soon as possible, right? Buying another freighter plus another load of cargo is good for the economy. (perhaps that's highsec thinking, though; maybe you want to disrupt an alliance's supply lines for longer?)
One thing I was thinking of was enhancing insurance in some way, perhaps adding the option of travel insurance that's charged per trip (or return trip, or per hour, or something).
The existing insurance scheme is not very effective over time, costing 1/3 of the cost of the freighter every 3 months (although a nice ISK sink). But, your cargo is not insured. Travel insurance means you'd have to take a gamble and decide if you want to pay extra for that trip, in return for a little extra peace of mind in the event of being ganked.
Perhaps you could have a public NPC-controlled pool, wherein everyone's premiums are paid into the pool, and anyone who is ganked is paid out of that pool. If not enough people buy into it, the pool dries up and no payout for you.
Are there any other ways to balance outside ship stats?
Meh. |
JP Boirelle
Shinn Enterprises
1
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 05:19:00 -
[2690] - Quote
CCP can you please point out what the shield tanking version of ANPs are please? My shield tanked Freighter would like the same benefit of the Obelisk and Providence. |
|
Rab See
Fool Mental Junket
73
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 09:40:00 -
[2691] - Quote
JP Boirelle wrote:CCP can you please point out what the shield tanking version of ANPs are please? My shield tanked Freighter would like the same benefit of the Obelisk and Providence.
3x Coreli ANP on Provi = 338k EHP 3x Bulkhead II on Provi = 347k EHP
3x Coreli ANP on Charon = 247k EHP 3x Bulkhead II on Charon = 303k EHP
Which would you pick? Now add slaves, and now add boosts.
Provi gets to 496k EHP - no Bulkheads - just ANP Charon gets to 343k - 3x Bulkheads best.
The armour tankers get Slaves, and get ANP, why would you use Bulkheads at all? So they suffer no penalties.
COME ON DEVS? Comment please.
|
cynomakinggirl
No Risk No ISK
11
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 09:47:00 -
[2692] - Quote
In an attempt to give players more options,
...they halved the available options, by making fenrir and charon useless. "The internet is a reliable source of information." - Abraham Lincoln |
cynomakinggirl
No Risk No ISK
11
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 09:57:00 -
[2693] - Quote
Rab See wrote:JP Boirelle wrote:CCP can you please point out what the shield tanking version of ANPs are please? My shield tanked Freighter would like the same benefit of the Obelisk and Providence. 3x Coreli ANP on Provi = 338k EHP 3x Bulkhead II on Provi = 347k EHP 3x Coreli ANP on Charon = 247k EHP 3x Bulkhead II on Charon = 303k EHP Which would you pick? Now add slaves, and now add boosts. Provi gets to 496k EHP - no Bulkheads - just ANP Charon gets to 343k - 3x Bulkheads best. The armour tankers get Slaves, and get ANP, why would you use Bulkheads at all? So they suffer no penalties. COME ON DEVS? Comment please.
Your calculations don't reflect real scenarios. Attackers use mostly catalysts, so 58% kinetic damage and 42% thermal.
If attackers use tornados, you can expect, against shield tankers, 75% EM, 8% kinetic, 17% explosive damage. If against armor tankers, tornados will deal 17% kinetic and 83% explosive.
An armor tanker can be tanked to counter explosive damage, while a shield tanker cannot do the same with EM, so the difference is even bigger. "The internet is a reliable source of information." - Abraham Lincoln |
XxRTEKxX
That Escalated Quickly Nerfed Alliance Go Away
128
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 09:58:00 -
[2694] - Quote
Freighters were better off untouched. At this point, I'm more in favor of reverting the changes and just leaving freighters alone. |
cynomakinggirl
No Risk No ISK
12
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 11:24:00 -
[2695] - Quote
XxRTEKxX wrote:Freighters were better off untouched. At this point, I'm more in favor of reverting the changes and just leaving freighters alone.
Full-tanked charon: 409,000 m3 cargo / 289,000 EHP vs EM Full-tanked obelisk: 550,000 m3 cargo / 314,000 EHP vs Kin (no slave set)
Low-tanked charon: 841,000 m3 cargo / 178,000 EHP vs EM Low-tanked obelisk: 894,000 m3 cargo / 202,000 EHP vs Explosive (no slave set)
Original charon: 981,000 m3 cargo / 180,000 EHP Original obelisk: 938,000 m3 cargo / 201,000 EHP
This is clearly a nerf. FU ccp "The internet is a reliable source of information." - Abraham Lincoln |
Angelus Arareb
Gates of Purgatory
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 11:56:00 -
[2696] - Quote
Three days ago I was finally able to climb into my brand new Charon. I LOVED it, after training for so long I was ecstatic to finally not ever having to use a bestower or itereon again to transport my stuff. Then Chronos came and I logged onto my freighter which I had trained up to level 3 and guess what, after a 15% increase to cargo capacity via training it now had the same cargo capacity as a Jump Freighter. I thought that's ok I'll just install 3 T3 cargo expanders. It was then I found that with the 3 installed it was right about the same as it would have been without the patch. So where is the benefit to this "upgrade" I lost a bunch of armor and was able to maintain the same cargo capacity.........Is this an attempt by CCP to make it easier for the next burn jita to be even easier for freighter kills? I feel like I just got ganked and all the time I spent training for this is now wasted b/c I am an even easier/bigger target. *Good job guys way to go!* -End Sarcasm- Whoever came up with the idea to slash cargo capacity to such an extreme degree needs to be slapped silly. I mean seriously, if you wanted to provide customization for freighters you could do so w/o such drastic effects, i.e. making freighters unable to use cargo expanders for one. There easy solution, problem solved. Come on CCP get it together and fix this, I just showed it's not hard to resolve. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3375
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 12:16:00 -
[2697] - Quote
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) Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
H3llHound
Koshaku Tactical Narcotics Team
28
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 12:29:00 -
[2698] - Quote
Like every patchday suddenly the forums spring up with life with all those oblivious to the changes announced mutliple times over the last weeks. |
Rab See
Fool Mental Junket
73
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 12:41:00 -
[2699] - Quote
H3llHound wrote:Like every patchday suddenly the forums spring up with life with all those oblivious to the changes announced mutliple times over the last weeks.
Wow - you are so 'on the ball'. I see one post from someone who hadn't yet commented. Thats less than 'spring'.
As for myself, before the changes I noted how there would be imbalance on a staggering scale. Making a snap decision to get rid of rigs (good), and replace with lowslots (inadvertantly bad) is now the major issue.
Armour tanking freighters only from now on. Forget the Charon and Fenrir.
Slaves and ANP FTW. |
Lucy Riraille
Aliastra Gallente Federation
37
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 12:48:00 -
[2700] - Quote
With freighter losing almost half of their cargo space and the need to buy shitfuck expensive rig/lowslot modules,
would you please BALANCE these crappy babyfreighters so with half cargospace = half mineral consumption in production????
I can see no reason for paying 1.3 Billion ISK for a ship with a bit more cargo space then an orca... Any plany on crap nerfing the orca???
Again, another BAD job done... |
|
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. |
|
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
728
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 16:23:00 -
[2731] - Quote
Angelus Arareb wrote:Three days ago I was finally able to climb into my brand new Charon. I LOVED it, after training for so long I was ecstatic to finally not ever having to use a bestower or itereon again to transport my stuff. Then Chronos came and I logged onto my freighter which I had trained up to level 3 and guess what, after a 15% increase to cargo capacity via training it now had the same cargo capacity as a Jump Freighter. I thought that's ok I'll just install 3 T3 cargo expanders. It was then I found that with the 3 installed it was right about the same as it would have been without the patch. So where is the benefit to this "upgrade" I lost a bunch of armor and was able to maintain the same cargo capacity.........Is this an attempt by CCP to make it easier for the next burn jita to be even easier for freighter kills? I feel like I just got ganked and all the time I spent training for this is now wasted b/c I am an even easier/bigger target. *Good job guys way to go!* -End Sarcasm- Whoever came up with the idea to slash cargo capacity to such an extreme degree needs to be slapped silly. I mean seriously, if you wanted to provide customization for freighters you could do so w/o such drastic effects, i.e. making freighters unable to use cargo expanders for one. There easy solution, problem solved. Come on CCP get it together and fix this, I just showed it's not hard to resolve. if your cargo is the same as before, you're doing something wrong.
New max is 1.2mil/m3 |
Valterra Craven
260
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 16:32:00 -
[2732] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Angelus Arareb wrote: Then Chronos came and I logged onto my freighter which I had trained up to level 3 and guess what, after a 15% increase to cargo capacity via training it now had the same cargo capacity as a Jump Freighter. if your cargo is the same as before, you're doing something wrong. New max is 1.2mil/m3
You appeared to have missed the relevant part... |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
728
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 17:04:00 -
[2733] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Rowells wrote:Angelus Arareb wrote: I thought that's ok I'll just install 3 T3 cargo expanders. It was then I found that with the 3 installed it was right about the same as it would have been without the patch. if your cargo is the same as before, you're doing something wrong. New max is 1.2mil/m3 You appear to have missed the relevant part... You didn't read the whole thing did you? just the first few sentences, perhaps?
I corrected your snip for you to the part i was referring to.
he should still be around 1.1mil. thats about 200k more than rubicon.
e: hell, even with caldari freighter at 1, three expanders should give him more than pre-patch |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1108
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 17:20:00 -
[2734] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Rowells wrote:Angelus Arareb wrote: I thought that's ok I'll just install 3 T3 cargo expanders. It was then I found that with the 3 installed it was right about the same as it would have been without the patch. if your cargo is the same as before, you're doing something wrong. New max is 1.2mil/m3 You appear to have missed the relevant part... You didn't read the whole thing did you? just the first few sentences, perhaps? I corrected your snip for you to the part i was referring to. he should still be around 1.1mil. thats about 200k more than rubicon. e: hell, even with caldari freighter at 1, three expanders should give him more than pre-patch
Not sure since he\s obviously talking about the yet to be released T3 module. We don't know yet what the % cargo bonus on those is... |
Firzam Aakiwa
Circulus Exousias
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 18:07:00 -
[2735] - Quote
Lolly ==> look that guys http://eve.battleclinic.com/loadout/70443-Ark-Adriana.html 1 million EHP with his ARk without loosing Cargo bay capacity. This new patch give a great boost for some factionnal Jump freighter. |
Valterra Craven
260
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 19:43:00 -
[2736] - Quote
Rowells wrote: You didn't read the whole thing did you? just the first few sentences, perhaps?
