Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Davir Sometaww
Snuff Box
18
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 03:52:06 -
[1] - Quote
I'm curious, after seeing constant freighter kills and seeing no real forum post on this subject, my question is:
Why don't they just let freighters be able to sport a damage control?
|
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Late Night Alliance
6370
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 04:21:13 -
[2] - Quote
Because it would effectively double their HP (putting it above 600k) and make it unreasonably hard to gank them.
The key word here is "reasonable."
Right now it takes a lot of people to bring down one man in a large ship. And no, cost is not the most important balancing factor here. It is the amount of effort required to either defend or attack.
Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective.
"How did you veterans start?"
|
Davir Sometaww
Snuff Box
18
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 04:28:04 -
[3] - Quote
A ship that is literally larger than a carrier, you'd think it SHOULD be unreasonably hard to gank. 15-20 Talos's bumrushing one doesn't seem like a reasonable choice - given that it is in High Sec in 1.0 Security Systems. |
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
718
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 04:50:44 -
[4] - Quote
think of all the jobs a carrier can do, now think of all the jobs a freighter can do...
also if a freighter is bigger than a carrier why can it use jump gates? (although I suppose that won't matter in a few weeks)
I'll join the chorus asking CCP, don't take my fancy names away from me!
In the name of the Limos, the Malkuth, and the Arbalest, so help me pod
- Mara Rinn
|
Davir Sometaww
Snuff Box
18
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 04:53:33 -
[5] - Quote
Its changing soon, carriers will use gates |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Late Night Alliance
6370
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 04:54:27 -
[6] - Quote
A freighter is a capital sized ship that gives up all combat capability in order to move small fleets or markets worth of stuff... it isn't all that hard to imagine that it won't have anywhere near the tanking ability of a combat-oriented capital ship (because all of that combat related equipment was tossed in favor of making cargo room).
And to take down 600k worth of HP in a 1.0 system (5 second response time) would require 70 to 100 Tech 2 fit Talos... or 50 something Tech 2, artillery-fit Tornados.
Quote:Its changing soon, carriers will use gates They still won't be able to enter high-sec though.
Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective.
"How did you veterans start?"
|
Davir Sometaww
Snuff Box
18
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 05:09:45 -
[7] - Quote
There are ways to make Concord look somewhere else.
https://zkillboard.com/kill/41784436/
This proves it:
https://zkillboard.com/kill/41789284/
https://zkillboard.com/kill/41890859/
https://zkillboard.com/kill/41888841/
https://zkillboard.com/kill/41888563/
https://zkillboard.com/kill/41887737/
It doesn't take 70 talos's |
Valkin Mordirc
323
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 05:48:24 -
[8] - Quote
What Shahfluff is saying
is if a freighter had 600k of EHP it WOULD take around 70 Talso's to kill it,
#DeleteTheWeak
|
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Late Night Alliance
6370
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 05:58:07 -
[9] - Quote
Davir Sometaww wrote:There are ways to make Concord look somewhere else. Doesn't matter. CONCORD always responds within a given time frame. In a 1.0 system they will respond within 5 seconds. In a 0.5 system it takes 15 seconds. They will however, respond sooner if they are already on grid.
Davir Sometaww wrote:It doesn't take 70 talos's It does if a freighter could fit a damage control in addition to two T2 reinforced bulkheads. An Obelisk can have upwards of 650k ehp with such a fit (closer to 750k ehp with high-grade slaves and warfare links).
Requiring even 15 to 20+ people to bring down ONE ship (that is not even geared towards combat) that has put minimal to no effort into protecting itself (when it is obviously a ship that requires support from others) fits my idea of unreasonable. Hell... Marauders require less to take down.
edit: you look again at those freighters in the killmails you linked you will notice that many are actually "anti-tanked" with nanofibers and cargo-expanders. It takes less dps to bring them down. And the one freighter that is tanked with reinforced bulkheads (the Nomad) just happens to also be the freighter with the lowest base tank of the four.
Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective.
"How did you veterans start?"
|
Davir Sometaww
Snuff Box
18
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 06:00:56 -
[10] - Quote
Well possibly as an idea, the damage control would severly limit cargo space - They could make a new module of damage control designed for freighters but severely reduces cargo space. |
|
Valkin Mordirc
323
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 06:06:46 -
[11] - Quote
Davir Sometaww wrote:Well possibly as an idea, the damage control would severly limit cargo space - They could make a new module of damage control designed for freighters but severely reduces cargo space.
It would seem to me, that you want a module that makes you ungankable.
Which all though I'm not the biggest fan of code, I don't think is really fair, as the ganking style of gameplay would be directly effected.
Freighters were already given a buff by allowing lowslots in the first place, just be happy you can fit bulkheads in the first place.
#DeleteTheWeak
|
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Late Night Alliance
6370
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 06:16:27 -
[12] - Quote
Quote:Well possibly as an idea, the damage control would severly limit cargo space - They could make a new module of damage control designed for freighters but severely reduces cargo space.
You're still missing the point though.
With your idea freighter pilots don't have to put much, if any, effort into making themselves unreasonably hard to gank in high-sec. The benefit that one module (a damage control) provides is immense. There is a reason almost all combat ships fit them and that freighters were purposefully not designed to fit them when they were rebalanced in the not too distant past.
Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective.
"How did you veterans start?"
|
Rockstede
30plus Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere
17
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 07:12:42 -
[13] - Quote
Davir Sometaww wrote:A ship that is literally larger than a carrier, you'd think it SHOULD be unreasonably hard to gank.
Your comparing apples and oranges here, think about the real life equivalent of these 2 vessels.
Something like the USS Eisenhower VS an Oil Supertanker.
The Eisenhower is a warship with many layers of defence in place that can (in theory) stay afloat even after multiple missile strikes due to it's compartmentalized design. In other words, you plow a missile into the side of a US aircraft carrier and the crew will just seal off the area that is affected and the ship will survive.
An Oil Supertanker is a giant 1 skinned box with zero defences, it's entire bulk dedicated to carrying freight (in this case oil). After a missile strike, there is nothing for the crew to seal off in order to save the ship.
I know comparing eve to real life is in most cases quite silly however in this case it has merit ^^ |
Luwc
Brodozers Inc.
250
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 07:43:39 -
[14] - Quote
Snuff Box.
Giving freighters DCUs
I am too old for this ****
http://hugelolcdn.com/i/267520.gif
|
Davir Sometaww
Snuff Box
18
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 08:32:55 -
[15] - Quote
Luwc wrote:Snuff Box.
Giving freighters DCUs
I am too old for this ****
Its really for epic bait
Edit:
And curiosity as well, jealous of the expensive freighter kills - tbh |
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
323
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 09:27:50 -
[16] - Quote
Rockstede wrote:The Eisenhower is a warship with many layers of defence in place that can (in theory) stay afloat even after multiple missile strikes due to it's compartmentalized design. In other words, you plow a missile into the side of a US aircraft carrier and the crew will just seal off the area that is affected and the ship will survive.
An Oil Supertanker is a giant Multi-Skinned box with zero defences, it's entire bulk dedicated to carrying freight (in this case oil). After a missile strike, the inherently designed failsafes minimise the amount the crew have to do to keep the ship intact and prevent spillages of disasterous proportions.
FYP... Or is it still the 1970s? |
Syrias Bizniz
Zebra Corp The Bastion
361
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 10:14:21 -
[17] - Quote
Davir Sometaww wrote:A ship that is literally larger than a carrier, you'd think it SHOULD be unreasonably hard to gank. 15-20 Talos's bumrushing one doesn't seem like a reasonable choice - given that it is in High Sec in 1.0 Security Systems.