I corrected your snip for you to the part i was referring to.
he should still be around 1.1mil. thats about 200k more than rubicon.
e: hell, even with caldari freighter at 1, three expanders should give him more than pre-patch
No, I read the whole thing, the new max has nothing to do with what he was saying. and adding 100k~ is more like what we were talking about for a huge penalty to EHP.
|
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
728
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 20:37:00 -
[2737] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Rowells wrote: You didn't read the whole thing did you? just the first few sentences, perhaps?
I corrected your snip for you to the part i was referring to.
he should still be around 1.1mil. thats about 200k more than rubicon.
e: hell, even with caldari freighter at 1, three expanders should give him more than pre-patch
No, I read the whole thing, the new max has nothing to do with what he was saying. and adding 100k~ is more like what we were talking about for a huge penalty to EHP. thats not what he said. He said he was at similar levels of cargo with 3 cargo expanders, which is nothing but wrong. I never mentioned EHP and in that particular subject neither did he.
He said he gets similar to before fully fit, i show thats wrong, you come and make comments on subjects irrelavent to the specific matter i was referring to. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
543
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 08:01:00 -
[2738] - Quote
I wouldn't call 168k m-¦ cargo space "without loosing[sic] Cargo bay capacity", if you compare it to the previous 344k m-¦. However, it's still pretty impressive HP values there, remains to be seen if this helps to deter ganks or just invites them for a try even more. |
Mag's
the united
17347
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 08:49:00 -
[2739] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:I wouldn't call 168k m-¦ cargo space "without loosing[sic] Cargo bay capacity", if you compare it to the previous 344k m-¦ (the numbers on this Battleclinic post seem a bit off, especially in the Cargo department when I compare it to the Ark in the Pilot Optimizer). However, it's still pretty impressive HP values there, remains to be seen if this helps to deter ganks or just invites them for a try even more. Indeed. Saying without losing capacity, is rather disingenuous.
I will say this though, don't be surprised at another balance pass in the future. In regards to EHP.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Lei Merdeau
Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering
15
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 11:00:00 -
[2740] - Quote
Mag's wrote: I will say this though, don't be surprised at another balance pass in the future. In regards to EHP.
and I think it will be much easier to do if they do something about the module penalties.
|
|
Vhelnik Cojoin
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
64
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 11:12:00 -
[2741] - Quote
In other news it was today revealed, that the explosions from Fail Fit Freighters are still lighting up the skies of HiSec, as James 315 and his merry men go about their daily business.
...and the gankers saw that the changes were good and all is well in New Eden.
Have you Communicated with your fellow capsuleers today? It is good for the EVE-oconomy and o-kay for you. |
Vhelnik Cojoin
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
64
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 11:22:00 -
[2742] - Quote
Given the low base cargo hold of the JFs, plus the cost of ship, fittings and clone, I'd say that is working as intended. Have you Communicated with your fellow capsuleers today? It is good for the EVE-oconomy and o-kay for you. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3384
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 11:44:00 -
[2743] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:I wouldn't call 168k m-¦ cargo space "without loosing[sic] Cargo bay capacity", if you compare it to the previous 344k m-¦ (the numbers on this Battleclinic post seem a bit off, especially in the Cargo department when I compare it to the Ark in the Pilot Optimizer). However, it's still pretty impressive HP values there, remains to be seen if this helps to deter ganks or just invites them for a try even more. Indeed. Saying without losing capacity, is rather disingenuous. I will say this though, don't be surprised at another balance pass in the future. In regards to EHP.
Without loosing /further/ capacity is accurate.
Without losing (compared to pre Kronos) capacity isn't. Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Doris VanGit
The Rusty Muskets
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 14:29:00 -
[2744] - Quote
Ok time for my 2 pennies worth. Firstly i apologies if i repeat anything said by others, these forums send my eyes a little of balance. So i aint gonna read all the posts.
Its a nice touch, adding the module slots to such expensive ships. However, it would have been alot nicer to have the cpu available to fit a damage control or a warp core stab!
A damage control may help the surviverbility of say the Rhea, were its main defence is a shield and hull buff. However, no EM resists on these.
To my knowledge unless i have missed something, the are no low slot mods or skills to improve hull resists.
Therefore when the usual Goon, burn jita arises. They could loose twice as many ships to CCP instead
But on a side note that has nothing to do, with this thread. Why on a normal day in EVE, you cant enter Jita if numbers are too High. But burn Jita arises On every man and his dog are in there?
Like i say just my 2 pennies worth. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11823
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 14:49:00 -
[2745] - Quote
Doris VanGit wrote:Ok time for my 2 pennies worth. Firstly i apologies if i repeat anything said by others, these forums send my eyes a little of balance. So i aint gonna read all the posts. Its a nice touch, adding the module slots to such expensive ships. However, it would have been alot nicer to have the cpu available to fit a damage control or a warp core stab! A damage control may help the surviverbility of say the Rhea, were its main defence is a shield and hull buff. However, no EM resists on these. To my knowledge unless i have missed something, the are no low slot mods or skills to improve hull resists. Therefore when the usual Goon, burn jita arises. They could loose twice as many ships to CCP instead But on a side note that has nothing to do, with this thread. Why on a normal day in EVE, you cant enter Jita if numbers are too High. But burn Jita arises On every man and his dog are in there? Like i say just my 2 pennies worth.
A suitcase is simply too powerful on a freighter, hence why CCP wisely chose to not allow it to be fitted. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1108
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 14:51:00 -
[2746] - Quote
Doris VanGit wrote:Ok time for my 2 pennies worth. Firstly i apologies if i repeat anything said by others, these forums send my eyes a little of balance. So i aint gonna read all the posts. Its a nice touch, adding the module slots to such expensive ships. However, it would have been alot nicer to have the cpu available to fit a damage control or a warp core stab! A damage control may help the surviverbility of say the Rhea, were its main defence is a shield and hull buff. However, no EM resists on these. To my knowledge unless i have missed something, the are no low slot mods or skills to improve hull resists. Therefore when the usual Goon, burn jita arises. They could loose twice as many ships to CCP instead But on a side note that has nothing to do, with this thread. Why on a normal day in EVE, you cant enter Jita if numbers are too High. But burn Jita arises On every man and his dog are in there? Like i say just my 2 pennies worth.
If they were to enable you to use a DCU, the unfitted EHP would fall completely and the DCU would then be a mandatory module for everybody. This add 0 options, in fact, it would remove options. Not sure about stabs as I don't see what is the balance tradeoff for fitting stabs...
As for burn Jita, people deserve to die there with how much publicity it has. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
898
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 15:16:00 -
[2747] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote: Carebears crying nerf in this case is just sad and irrational.
Well actually its a fact.
And you conveniently ignore the substance of most of my own, and others' posts.
Where did Freighters and JF's get nerfed?
First, alignment wasn't touched at all, it can only be improved upon by gaining lowslots.
Cargo you say? Sure, the m^3 was significantly reduced when you fit for EHP.
But that isn't the important value when hauling in highsec. Ganking is the ONLY threat to a freighter pilot. And gankers don't care about how much "m^3" you are carrying. Bulky, low value cargo that requires Cargo Mods are not profitable to gank and not interesting. Gankers care about ISK value vs EHP.
95% of trade items that will stack up into '5-6 Billions ISK' fits quite neatly into the reduced cargobay of Freighters and Jump Freighters, but in turn, are shielded by twice as much EHP - doubling the size of the fleet required to destroy it.
This often reduces the profitability to zero - meaning very, very low risk of ganking.
Especially when you can fit for 1 Million EHP in highsec.
Ridiculous, and shows how little thought Fozzie put into this version.
|
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
545
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 16:14:00 -
[2748] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote: Ridiculous, and shows how little thought Fozzie put into this version.
It only shows how weak gankers seemingly have become.
Besides, CODE does seem to defy all your fears quite successfully in Aufay at the moment.
|
Valterra Craven
260
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 17:29:00 -
[2749] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:
And you conveniently ignore the substance of most of my own, and others' posts.
Where did Freighters and JF's get nerfed?
First, alignment wasn't touched at all, it can only be improved upon by gaining lowslots.
Cargo you say? Sure, the m^3 was significantly reduced when you fit for EHP.
But that isn't the important value when hauling in highsec. Ganking is the ONLY threat to a freighter pilot. And gankers don't care about how much "m^3" you are carrying. Bulky, low value cargo that requires Cargo Mods are not profitable to gank and not interesting. Gankers care about ISK value vs EHP.
95% of trade items that will stack up into '5-6 Billions ISK' fits quite neatly into the reduced cargobay of Freighters and Jump Freighters, but in turn, are shielded by twice as much EHP - doubling the size of the fleet required to destroy it.
This often reduces the profitability to zero - meaning very, very low risk of ganking.
Especially when you can fit for 1 Million EHP in highsec.
Ridiculous, and shows how little thought Fozzie put into this version.
The substance where you ignore the stark reality of how stupid the average Eve player is and what the average fit of mining barges etc is despite groups like Code existing? People are and will fit freighters just as foolishly. As the above posts show, things have not changed in the ganking department, nor will they.
Besides, bulkheads are nothing but a double nerf to ganking the way they are, and what's amazing is that gankers actually wanted this. They wanted cargo reductions to bulkheads despite knowing correctly that A. even with those reductions it still wouldn't be close to the m3 vs value thresholds and B that most eve players are stupid. What I'm trying to say is that you should have hoped that they were kept the same, because even though you could fit bulkheads it would have also allowed you to fit more cargo making the m3/ehp ratios stay the same.
|
Valterra Craven
260
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 17:43:00 -
[2750] - Quote
Rowells wrote: thats not what he said. He said he was at similar levels of cargo with 3 cargo expanders, which is nothing but wrong.
He said he gets similar to before fully fit, i show thats wrong, you come and make comments on subjects irrelavent to the specific matter i was referring to.
That's correct he said "similar". Given the changes, a 100k m3 change when talking about roughly 900k m3 is similar.
This was your correction:
Rowells wrote: if your cargo is the same as before, you're doing something wrong.
New max is 1.2mil/m3
Note that same !=similar. You corrected something incorrectly. Also, note that max doesn't enter into the equation at any end of the spectrum of his post. |
|
Sigras
Conglomo
777
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 21:40:00 -
[2751] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:And you conveniently ignore the substance of most of my own, and others' posts.
Where did Freighters and JF's get nerfed?
First, alignment wasn't touched at all, it can only be improved upon by gaining lowslots.
Cargo you say? Sure, the m^3 was significantly reduced when you fit for EHP.
But that isn't the important value when hauling in highsec. Ganking is the ONLY threat to a freighter pilot. And gankers don't care about how much "m^3" you are carrying. Bulky, low value cargo that requires Cargo Mods are not profitable to gank and not interesting. Gankers care about ISK value vs EHP.
95% of trade items that will stack up into '5-6 Billions ISK' fits quite neatly into the reduced cargobay of Freighters and Jump Freighters, but in turn, are shielded by twice as much EHP - doubling the size of the fleet required to destroy it.
This often reduces the profitability to zero - meaning very, very low risk of ganking.
Especially when you can fit for 1 Million EHP in highsec.
Ridiculous, and shows how little thought Fozzie put into this version. With Catalysts, it costs about 1,000 ISK per damage to suicide gank something.
A providence with a full high grade slave set, specifically fit to tank Kinetic/Thermal, and a damnation boosting has a 460,000 EHP tank against Kinetic/Thermal
This means that it will cost the gankers about 460,000,000 ISK to suicide gank him which means that the break even point is still under a billion ISK...
And you're complaining why?
EDIT: excuse me, I just thought of fitting deadspace armor resist mods in the lows... this gives it a 549,000 EHP resist to Kinetic Thermal meaning the break even point is now 1.1 billion, but given the number of 10-20 billion ISK lossmails ive seen, still not really killing your profit margins.
Just another fun fact, this means you're gank-profitable if you're half full of mexallon |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
734
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 22:36:00 -
[2752] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Rowells wrote: thats not what he said. He said he was at similar levels of cargo with 3 cargo expanders, which is nothing but wrong.
He said he gets similar to before fully fit, i show thats wrong, you come and make comments on subjects irrelavent to the specific matter i was referring to.
That's correct he said "similar". Given the changes, a 100k m3 change when talking about roughly 900k m3 is similar. This was your correction: Rowells wrote: if your cargo is the same as before, you're doing something wrong.
New max is 1.2mil/m3
Note that same !=similar. You corrected something incorrectly. Also, note that max doesn't enter into the equation at any end of the spectrum of his post. Now I know for sure that you're not reading anything.
200k difference is not very similar considering it's 22% difference.
And his exact words were: " right about the same as it would have been without the patch."
Did he say similar there? Nope, he said right about the same. Which is still wrong. And yes Max was mentioned. He was comparing his old maximum capacity with the new maximum capacity. I used fully fit fully skilled Max as a reference point. So yes, is Max did Enter into the equation.
|
Sarrein Razor
RazorEnterprise
2
|
Posted - 2014.06.07 00:59:00 -
[2753] - Quote
Nice way to drive ppl off ccp. I dearly regret to have resubbed now.
Can someone explain to me how i can get the old performance of my Providence and Ark back?
If i fit expanders i lose sublight speed (which nerfs autopilot freighters flying). If i fit bulkheads i just about get what my Ark had prepatch on my Providence.
Not to mention that the Ark is now utterly worthless. A Rorqual will do almost everything the Ark can way better now in terms of hauling into dangerous territory and costs only a fraction of it and consumes less fuel while doing it and can fit a shitton more modules (i.e. cloak).
I demand to know who did this, where he lives and where i can buy pitches and torches close by. I think i want to visit him/her and *thank* him/her in the classic way of unhappy people.
Oh, and while you are at it, i also need the addess of the guy who ruined the navy apoc (it used to be golden) and the carthum ship line.
-> off into the forest to get some firewood, think i'll need it soon. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
898
|
Posted - 2014.06.07 02:35:00 -
[2754] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote: What I'm trying to say is that you should have hoped that they were kept the same, because even though you could fit bulkheads it would have also allowed you to fit more cargo making the m3/ehp ratios stay the same.
Did you fail to understand my post? Or are you intentionally being obtuse?
m^3/EHP is not important to gankers. Because most freighters are relatively empty. (unless they are hauling ice or trit)
The only thing that matters is ISK in cargo/EHP. And potential EHP has doubled - or in the case of the Anshar, more than doubled.
Sure, some freighters will failfit. But there is a big difference between a miner fitting for yield (and neglecting tank), and a freighter pilot fitting cargohold expanders.
The miner benefits from fitting for yield.
On the other hand, fitting a freighter for m^3 is pointless when your freighter is 2/3 empty. And ganking is a very remote risk when you are hauling the kind of low-value/bulk items that could take up 1 Million or more M^3.
Why is this? Because the vast majority of items on the market (mods/rigs/mid-high end mins) are far too expensive to fill a 900K+ m^3 freighter before your ISK value goes well into gank-bait territory.
No, i have no doubt that CODE. and Miniluv will continue to do good work, but I see no reason for CCP to, with a single poorly thought out patch - double their ganking costs, and severely curtail the number of profitable targets out there.
And for people that insist on using Catalyst costs as a reasonable example of 'ganker costs' - you must think getting 65 Catalyst pilots together is a trivial thing. Because that is what it would take to kill a new Anshar in 0.5. Costs scale considerably in higher sec from there. And that new Ark-fit goes over 1 Million EHP? That would take about 85-90 Catalysts.
Sounds reasonable.
I can't tell if the carebears whining about their freighters are simply metagaming or just incredibly stupid. Get handed a massive buff and they keep screaming for more. Absolutely ridiculous.
|
Temenus Alexander
Alexander Enterprises
7
|
Posted - 2014.06.07 03:51:00 -
[2755] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:So we expect that most Freighter and Jump Freighter pilots will use their three low slots to mix and match the following modules to meet their needs: - Expanded Cargoholds
- Reinforced Bulkheads
- Hyperspatial Accelerators (warp speed modules)
- Inertia Stabilizers
- Overdrive Injector Systems
- (For certain armor tanking fits) Adaptive Nano Platings
- (For Jump Freighters) Capacitor Power Relays
- (For Jump Freighters after the Crius release) Jump Fuel Conservation Modules
Yeah... about those bulkheads. Kinda hard to do with no freaking (ok, 1.3 actual) cpu. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
898
|
Posted - 2014.06.07 04:19:00 -
[2756] - Quote
Temenus Alexander wrote:
Yeah... about those bulkheads. Kinda hard to do with no freaking (ok, 1.3 actual) cpu.
L2Read.
|
Temenus Alexander
Alexander Enterprises
7
|
Posted - 2014.06.07 04:21:00 -
[2757] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Temenus Alexander wrote:
Yeah... about those bulkheads. Kinda hard to do with no freaking (ok, 1.3 actual) cpu.
L2Read.
L2 "Eat At Joe's" |
Christopher Mabata
Dominion Tenebrarum New Eden's Misfits Alliance
11
|
Posted - 2014.06.07 04:33:00 -
[2758] - Quote
under Ships and Modules i designed a relatively expensive Providence fit that can get over half a million EHP ( yep 500,000 ), look for my post. it has the max amount of cargo possible without sacrificing tank. ( no expanders on it )
However the pod to fly it is expensive. I think it will be worth it for some pilots who carry alot of cargo or cargo of "Elevated Price"
Buyer be warned Christopher "The Mabata" CEO, Black Ops Admiral, And Head US TZ Diplo Dominion Tenebrarum / New Eden's Misfits Alliance / The Dark Corner Coalition |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
546
|
Posted - 2014.06.07 06:02:00 -
[2759] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:And for people that insist on using Catalyst costs as a reasonable example of 'ganker costs' - you must think getting 65 Catalyst pilots together is a trivial thing. Because that is what it would take to kill a new Anshar in 0.5. Costs scale considerably in higher sec from there. And that new Ark-fit goes over 1 Million EHP? That would take about 85-90 Catalysts. Sounds reasonable.
Absolutely. This Ark costs you ~8.8B + possible cargo of lets say, in your numbers, 4B, which makes 12.8B ISK value. 75 Catalyst, on the other hand, cost you between 700M to 900M, not even a 12th of the gank target. Sounds absolutely reasonable to me. |
Valterra Craven
260
|
Posted - 2014.06.07 06:20:00 -
[2760] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Valterra Craven wrote: What I'm trying to say is that you should have hoped that they were kept the same, because even though you could fit bulkheads it would have also allowed you to fit more cargo making the m3/ehp ratios stay the same.
Did you fail to understand my post? Or are you intentionally being obtuse?
I understood your post completely. What I'm saying is that if the bulkheads penalties aren't a real penalty, ie I can't hit max m3 with them fitted before I hit the gank threshold, then gankers shouldn't have petitioned for this change to the penalty.
Think of it this way: The change allowed afkers to have more EHP without speed loss and if they aren't hitting max m3 then that was a win for them and a loss for you since they can now carry more value afk. If the penalty was kept the same, they still aren't hitting max m3 before the gank threshold, but now they move through space slower.
On the flip side, if the target isn't afk and they are willing to risk higher thresholds the new penalty limits them since they could have carried more cargo and thus had a better or higher potential value/ehp ratio.
As far as the jf's HP, given the fact that the cost to reach those HP values is pretty steep (at least 330mil for the high end ANP mods and another potential couple bil in implants) and the cost of the initial ship itself your argument doesn't seem to meet the balance threshold. Aka if a player is going to spend 10+bil on a ship to get its hp values high then requiring you to get more cats make sense (even though that's already not an efficient way to do things since the best way would be a mix of destroyers and bc's, but thats besides the point). Personally I think you are skewing the numbers a bit in your favor. I'm willing to bet if done correctly it would take less than 40 actual players. |
|
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
898
|
Posted - 2014.06.07 09:08:00 -
[2761] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote:And for people that insist on using Catalyst costs as a reasonable example of 'ganker costs' - you must think getting 65 Catalyst pilots together is a trivial thing. Because that is what it would take to kill a new Anshar in 0.5. Costs scale considerably in higher sec from there. And that new Ark-fit goes over 1 Million EHP? That would take about 85-90 Catalysts. Sounds reasonable. Absolutely. This Ark costs you ~8.8B + possible cargo of lets say, in your numbers, 4B, which makes 12.8B ISK value. 75 Catalyst, on the other hand, cost you between 700M to 900M, not even a 12th of the gank target. Sounds absolutely reasonable to me.
No, not reasonable. 75 Pilots is a ridiculously large number of pilots to coordinate for this activity, outside of Burn Jita. And there is no call to require double the size of ganking fleets (and costs) overnight.
Also, as Tippia is so fond of saying: "Cost is not a balancing factor." The fact that X ISK value of ships can destroy Y value of other ships is irrelevant. There is no formula in EVE that says X must be >= Y. There is no relationship whatsoever.
Lastly, your Ark costs 8.8 Billion and is already 100% gank-proof. Without needing 1 Million EHP. Its called a Jump engine. Learn how to use it.
The minute somebody bumps your Ark and you fear a gank, light a cyno, jump out, Win 100% of the time.
With that in mind, I don't understand why they needed a buff at all.
|
Mag's
the united
17349
|
Posted - 2014.06.07 09:14:00 -
[2762] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Mag's wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:I wouldn't call 168k m-¦ cargo space "without loosing[sic] Cargo bay capacity", if you compare it to the previous 344k m-¦ (the numbers on this Battleclinic post seem a bit off, especially in the Cargo department when I compare it to the Ark in the Pilot Optimizer). However, it's still pretty impressive HP values there, remains to be seen if this helps to deter ganks or just invites them for a try even more. Indeed. Saying without losing capacity, is rather disingenuous. I will say this though, don't be surprised at another balance pass in the future. In regards to EHP. Without loosing /further/ capacity is accurate. Without losing (compared to pre Kronos) capacity isn't. And when he talks about the new patch being a boost, we compare it to the old. So no, you are losing capacity in this instance.
Please stop posting, you're not very good at it. One can see just how bad, in the tooltip thread.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
898
|
Posted - 2014.06.07 09:26:00 -
[2763] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
As far as the jf's HP, given the fact that the cost to reach those HP values is pretty steep (at least 330mil for the high end ANP mods and another potential couple bil in implants) and the cost of the initial ship itself your argument doesn't seem to meet the balance threshold. Aka if a player is going to spend 10+bil on a ship to get its hp values high then requiring you to get more cats make sense (even though that's already not an efficient way to do things since the best way would be a mix of destroyers and bc's, but thats besides the point). Personally I think you are skewing the numbers a bit in your favor. I'm willing to bet if done correctly it would take less than 40 actual players.
OK, I see your point on the bulkheads. As in, giving them more cargo only gives freighters the ability to stuff more goods into it, making them more gankable. I still don't consider speed to be an important factor in freighter flight, as either the freighter pilot is AFK (and the precise time of arrival likely won't matter as the freighter will likely be idle in dock for some time before the pilot's return). Or, the pilot is manually jumping and speed means nothing.
As far as EHP goes, again, ISK cost of ships are not a balancing factor. Small ships kill big ships all the time. Small numbers of gankers have always been able to blow up individual large valuable targets. But requiring gankers to go from mustering fleets of 75 pilots (up from 30-35 or so) to kill a single JF is ridiculous. Especially considering these numbers are for 0.5 - the most forgiving systems in highsec.
Especially when you consider that Jump Freighters can escape at any time with the press of a single button.
|
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
144
|
Posted - 2014.06.07 09:46:00 -
[2764] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:
As far as the jf's HP, given the fact that the cost to reach those HP values is pretty steep (at least 330mil for the high end ANP mods and another potential couple bil in implants) and the cost of the initial ship itself your argument doesn't seem to meet the balance threshold. Aka if a player is going to spend 10+bil on a ship to get its hp values high then requiring you to get more cats make sense (even though that's already not an efficient way to do things since the best way would be a mix of destroyers and bc's, but thats besides the point). Personally I think you are skewing the numbers a bit in your favor. I'm willing to bet if done correctly it would take less than 40 actual players.
OK, I see your point on the bulkheads. As in, giving them more cargo only gives freighters the ability to stuff more goods into it, making them more gankable. I still don't consider speed to be an important factor in freighter flight, as either the freighter pilot is AFK (and the precise time of arrival likely won't matter as the freighter will likely be idle in dock for some time before the pilot's return). Or, the pilot is manually jumping and speed means nothing. As far as EHP goes, again, ISK cost of ships are not a balancing factor. Small ships kill big ships all the time. Small numbers of gankers have always been able to blow up individual large valuable targets. But requiring gankers to go from mustering fleets of 75 pilots (up from 30-35 or so) to kill a single JF is ridiculous. Especially considering these numbers are for 0.5 - the most forgiving systems in highsec. Especially when you consider that Jump Freighters can escape at any time with the press of a single button. no no, you assuming that gankers only need to fly t1 very cheap ships is ridiculous. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
546
|
Posted - 2014.06.07 11:41:00 -
[2765] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote: As far as EHP goes, again, ISK cost of ships are not a balancing factor. Small ships kill big ships all the time. Small numbers of gankers have always been able to blow up individual large valuable targets. But requiring gankers to go from mustering fleets of 75 pilots (up from 30-35 or so) to kill a single JF is ridiculous. Especially considering these numbers are for 0.5 - the most forgiving systems in highsec.
Why is that ridiculous? You need to muster sizable dread fleets to RF or kill a well defended tower in reasonable amounts of time. You need to muster sizable subcap/cap fleets to murder a carrier/super cap. And you complain that you need muster a big fleet and put sizable effort into killing 1 well-defended ship?
Besides, even if you fail to gank the target on the first attempt, you already inflict massive damage to the target in form of immense repair cost, be it time spent with remote hull/armor repair ship or repair shop in stations.
In any possible way (if a gank succeeds or fails) the gankers always win. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
898
|
Posted - 2014.06.07 15:48:00 -
[2766] - Quote
gascanu wrote: no no, you assuming that gankers only need to fly t1 very cheap ships is ridiculous.
I'm NOT.
I'm calling out the idiots that are saying "It takes only X million ISK to blow up a fully tanked Anshar if you use Catalysts." Because they are trying to show how 'cheap' ganking is, and why a massive ganking nerf is justified.
I'm pointing out that using that many Catalysts is unwieldy and has costs of its own. As in, creating a massive fleet that simply does not happen.
It much more likely that Taloses or Tornados would be used - which makes the cost of ganking much greater (if fleet size a bit more managable).
Doesn't change the fact that the number of ships (and thus the cost) required to gank a freighter doubled in a single patch - meaning a very large number of potential targets are now 'safe' from ganking if profit is the motive.
Considering that, A) Jump Freighters were already 100% safe. and B) Even freighter ganks are rare, relative to the number of freighters out there - I'm trying to understand why such a massive nerf to the profession was warranted. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
898
|
Posted - 2014.06.07 16:05:00 -
[2767] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote: In any possible way (if a gank succeeds or fails) the gankers always win.
First, I've noticed that you, again, failed to respond to my argument about Jump Freighters already are gank-proof due to having a Jump Engine, and therefore do not need massive EHP as well. That is why they cost so much, after all. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away.
But then you follow up with nonsense.
Gankers always win??? Repair costs??? Are you serious?
Are you forgetting that ganking was nerfed quite a bit recently and no longer collect insurance? Gankships are not insured (a previous nerf) and is a massive gamble in terms of ISK, if it is not recouped through cargo recovery.
A failed (unprofitable) gank occurs for any number of reasons.
-3rd party interference. -mishandling of the gank because of inexperience, or gankers AFK when order to attack given. -JF pilot not asleep and jumped out. Even if the target is destroyed, then there is another pile of failure conditions that can occur. -cargo stolen -cargo didn't drop -cargo blown up by 3rd party -cargo value miscalculated
The situation being created here, however - is that even if a 4-5 Billion ISK freighter does trundle along, (not as common as you think) - it can, with minimal effort be fit to be completely uneconomical to gank. Meaning more cargo is moved more safely and more AFK.
Result: massive buff for haulers and nerf for gankers. Highsec needed to be even safer? Really? |
Valterra Craven
261
|
Posted - 2014.06.07 16:45:00 -
[2768] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:
As far as EHP goes, again, ISK cost of ships are not a balancing factor. Small ships kill big ships all the time. Small numbers of gankers have always been able to blow up individual large valuable targets. But requiring gankers to go from mustering fleets of 75 pilots (up from 30-35 or so) to kill a single JF is ridiculous. Especially considering these numbers are for 0.5 - the most forgiving systems in highsec.
Especially when you consider that Jump Freighters can escape at any time with the press of a single button.
Well if cost of ships is not a balancing factor then neither is number of players to kill a ship. Especially since the numbers you quote would mean that that group is bad at it. |
Valterra Craven
261
|
Posted - 2014.06.07 16:47:00 -
[2769] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:
Considering that, A) Jump Freighters were already 100% safe.
If they were 100% safe before patch and are 100% safe after, then these changes are irrelevant and you have nothing to complain about. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
546
|
Posted - 2014.06.07 19:59:00 -
[2770] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote: In any possible way (if a gank succeeds or fails) the gankers always win.
First, I've noticed that you, again, failed to respond to my argument about Jump Freighters already are gank-proof due to having a Jump Engine, and therefore do not need massive EHP as well. That is why they cost so much, after all. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away.
I though you were good enough to find this in my "always win" part. But let me break it down a bit further:
If you take a regular CC for gate-gate travel with a JF and you are forced to jump to a cyno, and even more so after Crius, you pay a lot more ISK than you get reward. Ganker win. Once the gank has started, you cannot even escape because you are warp disrupted. Gank either succeeds and you lose your ship, CC, collateral and maybe even your pod, or gank fails, your ship survives, but you have immense repair cost. Ganker win. If you bring valuable good to a hub and you are being ganked, you lose either your/your alliance members' months of ratting and collecting or in case of a jump back to a cyno, reduce their profits considerably. Ganker win. Or take valuable minerals to transport to your production plant, something that, thanks to CCP's wisdom, is going to happen very often in the future: if you need to jump out, your margins are reduced in the best or gone in the worse case. Ganker win.
Herr Wilkus wrote:A failed (unprofitable) gank occurs for any number of reasons.
-3rd party interference. -mishandling of the gank because of inexperience, or gankers AFK when order to attack given. -JF pilot not asleep and jumped out. Even if the target is destroyed, then there is another pile of failure conditions that can occur. -cargo stolen -cargo didn't drop -cargo blown up by 3rd party -cargo value miscalculated
The situation being created here, however - is that even if a 4-5 Billion ISK freighter does trundle along, (not as common as you think) - it can, with minimal effort be fit to be completely uneconomical to gank. Meaning more cargo is moved more safely and more AFK.
3rd parties are effectively shut out from interference because ganked wrecks are yellow and you, if you gank a freighter, usually need a freighter to pull the stuff out (unless you do loot picking with a can), which makes you go suspect and free-to-shoot for everyone. Your cargo in the wreck is in most cases perfectly safe for you to grab with provided protection from your own group. Blowing up the wreck is a possibility, but you still have the killmail. And that is what the majority of gankers are after.
If you are inexperienced, you simply don't try to gank JF. Inexperience or not, you must be outright ignorant to the reality if you attack a target in the full knowledge that you cannot successfully gank it. You take on targets that you can gank and build up experience, before try to make a fool of yourself on bigger fish.
Herr Wilkus wrote:Result: massive buff for haulers and nerf for gankers. Highsec needed to be even safer? Really?
It is not getting any safer with these changes. A tiny little bit more convenient for haulers, but by far not safer. However, I refuse to accept that activities, which are supposed take place in Low sec and 00 sec, should be even easier to do in High sec than it already is the case. If you want to annoy people, do it where everyone is supposed to live and have this kind of pleasure. |
|
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
898
|
Posted - 2014.06.07 20:05:00 -
[2771] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote:
Considering that, A) Jump Freighters were already 100% safe.
If they were 100% safe before patch and are 100% safe after, then these changes are irrelevant and you have nothing to complain about.
Nope. Don't be stupid.
A JF pilot traversing highsec, using good practice, can carry as much ISK as they like, doesn't matter. 10 Billion, 20 Billion. However - sometimes JF pilots make mistakes.
-Sometimes they AFK and aren't there to hit the jump button. -Sometimes they fail to load fuel in their fuel bay, and therefore can't jump. -Sometimes they fail to have a cyno ready when they traverse a high risk ganking system.
In these cases, IF gankers are willing to bring extra bumpers (they are quite agile), and more gankships, they CAN kill it.
Slapping an additional 400-600K EHP onto the hull is just a easy way to coddle lazy freighter pilots. No matter how braindead the pilot, or how AFK they are - at no point is the hull worth ganking when carrying 4-8 Billion ISK.
SOO much easier than taking a few precautions listed above to protect a 6-8 Billion ISK ship.
I'm quite convinced that most of the freighter 'nerf' whining is simply forum metagaming. Are carebears really so stupid to not see what a gift they were handed by Fozzie? Just about every industrial ship in the game has been given a straight up buff, some of them ridiculously so.
PVP ships used for ganking? Nope, mostly nerfed or given neutral changes that don't effect burst damage capability at all.
|
Valterra Craven
262
|
Posted - 2014.06.07 20:25:00 -
[2772] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote:
Considering that, A) Jump Freighters were already 100% safe.
If they were 100% safe before patch and are 100% safe after, then these changes are irrelevant and you have nothing to complain about. Nope. Don't be stupid.
I'm not the one claiming anything is 100% safe anywhere. |
Cynric Cobon-Han
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.07 20:26:00 -
[2773] - Quote
I believe the best game change is to scrap jump freighters completely and go back to the old caravan fleets. No need for all these rebalancing moves with the attendant whining that accompanies always these types of changes.
LIKE THIS POST |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
898
|
Posted - 2014.06.07 20:45:00 -
[2774] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:If you take a regular CC for gate-gate travel with a JF and you are forced to jump to a cyno, and even more so after Crius, you pay a lot more ISK than you get reward. Ganker win. Once the gank has started, you cannot even escape because you are warp disrupted. Gank either succeeds and you lose your ship, CC, collateral and maybe even your pod, or gank fails, your ship survives, but you have immense repair cost. Ganker win. If you bring valuable good to a hub and you are being ganked, you lose either your/your alliance members' months of ratting and collecting or in case of a jump back to a cyno, reduce their profits considerably. Ganker win. Or take valuable minerals to transport to your production plant, something that, thanks to CCP's wisdom, is going to happen very often in the future: if you need to jump out, your margins are reduced in the best or gone in the worse case. Ganker win. Herr Wilkus wrote:Result: massive buff for haulers and nerf for gankers. Highsec needed to be even safer? Really? It is not getting any safer with these changes. A tiny little bit more convenient for haulers, but by far not safer. However, I refuse to accept that activities, which are supposed take place in Low sec and 00 sec, should be even easier to do in High sec than it already is the case. If you want to annoy people, do it where everyone is supposed to live and have this kind of pleasure.
You are talking to player whose income derives from flying freighters through 0.5 chokepoints - so don't think you are fooling anybody when you talk about how "this isn't a buff". I've even lost two freighters in Uedama.
An 720K EHP Anshar fit with Bulkheads - or this 1 Million+ EHP Ark fit I've been seeing are as good as gankproof, flying AFK or no - as long as you keep the cargo under 7-8 Billion. And jumping out remains an option if you want to move more.
The only way you'd get popped is if someone was willing to take a large loss to make an example of you. This simply doesn't happen if gankers are trying to turn a profit.
Your examples of 'gankers winning' are highly specious.
OK, you loaded 10 Billion on your pre-buff JF and got the attention of a gank squad in Uedama. Mach bumps you, and you happened to notice it.
Oh, damn - you have to cyno out. That costs you what? 800 Isotopes to Kubinen or a nearby system? Less? Yeah, that isn't even a rounding error compared to the (very conservative) 1 Billion or so you'll earn from moving that kind of cargo load to a hub. Gankers will have to pick a new target.
Failed gank repair costs? Again - Insignificant compared to the profit you earn off of hauling that huge cargo load. And thats if you pay for the repairs, a logi can fix that up for you with no out-of-pocket expense. (And, yes your cargo had to be huge - otherwise you wouldn't get bumped in the first place....) Plus, the gankers just lost hundreds of millions, or even billions in the gank attempt. Sounds more like a win for you.
OK, suppose the gankers killed you but no cargo dropped, or was stolen. You BOTH lose. Sure, you lose more, but gankers can't buy PLEX, or a new Talos with just killmails, and a great deal of time and energy was wasted, as their fleet is much larger.
Only case where 'for profit' gankers really 'win' is when all the conditions involving looting are met.
-Freighter carrying enough to be profitably ganked shows up and is located with a scout. -Freighter fails to escape, jump out , or be rescued. (and most of these precautions only require the efforts of 1 + an alt.) -Cargo drops. (random) -Cargo is recovered. (depends on 3rd parties, who may simply steal valuable cargo in fast ships - or simply blow up the wreck to deny it to anybody - and these people do not need fleets to be effective, motivated individuals are enough)
And lets face it, freighter pilots 'win' just about 99.9 % of the time, as they are rarely ganked on any given trip, and almost never ganked if they stay out of 0.5 systems. (Burn Jita the only notable exception)
|
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
898
|
Posted - 2014.06.07 20:49:00 -
[2775] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote:
Considering that, A) Jump Freighters were already 100% safe.
If they were 100% safe before patch and are 100% safe after, then these changes are irrelevant and you have nothing to complain about. Nope. Don't be stupid. I'm not the one claiming anything is 100% safe anywhere.
Deal with the substance of what I wrote - and not with the fact that qualifying the exact percentage of 'safety' JF freighters have in post after post gets tiresome.
Being pedantic is the easy way out. |
Lexar Mundi
EVE Pilots for the Ethical Treatment of Asteroids
95
|
Posted - 2014.06.07 22:48:00 -
[2776] - Quote
Why not make a T3 freighter with more customization?
First it would get wormholes active again. Second you could custom fit your T3 freighter for either speed, agility, more cargo, or interdiction (Without the use of warp core stabes of corse)
I haven't put a whole lot of thought into it yet but think of it for a bit |
Valterra Craven
262
|
Posted - 2014.06.08 05:44:00 -
[2777] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:
Deal with the substance of what I wrote - and not with the fact that qualifying the exact percentage of 'safety' JF freighters have in post after post gets tiresome.
Being pedantic is the easy way out.
Well if you had had substance in your post I would have responded to it.
You still have yet to counter the simple argument that if "balance" is not isk vs isk (aka how much did I pour into my JF, vs how much do cats cost) then "balance" is also not how many player its takes to kill something. If that were the case then we'd run into the EHP scope getting insane.
I'll give you a really good example. The damnation. Last year when they were rebalancing commands ships, and they also said that at some point commands ships will be on grid, that whole thread was nothing but bitching moaning about how OP the damnation was because of its possible EHP and its better survival ratios in fleets.
Regardless of whether they were right or wrong, CCP told them that they weren't getting into an EHP spiral. My point in all this is to say that CCP doesn't balance on how many ships it takes to kill one, and they also don't balance on the isk totals of all ships involved. Put simply: come up with a better argument.
|
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
122
|
Posted - 2014.06.08 16:48:00 -
[2778] - Quote
People seem to be going on a lot about the Jump Freighters. Isn't it true that the ordinary Freighters have come off far worse? |
Wyatt Kuha
Nexus Fleet Inc. Nulli Secunda
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.08 18:34:00 -
[2779] - Quote
The Jump Freighter nerf is ridiculous. You take the time to build up 6-8 Billion ISK for a JF and later get cargo space cut by half. I don't see any alternative other than selling the Jump Freighter because it is no longer profitable to carry half the cargo with higher costs with twice the trips to move the same amount of cargo. There is stupid and just plain stupid. You decide which is the better adjective.
The Jump Freighters are what hauls the sub-cap ships and supplies, moon goo, the fuel and ordinance to run the capitals. I don't see how EvE will have massive null-sec battles with supplies choked off. Was this a nerf really intended to buy CCP some time to fix all the nagging time dilation issues?
It will be interesting to see how the reduced supply lines to null-sec will impact motivation to challenge sovereignty. It seems that corps will spend more time on industry and care-bearing instead. I hope I am wrong. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
898
|
Posted - 2014.06.08 19:24:00 -
[2780] - Quote
Wyatt Kuha wrote:The Jump Freighter nerf is ridiculous. You take the time to build up 6-8 Billion ISK for a JF and later get cargo space cut by half. I don't see any alternative other than selling the Jump Freighter because it is no longer profitable to carry half the cargo with higher costs with twice the trips to move the same amount of cargo. There is stupid and just plain stupid. You decide which is the better adjective.
The Jump Freighters are what hauls the sub-cap ships and supplies, moon goo, the fuel and ordinance to run the capitals. I don't see how EvE will have massive null-sec battles with supplies choked off. Was this a nerf really intended to buy CCP some time to fix all the nagging time dilation issues?
It will be interesting to see how the reduced supply lines to null-sec will impact motivation to challenge sovereignty. It seems that corps will spend more time on industry and care-bearing instead. I hope I am wrong.
I've heard there is this module that expands your cargo allowance. Maybe you should try using them, I did and now I can carry more cargo than before, if I like. Or have double EHP, if I like. Or nearly 40% faster alignment.
Or are you just bitching because you can't have all those things simultaneously??
|
|
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
898
|
Posted - 2014.06.08 20:06:00 -
[2781] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
You still have yet to counter the simple argument that if "balance" is not isk vs isk (aka how much did I pour into my JF, vs how much do cats cost) then "balance" is also not how many player its takes to kill something. If that were the case then we'd run into the EHP scope getting insane.
You just seem to put an awful lot of stock into "I paid 8 Billion for this ship, no fair it can be killed by less than 70 gankers. I 700K+ EHP = balance."
I'm merely pointing out that Jump Freighters, pre-patch have the tools to escape 99% of all ganks to begin with. It just requires the freighter pilot jump out when they find themselves getting bumped. Why do you feel entitled to such ridiculous EHP values when the tools for escape are already present? Or do you simply find taking precautions 'annoying' and want the game to be easier? Easier might seem like 'more profitable' in the short term, but there is no free lunch. Easy, safe, AFK highsec logistics hurts the game far more than ganking ever will - as price gradients flatten out across Empire.
The balance of power between freighters and gank squads has been remarkably stable over the years. The amount of firepower that gank ships generate hasn't swung rapidly one way or the other.
Mild buffs (10% DPS) to hybrids had increased effectiveness of blasters, and the T3 class was introduced. However, insurance for gankers was also removed, leaving the ground remarkably level - as battleships were no longer economical to use for these purposes. Last years balance round of ganking ships left them either nerfed or with DPS neutral modifications.
The only recent major shift? CCP halving Concord Response time in 2008, which effectively doubled the amount of firepower and the cost required, which forced gankers to HTFU and get more organized. Which they did.
Now, freighters have effectively had their EHP doubled (or more) in this patch. So did DSTs and Orcas. And this on the heels of a massive EHP buff to the Exhumer/Mining Barge class. Thus, the cost of ganking has again been unilaterally increased.
In light of the relative rarity of freighter ganking - why was this necessary? To placate the freighter pilots who got themselves illed? Theme park mentality.
|
Ramona Quimby
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2014.06.08 23:47:00 -
[2782] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:[quote=Valterra Craven]
In light of the relative rarity of freighter ganking - why was this necessary? T
http://www.minerbumping.com/2014/06/kills-of-week-battle-of-aufay.html
Behold, the first freighter to be suicide ganked after the Kronos "expansion" went live. CCP's long-awaited nerf to freighter ganking was implemented by buffing freighter EHP at the expense of cargo space, and giving freighter pilots fitting options. It was all for nothing. The New Order has already become too powerful. Saturated by anti-matter delivered by our terror weapons, the post-Kronos freighters went pop, just like the ones who came before.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-N9k158Gbxwg/U5TWDE1xi1I/AAAAAAAAZo8/qrJ986nCn9Y/s1600/comment.png
45 freighters, 3 jump freighters, 10 Orcas, and numerous other bot-aspirants were killed in Aufay in the name of the Code. The damage is estimated at more than 200 billion isk, all in one week. The freighter count rivals that of the first Burn Jita in 2012 (though they also killed a dozen jump freighters).
|
Mag's
the united
17366
|
Posted - 2014.06.09 01:04:00 -
[2783] - Quote
Ramona Quimby wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote:[quote=Valterra Craven]
In light of the relative rarity of freighter ganking - why was this necessary? T
http://www.minerbumping.com/2014/06/kills-of-week-battle-of-aufay.htmlBehold, the first freighter to be suicide ganked after the Kronos "expansion" went live. CCP's long-awaited nerf to freighter ganking was implemented by buffing freighter EHP at the expense of cargo space, and giving freighter pilots fitting options. It was all for nothing. The New Order has already become too powerful. Saturated by anti-matter delivered by our terror weapons, the post-Kronos freighters went pop, just like the ones who came before. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-N9k158Gbxwg/U5TWDE1xi1I/AAAAAAAAZo8/qrJ986nCn9Y/s1600/comment.png45 freighters, 3 jump freighters, 10 Orcas, and numerous other bot-aspirants were killed in Aufay in the name of the Code. The damage is estimated at more than 200 billion isk, all in one week. The freighter count rivals that of the first Burn Jita in 2012 (though they also killed a dozen jump freighters). Only 18 of those Freighters were a part of this change.
7 Charons 5 Obelisks 5 Fenrir 1 Providence
1 chose not to fit anything. 5 decided to fit for full cargo. 3 chose 2 cargo expanders and either an Inertia stab, or nanofiber. 1 chose 1 cargo and 2 local stabs. 1 chose all stabs. 2 chose all nanofibers. 1 chose 2 local stabs and a nanofiber. 2 chose 2 stabs II and 1 bulk II. 1 fitted all Bulkhead II 1 chose 3 armour tank mods. Experimental Explosive plating I, Refuge Adaptive nano plating I and an Elemental Kinetic Plating I
So out of those 18, only 4 chose some tank and out of those only 2 chose all tank. But then only one went with all bulkheads. The one with all bulkheads was moving 5 billion in cargo and the armour pilot 7.3.
Out of the 3 jump freighters, only 1 was in the change period and he didn't fit a thing.
So yes, I would say all is well. Most haulers are not thinking straight and many of then are fitting for full cargo. Isn't that a surprise.
So if you are going to rant about a subject, at least state the actual facts and figures before commenting. If there is an increase in freighter ganking after this change, then the blame can only point one way. (Hint, it's not the gankers fault.)
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Valterra Craven
262
|
Posted - 2014.06.09 02:25:00 -
[2784] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:
You still have yet to counter the simple argument that if "balance" is not isk vs isk (aka how much did I pour into my JF, vs how much do cats cost) then "balance" is also not how many player its takes to kill something. If that were the case then we'd run into the EHP scope getting insane.
You just seem to put an awful lot of stock into "I paid 8 Billion for this ship, no fair it can be killed by less than 70 gankers. I 700K+ EHP = balance."
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that my arguments are advocating any sort of change to making ganking harder. I'm not. I don't care about the HP of jfs (Don't own one and likely never well) nor do I care about the HP of any other changes. You were whining about the changes that effected you negatively and my posts were merely to point this out to you. If balance can't be about isk vs isk then it similarly can't be about number of players on a target. CCP has stated that's not how they balance, so regardless of whatever your feelings are on the matter, your posts aren't going to change that. If you have data and reasonable arguments, then please by all means state them, but as it stands your posts are no different than others complaining about the nerfs that freighters just got.
|
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
899
|
Posted - 2014.06.09 02:35:00 -
[2785] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Only 18 of those Freighters were a part of this change. 7 Charons 5 Obelisks 5 Fenrir 1 Providence 1 chose not to fit anything. 5 decided to fit for full cargo. 3 chose 2 cargo expanders and either an Inertia stab, or nanofiber. 1 chose 1 cargo and 2 local stabs. 1 chose all stabs. 2 chose all nanofibers. 1 chose 2 local stabs and a nanofiber. 2 chose 2 stabs II and 1 bulk II. 1 fitted all Bulkhead II 1 chose 3 armour tank mods. Experimental Explosive plating I, Refuge Adaptive nano plating I and an Elemental Kinetic Plating I So out of those 18, only 4 chose some tank and out of those only 2 chose all tank. But then only one went with all bulkheads. The one with all bulkheads was moving 3.6 billion in cargo and the armour pilot 5.9. Out of the 3 jump freighters, only 1 was in the change period and he didn't fit a thing. So yes, I would say all is well. Most haulers are not thinking straight and many of then are fitting for full cargo. Isn't that a surprise. If there is an increase after this change, in what is now considered a rather rare act, then the blame can only point one way. (Hint, it's not the gankers fault.)
Excellent post. I was curious to hear from the field how freighter pilots were adapting to this new situation. My guess is there will be some adjustment over time, as many of them are probably just now realizing that freighters now have low slots.
I also figured that, as far as carebears go - freighter pilots are marginally more savvy than miners - and less likely to failfit. I could be wrong, (one never went broke underestimating carebear intelligence) but good fitting habits don't always happen overnight. It will be interesting to see if fittings change over time via osmosis.
Of course, its quite natural that when sampling 'freighters killed in ganks' that the majority of them will likely be of the cargo variety, as well tanked freighters are simply less likely to show up as a killmail. |
Mag's
the united
17368
|
Posted - 2014.06.09 08:55:00 -
[2786] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote: Excellent post. I was curious to hear from the field how freighter pilots were adapting to this new situation. My guess is there will be some adjustment over time, as many of them are probably just now realizing that freighters now have low slots.
I also figured that, as far as carebears go - freighter pilots are marginally more savvy than miners - and less likely to failfit. I could be wrong, (one never went broke underestimating carebear intelligence) but good fitting habits don't always happen overnight. It will be interesting to see if fittings change over time via osmosis.
Of course, its quite natural that when sampling 'freighters killed in ganks' that the majority of them will likely be of the cargo variety, as well tanked freighters are simply less likely to show up as a killmail.
Thank you. I simply pulled all that info from the kill boards and was not actually 'on the field' so to speak. Saying 45 freighters and 3 jump freighters etc etc, doesn't tell you a thing tbh. So I thought I should actually decipher the true numbers.
Those kills are from one of Code's 'events', so my guess is they killed everything that they could. If this is indeed the case, we are seeing an actual view of what people were fitting then and not simply ones they deemed easy and/or profitable.
I agree it's early days and this is why I didn't make much of those 2 without any fittings at all. But I do think we'll see plenty with reduced EHP, for one reason or another from now on. This may lead to an increase in freighter ganks, only time will tell. But as I said, the blame if it does can only point one way.