Given that it's designed to haul loads of cargo rather than being dropped into battle and sustain heavy fire one would assume it hasn't a lot of defenses. |
Ralph King-Griffin
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
5998
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 12:47:33 -
[18] - Quote
ShahFluffers wrote:Quote:Well possibly as an idea, the damage control would severly limit cargo space - They could make a new module of damage control designed for freighters but severely reduces cargo space. You're still missing the point though. With your idea freighter pilots don't have to put much, if any, effort into making themselves unreasonably hard to gank in high-sec. The benefit that one module (a damage control) provides is immense. There is a reason almost all combat ships fit them and that freighters were purposefully not designed to fit them when they were rebalanced in the not too distant past. exactly this,they were very deliberately given restrictive fitting room with the dcu specifically in mind.
"I'm also quite confident that you are laughing
and it's the kind of laugh that gives normal people shivers."
=]I[=
|
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
593
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 13:46:38 -
[19] - Quote
Keep in mind that when CCP re-worked freighters to give them slots, they also adjusted their base stats considerably. Rest assured that if you ever get your DCU2, CCP will very likely reduce freighter hull HP by 50% or so to compensate.
CCP Falcon's thoughts on suicide ganking.
Reading Comprehension: so important it deserves it's own skillbook.
I want to create content, not become content.
|
Agondray
Avenger Mercenaries VOID Intergalactic Forces
145
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 15:46:51 -
[20] - Quote
Davir Sometaww wrote:A ship that is literally larger than a carrier, you'd think it SHOULD be unreasonably hard to gank. 15-20 Talos's bumrushing one doesn't seem like a reasonable choice - given that it is in High Sec in 1.0 Security Systems.
15-20 talos to gank is atleast better then 20 catalyst that i watched shoot several freighters, atleast talos cost more and could either make the gankers take a larger hit in wallet or look for specific targets. the catalyst gangs dont do that as they are cheaper they can afford to not be selective
"Sarcasm is the Recourse of a weak mind." -Dr. Smith
|
|
Battle BV Master
Executor BV Sovereign Infinity
53
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 16:07:19 -
[21] - Quote
Well you know I do normal PVP and don't own a freighter so I don't have a personal stake in this argument.
But it does seem to be a little too easy. Cata's are too cheap for what they can achieve in this regard.
Also just up Concords response time not increase the tank makes more sense really.
This is because all reasonable travel will include a 0.5 system. Hub to hub and such, the 0.5 system isn't a choice when traveling its manditory. Which is odd in a sandbox game.
If you could avoid them by taking a longer route that be something different. But they can't be avoided.
EVE is based on risk and reward. So either make safe travel MUCH slower, if you have a DC you'll only go 25% the speed?! Or make 0.5s avoidable also increasing travel time.Or have a DC really cut the cargo down to 25%.
Or just remove the Catalyst from the game, its useless if you're not ganking anyways. Any other ship would cost enough to make it 'fair' again
tl;dr
Its too easy to gank at the moment, there are many ways to fix it. Pick one above or think of one yourself... |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
4172
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 16:43:48 -
[22] - Quote
Freighters are in a solid state balance wise, where you need to chose between tank, capacity, and agility.
Suicide ganking is an very solid part of this game, although it has grown a bit excessive late. Sadly, increasing concord response times a little bit really won't alter the situation much. There are only two ways to truly alter it:
1.) Address bumping. Currently there is 1 method to escape a bumping machariel. Have a fleetmate in a fast ship (inty) burn 150 km's out in the direction they are bumping you and warp to them then warp to safety. I've used this technique to save my freighter when they targetted it for suicide ganking, and it works fairly well. This information simply needs to be disseminated, and hopefully good samaritans will step up.