I do think haulers got off rather lightly with this change, it could have been far worse. In fact, I would say they did rather well. I wouldn't at all be surprised at another balance pass at some later date, with reduced stats.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Sarrein Razor
RazorEnterprise
2
|
Posted - 2014.06.09 19:40:00 -
[2787] - Quote
No matter how u twist and turn it, this is a nerf to freighters.
If i fit Expanders (to get on cargo what they used to have), my travel time increases because of the Expanders malus on (sublight)speed.
Do if for tank, my cargo gets gimped even more (Bulkheads) or it stays at least gimped with the new defaults while gaining only very limited benefit (Nano Plates). Same for intertia stabs, nano, etc.
So, tell me in what way do these changes benefit me. I use my Providence almost exclusively to haul ores. Its ability to do that has been greatly affected by this changes in negative way. It takes longer to move the same amount no matter what i fit.
Not to mention that gankers still have the upper hand in any configuration, so freighterganks never realy got addressed as a whole from my point of view.
And JFs are utterly crap now and will be further gimped when the changes to fuel comsumption come. |
Jeanne-Luise Argenau
Cruis3r's Cr3w Inc. Constructive. Criticism.
110
|
Posted - 2014.06.09 21:59:00 -
[2788] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote: Excellent post. I was curious to hear from the field how freighter pilots were adapting to this new situation. My guess is there will be some adjustment over time, as many of them are probably just now realizing that freighters now have low slots.
I also figured that, as far as carebears go - freighter pilots are marginally more savvy than miners - and less likely to failfit. I could be wrong, (one never went broke underestimating carebear intelligence) but good fitting habits don't always happen overnight. It will be interesting to see if fittings change over time via osmosis.
Of course, its quite natural that when sampling 'freighters killed in ganks' that the majority of them will likely be of the cargo variety, as well tanked freighters are simply less likely to show up as a killmail.
Thank you. I simply pulled all that info from the kill boards and was not actually 'on the field' so to speak. Saying 45 freighters and 3 jump freighters etc etc, doesn't tell you a thing tbh. So I thought I should actually decipher the true numbers. Those kills are from one of Code's 'events', so my guess is they killed everything that they could. If this is indeed the case, we are seeing an actual view of what people were fitting then and not simply ones they deemed easy and/or profitable. I agree it's early days and this is why I didn't make much of those 2 without any fittings at all. But I do think we'll see plenty with reduced EHP, for one reason or another from now on. This may lead to an increase in freighter ganks, only time will tell. But as I said, the blame if it does can only point one way. I do think haulers got off rather lightly with this change, it could have been far worse. In fact, I would say they did rather well. I wouldn't at all be surprised at another balance pass at some later date, with reduced stats.
maybe but that still leaves the question why would any freighter pilot now use the charon or fenrir both cannot be tanked efficiently compared to the armor ones
|
Mag's
the united
17377
|
Posted - 2014.06.09 22:29:00 -
[2789] - Quote
Jeanne-Luise Argenau wrote:Mag's wrote:Thank you. I simply pulled all that info from the kill boards and was not actually 'on the field' so to speak. Saying 45 freighters and 3 jump freighters etc etc, doesn't tell you a thing tbh. So I thought I should actually decipher the true numbers.
Those kills are from one of Code's 'events', so my guess is they killed everything that they could. If this is indeed the case, we are seeing an actual view of what people were fitting then and not simply ones they deemed easy and/or profitable.
I agree it's early days and this is why I didn't make much of those 2 without any fittings at all. But I do think we'll see plenty with reduced EHP, for one reason or another from now on. This may lead to an increase in freighter ganks, only time will tell. But as I said, the blame if it does can only point one way.
I do think haulers got off rather lightly with this change, it could have been far worse. In fact, I would say they did rather well. I wouldn't at all be surprised at another balance pass at some later date, with reduced stats. maybe but that still leaves the question why would any freighter pilot now use the charon or fenrir both cannot be tanked efficiently compared to the armor ones Oh I agree. The first iteration was rigs, but this was obviously flawed so slots took their place. But either way freighters were going to be nerfed one way or another, I just think pilots were lucky it wasn't worse than it is.
And yes, certain ones got the short straw. But that's what happens with rushed, poorly thought out ideas.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Lord Fudo
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
76
|
Posted - 2014.06.10 03:02:00 -
[2790] - Quote
Bethan Le Troix wrote:People seem to be going on a lot about the Jump Freighters. Isn't it true that the ordinary Freighters have come off far worse?
Freighter changes suck. They should have left them alone. I dont even want to fly mine anymore. Except to a trade hub to sell it. |
|
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
900
|
Posted - 2014.06.10 06:02:00 -
[2791] - Quote
Sarrein Razor wrote:No matter how u twist and turn it, this is a nerf to freighters.
If i fit Expanders (to get on cargo what they used to have), my travel time increases because of the Expanders malus on (sublight)speed.
Do if for tank, my cargo gets gimped even more (Bulkheads) or it stays at least gimped with the new defaults while gaining only very limited benefit (Nano Plates). Same for intertia stabs, nano, etc.
So, tell me in what way do these changes benefit me. I use my Providence almost exclusively to haul ores. Its ability to do that has been greatly affected by this changes in negative way. It takes longer to move the same amount no matter what i fit.
Not to mention that gankers still have the upper hand in any configuration, so freighterganks never realy got addressed as a whole from my point of view.
And JFs are utterly crap now and will be further gimped when the changes to fuel comsumption come.
Wow, where to start with this tool.
If you fit expanders you get 25% MORE cargo, not 'the cargo you used to have.' This is a significant buff. I'd love it if my Talos did 25% more damage. Tip for you: Don't be a lying ******* and people might respect your opinion.
Next, sublight speed is irrelevant when you select 'Warp to Zero'. Avoid selecting 'Warp to 50km' and you'll find your travel time improves quite a bit.
Fit tank, and you can carry quite a bit more ISK-value in Cargo. Higher value items also tend to be more compact and easily fit within the smaller cargohold. On the other hand, you are carrying ore - bulky and not very valuable. Fitting tank is pointless because nobody will gank you for profit. On the other hand, getting ganked for posting like an idiot....thats a distinct possibility.
Gankers always have the upper hand? Actually no, do the math and carry cargo that doesn't make you an attractive target and they'll never be able to gank you profitably.
Jump Freighters are crap? Use a Jump Freighter and you can jump out and escape a gank 100% of the time. (assuming you are at the keyboard, paying attention.) They also can be fit to have over 1 Million EHP. Doesn't sound so crap to me.
I had assumed that freighter pilots were a slightly more intelligent variety of carebear. (vs bot-aspirant miners). I may have to revise that assumption soon.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6184
|
Posted - 2014.06.10 06:29:00 -
[2792] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Next, sublight speed is irrelevant when you select 'Warp to Zero'. Avoid selecting 'Warp to 50km' and you'll find your travel time improves quite a bit. I would suspect the case is... "autopilot warping to gate at 15km, then slowboating while everyone scans you and calculates what your cargo is worth".
Herr Wilkus wrote:I had assumed that freighter pilots were a slightly more intelligent variety of carebear. (vs bot-aspirant miners). I may have to revise that assumption soon. Depends if autopiloting is bot-aspirant... since, it is already provided to us by CCP. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
559
|
Posted - 2014.06.10 11:05:00 -
[2793] - Quote
How is using an official, existing since time immemorial game mechanic bot aspirant? By that logic (I guess every activity that doesn't include direct player action is considered such?), using drones, moon harvesters, siphons, manufacturing, and gas mining, sitting in station being busy doing nothing at all as well as a couple more things are all considered "bot aspirant"? |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6185
|
Posted - 2014.06.10 18:53:00 -
[2794] - Quote
Exactly. If anything, freighter alts moving low value stuff might as well be npcs. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers. |
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
419
|
Posted - 2014.06.10 21:30:00 -
[2795] - Quote
Please remove ability to fit adaptive nanoplating to jump freighters.
It is gamebreaking.
http://i.imgur.com/9UIlILF.jpg http://i.imgur.com/pwy4m8U.jpg
EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1369
|
Posted - 2014.06.10 22:00:00 -
[2796] - Quote
Yea, 169k Cargo space is game breaking on a ship that will jump before it's invuln undock timer wears off half the time. Oh, you chose to focus on the other singular aspect than looking at the downsides they pay for that.
Personally, if someone wants to put 3 bil in officer mods on their JF, and accept that cargo downsize & a max slave set & max links, they can have 1 Million EHP. That's 3 Bil closer to being worth ganking after all. Those mods count against ganking profitability also. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1369
|
Posted - 2014.06.10 22:07:00 -
[2797] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:How is using an official, existing since time immemorial game mechanic bot aspirant? By that logic (I guess every activity that doesn't include direct player action is considered such?), using drones, moon harvesters, siphons, manufacturing, and gas mining, sitting in station being busy doing nothing at all as well as a couple more things are all considered "bot aspirant"? Because it allows the 'Code' followers to dehumanise their targets, thereby pretend that actually they are doing EVE a service rather than simply being scummy pirates. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
752
|
Posted - 2014.06.10 22:13:00 -
[2798] - Quote
Nobody has ever complained about the Rorqual doing this (albeit not in highsec). I don't even need shiny mods to beat that tank. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6943
|
Posted - 2014.06.10 22:24:00 -
[2799] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Nobody has ever complained about the Rorqual doing this (albeit not in highsec). I don't even need shiny mods to beat that tank.
You can't bring a Rorqual to highsec, as has been mentioned. Which is the entire problem with the JF changes. The amount of ships and dps you need to kill a freaking JF in highsec now is absurd.
These changes do almost nothing to the people using a JF to move large items or large quantities through space across distances. It does have an effect on people moving high value, small size items through highsec, as they are now functionally invincible.
I do not think that is a good thing. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Sarrein Razor
RazorEnterprise
2
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 02:56:00 -
[2800] - Quote
Ganking and EHP have never been a problem for me, as i dont use my freighter to move high value stuff. What i move 99% of the time is ores to a refinery station where i have perfect standings, so my cargo value rarely reaches 500 million.
And i dont know about other people, but i use autopilot in highsec very often, especially when i am busy doing other stuff on my other toons.
Also, as a Freighter V Char i get 22.6% Bonus on Cargo with Expanders while losing 28% of (Sublight)Speed.
And regarding Jump Freighers, the moment u need these 1 Mil. EHP u did something terribly wrong (not to mention that u need a Slave Set and other expensive Implants to reach that EHP even with the Ark, i dont run permanently on slave sets, i prefer +5 implants for my non super chars).
Also, in my entire eve career i did never ever use a bot. If u have doubts, feel free to ask ccp about it. And until u can come up with evidence that proves otherwise: STFU.
These changes have been poorly thought out and from what i have seen, no one realy asked for them and as far as i see it the only thing they do accomlish is to **** people off (being freigher pilots or gankers). |
|
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
424
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 10:09:00 -
[2801] - Quote
You can still get 800k ehp with under 1 bil implants and under 400m fittings on a ship that costs 7b
And reward for that is being invincible.
If there is a 100man gang waiting for you your alt can see it, if you get bumped you jump out and anything less than that just straight won't kill you.
EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
6
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 14:40:00 -
[2802] - Quote
Arya Regnar wrote:You can still get 800k ehp with under 1 bil implants and under 400m fittings on a ship that costs 7b
And reward for that is being invincible.
If there is a 100man gang waiting for you your alt can see it, if you get bumped you jump out and anything less than that just straight won't kill you.
you don't need any implants or low slots to jump out. |
|
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
1543
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 23:14:00 -
[2803] - Quote
I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. As always I let some edge cases stay. Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil!
The Rules: 4. Personal attacks are prohibited.
Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated. ISD Ezwal Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
784
|
Posted - 2014.06.15 06:59:00 -
[2804] - Quote
Any word on those jump drive modules yet? |
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
431
|
Posted - 2014.06.15 12:36:00 -
[2805] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote:Arya Regnar wrote:You can still get 800k ehp with under 1 bil implants and under 400m fittings on a ship that costs 7b
And reward for that is being invincible.
If there is a 100man gang waiting for you your alt can see it, if you get bumped you jump out and anything less than that just straight won't kill you. you don't need any implants or low slots to jump out.
Which is exactly why JFs shouldn't have that much EHP.
EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
|
Lolmer
OMG-Ponies Caffeine Nicotine and Hate
121
|
Posted - 2014.06.18 19:05:00 -
[2806] - Quote
Perhaps I'm doing this wrong, but my understanding is that I'm supposed to be able to fit Reinforced Bulkheads to my freighter, however in the game right now (2014-06-18), all Reinforced Bulkheads' Show Info from the Market shows that they need 16-40 tf of CPU to fit, but the freighter (Obelisk here) has only 1.2 tf of CPU available.
Sorry if this was answered earlier in the thread, but eve search sucks and I didn't want to page through 137 pages to find one question/answer. :( The OP itself mentions Reinforced Bulkheads:
So we expect that most Freighter and Jump Freighter pilots will use their three low slots to mix and match the following modules to meet their needs:
CCP Fozzie wrote:So we expect that most Freighter and Jump Freighter pilots will use their three low slots to mix and match the following modules to meet their needs: Expanded Cargoholds Reinforced Bulkheads Hyperspatial Accelerators (warp speed modules) Inertia Stabilizers Overdrive Injector Systems (For certain armor tanking fits) Adaptive Nano Platings (For Jump Freighters) Capacitor Power Relays (For Jump Freighters after the Crius release) Jump Fuel Conservation Modules
However, when I go to actually fit the Reinforced Bulkhead, it uses up 0 tf of CPU. :)
Show Info from fitted Reinforced Bulkhead II = 0 tf Show Info from Market for Reinforced Bulkhead II = 40 tf. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
796
|
Posted - 2014.06.18 19:33:00 -
[2807] - Quote
Lolmer wrote:Perhaps I'm doing this wrong, but my understanding is that I'm supposed to be able to fit Reinforced Bulkheads to my freighter, however in the game right now (2014-06-18), all Reinforced Bulkheads' Show Info from the Market shows that they need 16-40 tf of CPU to fit, but the freighter (Obelisk here) has only 1.2 tf of CPU available. Sorry if this was answered earlier in the thread, but eve search sucks and I didn't want to page through 137 pages to find one question/answer. :( The OP itself mentions Reinforced Bulkheads: So we expect that most Freighter and Jump Freighter pilots will use their three low slots to mix and match the following modules to meet their needs: CCP Fozzie wrote:So we expect that most Freighter and Jump Freighter pilots will use their three low slots to mix and match the following modules to meet their needs: Expanded Cargoholds Reinforced Bulkheads Hyperspatial Accelerators (warp speed modules) Inertia Stabilizers Overdrive Injector Systems (For certain armor tanking fits) Adaptive Nano Platings (For Jump Freighters) Capacitor Power Relays (For Jump Freighters after the Crius release) Jump Fuel Conservation Modules
However, when I go to actually fit the Reinforced Bulkhead, it uses up 0 tf of CPU. :) Show Info from fitted Reinforced Bulkhead II = 0 tf Show Info from Market for Reinforced Bulkhead II = 40 tf. check stats on freighter bonuses, 100% reduction in CPU requirements |
Lolmer
OMG-Ponies Caffeine Nicotine and Hate
121
|
Posted - 2014.06.18 19:37:00 -
[2808] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Lolmer wrote:Perhaps I'm doing this wrong, but my understanding is that I'm supposed to be able to fit Reinforced Bulkheads to my freighter, however in the game right now (2014-06-18), all Reinforced Bulkheads' Show Info from the Market shows that they need 16-40 tf of CPU to fit, but the freighter (Obelisk here) has only 1.2 tf of CPU available. Sorry if this was answered earlier in the thread, but eve search sucks and I didn't want to page through 137 pages to find one question/answer. :( The OP itself mentions Reinforced Bulkheads: So we expect that most Freighter and Jump Freighter pilots will use their three low slots to mix and match the following modules to meet their needs: CCP Fozzie wrote:So we expect that most Freighter and Jump Freighter pilots will use their three low slots to mix and match the following modules to meet their needs: Expanded Cargoholds Reinforced Bulkheads Hyperspatial Accelerators (warp speed modules) Inertia Stabilizers Overdrive Injector Systems (For certain armor tanking fits) Adaptive Nano Platings (For Jump Freighters) Capacitor Power Relays (For Jump Freighters after the Crius release) Jump Fuel Conservation Modules
However, when I go to actually fit the Reinforced Bulkhead, it uses up 0 tf of CPU. :) Show Info from fitted Reinforced Bulkhead II = 0 tf Show Info from Market for Reinforced Bulkhead II = 40 tf. check stats on freighter bonuses, 100% reduction in CPU requirements
Face -> Palm, thanks!
|
McNab DK1977
The Graduates Forged of Fire
1
|
Posted - 2014.07.22 15:08:00 -
[2809] - Quote
So what happened to the jump fuel reduction modules ?? |
aesona Tsutola
Galactic Hauling Solutions Inc.
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.23 06:05:00 -
[2810] - Quote
Also curious when those fuel conservation modules are due. 50% increase in fuels to jump around made the patch ;( which is how i make a living in the game so this was very tough on us haulers. |
|
Balder Verdandi
Czerka.
224
|
Posted - 2014.08.29 15:53:00 -
[2811] - Quote
aesona Tsutola wrote:Also curious when those fuel conservation modules are due. 50% increase in fuels to jump around made the patch ;( which is how i make a living in the game so this was very tough on us haulers.
This is why I've repeatedly said CCP doesn't know their own game.
You've reduced the amount we can haul, increased the amount of fuel used to jump, I'm not sure how far I can jump now as the wiki isn't updated so trying to find out what I can do versus what I could do is aggravating (I'm being nice on this point, and no you don't want to know what I really want to say since ISD's are "editting" posts), oh and the best part is we're even more limited on moving the larger items (TCU's, SBU's, CSAA's, etc.) so even if we were in null-sec trying to move this stuff from a station to where it's needed, even in system, becomes asinine.
Thanks guys, I needed this slap in the face to the other industry related nerfs. Long live the failure of "Unified Inventory"! Player Owned Station fix dated back to 2006!
|
Ragori Mitternacht
Deadspace Retailers Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 05:11:00 -
[2812] - Quote
Ok I know I am new and I haven't been playing for to long but I have been skilling and working towards the covert ops and jump freighters. However from where I am sitting after this new update is released I need to reevaluate where I am working towards since those ships will no longer be useful for what I want to do. I know I have not kept up to date on all the things that are being changed since I heard what the patch was going to do since about 2 weeks ago (real life meddled in a not so fun way).
What I understand is that jump freighters are now limited besides the new restrictions one the jump engine range. so in other words if you are in null sorry your now an easy target especially if you have to make a 40 some odd jump. I can understand the capitols and other things and I can understand the covert ops getting a hit even though they will not be effective any longer. Yes I know they can still use regular gates however I have experienced the joys of gate camps in a stealth bomber and dying. Yes that is part of eve but the cyno fields they make allow them to get where they need to undetected except for showing up on local. however if they come in through a gate for a moment they are uncloaked and yes I hear all the time how if you are fast you can avoid being targeted however if your opponent litters the gate with debris you are forced to decloak and work your way out of the area to cloak and by then you will be locked. Yes I am a new player but I watch local and have seen many gankers talking about using this trick and I have died to this trick as well.
Now there is no point in training for a cyno field ability when I may use it only once a week or maybe twice a week if I got lucky in a jump freighter. Covert ops may not suffer as much but it will still suffer if I have to make deep strikes into enemy territory. It would suck to get stranded deep in enemy territory and have to leave my toon logged off in enemy space while I wait for those jump engines to cool off if I am not able to find a friendly station to dock with.
Again yes I am a noob to eve but I am just stating what I see. If I am wrong then so be it if someone points it out to me and explains how I am wrong I will say thank you for explaining and helping me get better.
Now then after my rambling speech I ask what is the point in investing in jump freighters after you have gone and done this to them? Why invest in they cyno training when my ships are going to be crippled after a few jumps?
Yes you allow them to use gates but to me that is a danger and a risk that far outweighs any potential rewards. Yes you have the nice cool downs and such to allow them if they are willing to extend a previous hour long trip into say a 4 or 5 hour trip allowing the engine to completely cool each and every time you jump but to me that is even more boring than mining in high sec with less rewards than high sec mining which is pathetic after mining in null and in a wormhole.
So again why invest in several months of training for something I may use only once or at most twice a week? |
|
|
|
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] |