2.) Address Concord manipulation. If you really, truly want to "limit" suicide ganking, make it so you cannot coerce concord to move to different areas of the system. If they spawn on a gate, they stay on that gate until they despawn. Give them a reasonable despawn timer (30-60 minutes). This then opens up the loophole of carebears using noobship alts to spawn concord protection in belts and places, so that would need limiting too. I don't believe suicide ganking has reached a level where CCP needs to make major game changes like this yet.
|
Fret Thiesant
The Imperial LansDrahd LOADED-DICE
55
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 22:35:47 -
[23] - Quote
I like the idea of Damage Control on freighters. Keeps them up longer meaning you can have a fleet defend it meaning it's a conflict driver. |
Ned Thomas
Hellbound Turkeys Alliance of Abandoned Cybernetic Rejects
179
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 00:36:31 -
[24] - Quote
Want a freighter with 600,000+ ehp?
Bring logi.
|
Balshem Rozenzweig
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
68
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 07:44:39 -
[25] - Quote
Never ganked or been ganked but I still think you guys are forgetting about the impact it would have on haulers. One of the most awesome things EVE has is that you actually have to pay people to move your stuff, because you are afraid to do it yourself. This is literally awesome. No other game has it.
TL;DR - any buff to haulers = less profit for haulers as more people will haul their things themselves.
"NUTS!!!" - general McAuliffe
|
Rockstede
30plus Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere
23
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 09:05:15 -
[26] - Quote
Jacob Holland wrote:Rockstede wrote:The Eisenhower is a warship with many layers of defence in place that can (in theory) stay afloat even after multiple missile strikes due to it's compartmentalized design. In other words, you plow a missile into the side of a US aircraft carrier and the crew will just seal off the area that is affected and the ship will survive.
An Oil Supertanker is a giant Multi-Skinned box with zero defences, it's entire bulk dedicated to carrying freight (in this case oil). After a missile strike, the inherently designed failsafes minimise the amount the crew have to do to keep the ship intact and prevent spillages of disasterous proportions. FYP... Or is it still the 1970s?
No it's not the 1970's and you didn't fix my post. Despite the changing conventions on single skinned tankers there are still a great number of them in service.
Regardless my point was that a military vessel is designed to withstand an assault by enemy military forces using in most cases weaponary specifically designed for that task.
A freighter, whether single, double or triple skinned will still suffer much more due to it's cavernous and hollow nature.
|
PhantomMajor
High Flyers The Kadeshi
18
|
Posted - 2014.10.25 00:32:33 -
[27] - Quote
If you can't have a dcu, how about some rig slots? |
Aqriue
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
700
|
Posted - 2014.10.26 17:57:29 -
[28] - Quote
Remove Nanofibers and Cargo Expanders from the utility of a freighter since it kills hull, no rigs required. Interia Stab work just as well as a nano for decreasing align time while increasing your sig size (but freighters are already the size of a moon!), Cargo expanders are just for setting up gank contracts through Uedema on 25 day old newb corp alts (took me 3 seconds to figure out this guy after seeing the multiple spam) setting 1 billion collateral with an m3 size that requires three expanders since it exceeds the base of a freighter....problem solved, gankers have to try harder with more people instead of **** poor design limitations and human stupidity + lazy.
Freighter is perfectly fine, at base stats, unless you want to reinforce it with bulk heads or decrease align times or warp faster...max cargo size for courier should be like 500k m3 for contracts and cannot be exceed, current freighter hitpoints are fine so long as you don't over price the cargo. Restrict the freighter pilot, not the ganker and the ganker won't whine....freighter pilot just has to be in the target scope several more times traveling to jita to carry the same capacity which makes the ganker happier with more opportunities and the freighter pilot happier with slightly higher chance of survival cause gankers are risk adverse unless the price is right. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
577
|
Posted - 2014.10.26 18:23:59 -
[29] - Quote
CCP giveth and CCP taketh away. If you could fit a DCU, they would nerf the overall EHP to the point where fitting it became mandatory. Which means you might as well not be able to fit it.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
|
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1338
|
Posted - 2014.10.27 15:43:25 -
[30] - Quote
PhantomMajor wrote:If you can't have a dcu, how about some rig slots?
If they add rig slot to current freighter, they will also nerf the base EHP of them, the base cargo and potentially the agility too to counter the possible effect of each rig combo.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |