First

and who would use them?
hull tanking as a whole is something that needs work if you expect people to hull tank anything

I might put some on my orca alongside the DCU and bulkhead in the lows, but I can't think of any other situations where I'd ever use them.

RIP orca ganking

\o/!!! It's a start. What's the penalty? Hopefully nothing or some non-critical stat like cargo space. If it's speed or agility, then we need to talk.

XG

i missed it in the original post first time i read it; it uses armor rigging skills and has the same penalty (speed).

\o/!!! It's a start. What's the penalty? Hopefully nothing or some non-critical stat like cargo space. If it's speed or agility, then we need to talk.

These rigs will use the Armor Rigging skill, with the same speed decrease penalty as trimarks.

Yeah missed it too. We need to help Fozzie understand how devastating this penalty is.

Hull rigs on orcas, with DC and Bulkhead. Yeah, not looking forward to trying to pop those.

Another small change in our Summer 2014 release that we're ready to collect feedback on:

We're planning on adding a series of Hull HP rigs. These rigs will use the Armor Rigging skill, with the same speed decrease penalty as trimarks. They will be available in all sizes.
The T1 rigs would increase hull hitpoints by 20%, at the cost of 50 calibration.
The T2 rigs would increase hull hitpoints by 25%, at the cost of 75 calibration.

We don't expect these to replace trimarks and CDFEs for most players, but having the option should be interesting in several cases.

Let us know what you think!
-Fozzie

RIP orca ganking

Ah! Hull tanking at it's finest.

The market may be limited but this is a humorous and good addition.

literally the only ship that would ever use these rigs

please tweak hull reppers/remote reppers and add hull resist mods now

We don't expect these to replace trimarks and CDFEs for most players, but having the option should be interesting in several cases.

If you're putting these rigs on Dreads, then speed penalty is irrelevant.

Now all we need is an ancillary hull rep

literally the only ship that would ever use these rigs

and who would use them?
hull tanking as a whole is something that needs work if you expect people to hull tank anything

How do they stack?

are rigs ever going to get re-designed? the penalties are dumb. only drone rigs and armour rigs actually have meaningful penalties at the moment. also, the penalties on armour rigs are enormous. you might think that the plate skill actually makes a difference, but seriously, armour rigging 5 is far far more important. damage rig calibration changes sometime pls, and normal calibration on pirate ships pls.

Shield penalty is meaningful, as are weapon rig penalties (although they are very binary, either it fits or it doesnt)

Whilst I don't like the idea of these sorts of rigs existing at all I object especially to how they are stat wise here. The downside ought to be to cargo hold capacity and the bonus in line with the armor rigs.

However I will reemphasise that I don't like the idea at all as this looks mostly like a high sec nerf, where else is the demand for these sorts of rigs?

I personally believe that some ship fitters are unable to do so with hull rigs because some ship fitters don't do hulls and those people out there in our eft and pypa don't have the headset and mindology to do that as most of them don't even brawl but they do shield kiting instead and I believe that our education by CCP like such as in this introducing of hull rigs will more educate us as players in ship fitting and beyond when it comes to hull tanking. Everywhere like such as in gank areas where orcas are sometimes killed by catalysts and I can believe that they should hull tank and with rigs too it only bonuses the ship for the better. Our education here in the eft fits and pypa circle should help the fitters and hinder the gankers somewhat, but maybe they should help gankers too by adding hull piercing bullets? Just a thought but maybe that is for a different time and should help the ganker people but where is the balance? So we will be able to build up our future in the belts especially with the rigs and if that is okay maybe it filters down for combat players too?

literally the only ship that would ever use these rigs

and who would use them?
hull tanking as a whole is something that needs work if you expect people to hull tank anything

Real men hull tank. Thanks CCP! Now we can do it for REAL!

Hull rep drones... Hull rigs...

Posting in a stealth " ccp fozzie wants hull tanking to be real " thread.

Fozzie is the Ron Paul of Eve. GÖÑ

For many Gallente ships, if you want full-on hardcore buffer tank then this will be the way to go.

I too think that penalty to cargo capacity on those rigs would make more sense than speed penalty. It would also mean we'll see less Orcas fitted with those, which will please gankers

What wouldn't please gankers is my hopes of seeing a ship with bonus to remote hull reppers, which I think would be the next logical step after the introduction of those rigs (since more people with buffer hull tank their PvP ships now).

Another small change in our Summer 2014 release that we're ready to collect feedback on:

We're planning on adding a series of Hull HP rigs. These rigs will use the Armor Rigging skill, with the same speed decrease penalty as trimarks. They will be available in all sizes.
The T1 rigs would increase hull hitpoints by 20%, at the cost of 50 calibration.
The T2 rigs would increase hull hitpoints by 25%, at the cost of 75 calibration.

We don't expect these to replace trimarks and CDFEs for most players, but having the option should be interesting in several cases.

Let us know what you think!
-Fozzie

First

Nah. The speed penalty is fine. It fits with the rest of the armor rigs, and I support people having the sense to tank there Orcas.

Now that you mention it, there aren't any ships with a remote hull rep bonus. Kind of wish they would add it to the Rorq. It would be fitting, and the carriers tend to get a dual bonus, either shield and armor, or shield/armor and cap transfer.

Remote hull rep range to go with the shield rep range?

Nah. The speed penalty is fine. It fits with the rest of the armor rigs

eh. sig radius is far less important than it's supposed to be, and % for %, far better than a speed penalty.

I might put some on my orca alongside the DCU and bulkhead in the lows, but I can't think of any other situations where I'd ever use them.

and who would use them?
hull tanking as a whole is something that needs work if you expect people to hull tank anything

It's a HULL rig. Not an armor rig.

But it is listed with the armor rigs, which reduce speed. And the bulkheads modules, which also adds hull hp also reduces speed.

But it is listed with the armor rigs, which reduce speed. And the bulkheads modules, which also adds hull hp also reduces speed.

Another small change in our Summer 2014 release that we're ready to collect feedback on:

We're planning on adding a series of Hull HP rigs. These rigs will use the Armor Rigging skill, with the same speed decrease penalty as trimarks. They will be available in all sizes.
The T1 rigs would increase hull hitpoints by 20%, at the cost of 50 calibration.
The T2 rigs would increase hull hitpoints by 25%, at the cost of 75 calibration.

We don't expect these to replace trimarks and CDFEs for most players, but having the option should be interesting in several cases.

Let us know what you think!
-Fozzie

...we're ready to collect feedback on...

Anyone know what the numbers on a hull tanking marauder (specifically Kronos) in bastion might look like?

having the option should be interesting in several cases.

literally the only ship that would ever use these rigs

72% resists with DCII + Bastion mode. Assuming the hull rigs do not stack as per trimarks, then we have 45,300 hull with six Reinforced Bulkhead IIs. So 45,300 * 1.25 * 1.25 = 70,781 hull points. EHP would be 70,781 / (1.0 - .72) = 252,790 EHP for just the hull. So, 70k hull versus ~ 61k armor with plates.

Then when you add in high grade Ark implant set (that was obviously unintentionally omitted from the OP...) that gives us (70,781 *1.338) / (1.0 - .72) = 338,213 EHP for just hull.

If you add in the Faction and Officer Reinforced Bulkheads, plus the Duct Tape pills/boosters/drugs promised by CCP Fozzie, then the numbers start to get a tad silly.

What is this "Ark implant set" you speak of?

It's the hull equivalent of Crystal and Slave implants. It's obvious that CCP Fozzie forgot to mention that they're in the Summer release's Hull Tanking Overhaul. The set was given the name 'Ark' as a reference to the greatest hull of all time, i.e. Noah's Ark, which had to carry two of every species on Earth (including freshwater fauna!) which would have required a hull the size of a small country to do. Quite impressive for a Pre-Duct Tape, proto-2x4 technology tech base.

Now all we need are rig slots for freighters (hint, hint)...

Anyone know what the numbers on a hull tanking marauder (specifically Kronos) in bastion might look like?

I can see some applications for use of these on barges/exhumers (looks at extra low on Skiff)

[...] Herpalerp and MANPHOON [...] against twin Hyperions on the B274 [...]

[...]Powered by remote Capital Hull Repper I's [...]

[...] B274 [...]

[...] remote Capital [...]

Gotta love all the pirate QQ in this thread over being forced to bring a tad more people then usual to gank an orca.

This change should somewhat increase survivability for industrial ships and PvP applications also sound interesting.

Because we need another hisec buff.

Because we need another hisec buff.

A lot of ships that were marginal for a well skilled T2 catalyst to solo are going to always need a second ship. Actually, with the new Hull rigs a pair of T2 catas in a .5 system probably couldn't take down a Retriever using a DCU II/Adaptive Invuln II unless they had perfect gunnery sklils and timed their shots perfectly.

HTFU, this is EVE. Find a target from the 95% of players who won't bother to fit against suicide ganking and will never use these rigs anyway. Or make some friends and bring more cats. Geez...

Can you adjust the HULL Rig penalties to add a reduction to cargo for choosing to fit tank?
This would force the player to choose between tank or cargo, and making it a real choice with drawbacks either way. The cargo rigs should reduce hull, and the hull rigs should reduce cargo. This would be the best balance and reinforce the choices and roles the players will use these ships for.

Players frequently moving higher value will have to move less but be safer. Players moving low value but high volume will be less of a valuable target, but accepting risk with the fitting choice.

Can you adjust the HULL Rig penalties to add a reduction to cargo for choosing to fit tank?
This would force the player to choose between tank or cargo, and making it a real choice with drawbacks either way. The cargo rigs should reduce hull, and the hull rigs should reduce cargo. This would be the best balance and reinforce the choices and roles the players will use these ships for.

Players frequently moving higher value will have to move less but be safer. Players moving low value but high volume will be less of a valuable target, but accepting risk with the fitting choice.

Can you adjust the HULL Rig penalties to add a reduction to cargo for choosing to fit tank?
This would force the player to choose between tank or cargo, and making it a real choice with drawbacks either way. The cargo rigs should reduce hull, and the hull rigs should reduce cargo. This would be the best balance and reinforce the choices and roles the players will use these ships for.

Players frequently moving higher value will have to move less but be safer. Players moving low value but high volume will be less of a valuable target, but accepting risk with the fitting choice.

powers may be a goonNOOB but he is correct. Compromise is a cornerstone of Eve.

Can you adjust the HULL Rig penalties to add a reduction to cargo for choosing to fit tank?
This would force the player to choose between tank or cargo, and making it a real choice with drawbacks either way. The cargo rigs should reduce hull, and the hull rigs should reduce cargo. This would be the best balance and reinforce the choices and roles the players will use these ships for.

Players frequently moving higher value will have to move less but be safer. Players moving low value but high volume will be less of a valuable target, but accepting risk with the fitting choice.

Can you adjust the HULL Rig penalties to add a reduction to cargo for choosing to fit tank?
This would force the player to choose between tank or cargo, and making it a real choice with drawbacks either way. The cargo rigs should reduce hull, and the hull rigs should reduce cargo. This would be the best balance and reinforce the choices and roles the players will use these ships for.

Players frequently moving higher value will have to move less but be safer. Players moving low value but high volume will be less of a valuable target, but accepting risk with the fitting choice.

Adapt you goonie scumbag.

HTFU

Can you adjust the HULL Rig penalties to add a reduction to cargo for choosing to fit tank?
This would force the player to choose between tank or cargo, and making it a real choice with drawbacks either way. The cargo rigs should reduce hull, and the hull rigs should reduce cargo. This would be the best balance and reinforce the choices and roles the players will use these ships for.

Players frequently moving higher value will have to move less but be safer. Players moving low value but high volume will be less of a valuable target, but accepting risk with the fitting choice.

HTFU

Can you adjust the HULL Rig penalties to add a reduction to cargo for choosing to fit tank?
This would force the player to choose between tank or cargo, and making it a real choice with drawbacks either way. The cargo rigs should reduce hull, and the hull rigs should reduce cargo. This would be the best balance and reinforce the choices and roles the players will use these ships for.

Players frequently moving higher value will have to move less but be safer. Players moving low value but high volume will be less of a valuable target, but accepting risk with the fitting choice.

Can you adjust the HULL Rig penalties to add a reduction to cargo for choosing to fit tank?
This would force the player to choose between tank or cargo, and making it a real choice with drawbacks either way. The cargo rigs should reduce hull, and the hull rigs should reduce cargo. This would be the best balance and reinforce the choices and roles the players will use these ships for.

Players frequently moving higher value will have to move less but be safer. Players moving low value but high volume will be less of a valuable target, but accepting risk with the fitting choice.

Can you adjust the HULL Rig penalties to add a reduction to cargo for choosing to fit tank?
This would force the player to choose between tank or cargo, and making it a real choice with drawbacks either way. The cargo rigs should reduce hull, and the hull rigs should reduce cargo. This would be the best balance and reinforce the choices and roles the players will use these ships for.

Players frequently moving higher value will have to move less but be safer. Players moving low value but high volume will be less of a valuable target, but accepting risk with the fitting choice.

Can you adjust the HULL Rig penalties to add a reduction to cargo for choosing to fit tank?
This would force the player to choose between tank or cargo, and making it a real choice with drawbacks either way. The cargo rigs should reduce hull, and the hull rigs should reduce cargo. This would be the best balance and reinforce the choices and roles the players will use these ships for.

Players frequently moving higher value will have to move less but be safer. Players moving low value but high volume will be less of a valuable target, but accepting risk with the fitting choice.

spoken like a true pubby

Ok, so these confirm that there will be T2 freighters, and that they will have rig slots, but possibly no mod slots.

Can you adjust the HULL Rig penalties to add a reduction to cargo for choosing to fit tank?
This would force the player to choose between tank or cargo, and making it a real choice with drawbacks either way. The cargo rigs should reduce hull, and the hull rigs should reduce cargo. This would be the best balance and reinforce the choices and roles the players will use these ships for.

Players frequently moving higher value will have to move less but be safer. Players moving low value but high volume will be less of a valuable target, but accepting risk with the fitting choice.

rigs already have drawbacks, why should they change them just to make MiniLuv happy?

Can you adjust the HULL Rig penalties to add a reduction to cargo for choosing to fit tank?
This would force the player to choose between tank or cargo, and making it a real choice with drawbacks either way. The cargo rigs should reduce hull, and the hull rigs should reduce cargo. This would be the best balance and reinforce the choices and roles the players will use these ships for.

Players frequently moving higher value will have to move less but be safer. Players moving low value but high volume will be less of a valuable target, but accepting risk with the fitting choice.

rigs already have drawbacks, why should they change them just to make MiniLuv happy?

Can you adjust the HULL Rig penalties to add a reduction to cargo for choosing to fit tank?
This would force the player to choose between tank or cargo, and making it a real choice with drawbacks either way. The cargo rigs should reduce hull, and the hull rigs should reduce cargo. This would be the best balance and reinforce the choices and roles the players will use these ships for.

Players frequently moving higher value will have to move less but be safer. Players moving low value but high volume will be less of a valuable target, but accepting risk with the fitting choice.

Because currently the drawback is a CPU penalty -- which is not a drawback on a ship that needs exactly 0 CPU

These rigs will use the Armor Rigging skill, with the same speed decrease penalty as trimarks. They will be available in all sizes.

rigs already have drawbacks, why should they change them just to make MiniLuv happy?

Emphasis is mine.

Can you adjust the HULL Rig penalties to add a reduction to cargo for choosing to fit tank?
This would force the player to choose between tank or cargo, and making it a real choice with drawbacks either way. The cargo rigs should reduce hull, and the hull rigs should reduce cargo. This would be the best balance and reinforce the choices and roles the players will use these ships for.

Players frequently moving higher value will have to move less but be safer. Players moving low value but high volume will be less of a valuable target, but accepting risk with the fitting choice.

Wouldn't sub-warp speed decrease be almost completely irrelevant on freighters? Well, aside from when you autopilot.

Especially if they don't reduce freighter base cargo space, there'll be practically no reason to ever fit anything but the hull rigs on a regular freighter. Jump freighters would obviously benefit greatly from the cargo rigs, but the lack of increased hull HP wouldn't hurt them nearly as much either.

Because a max velocity penalty on a Freighter isn't a penalty at all, since nothing they do in space is affected by it. They're still going to align and warp at the same speed with or without tanking rigs.

they're actually going to align very marginally faster with hull rigs :^)

this is why ur teacher tells u to show ur workings. so she can point at the bit where u went wrong.

Wouldn't sub-warp speed decrease be almost completely irrelevant on freighters? Well, aside from when you autopilot.

Especially if they don't reduce freighter base cargo space, there'll be practically no reason to ever fit anything but the hull rigs on a regular freighter. Jump freighters would obviously benefit greatly from the cargo rigs, but the lack of increased hull HP wouldn't hurt them nearly as much either.

max velocity effects align speed champ

unless people web freighters for target practice

Can you adjust the HULL Rig penalties to add a reduction to cargo for choosing to fit tank?
This would force the player to choose between tank or cargo, and making it a real choice with drawbacks either way. The cargo rigs should reduce hull, and the hull rigs should reduce cargo. This would be the best balance and reinforce the choices and roles the players will use these ships for.

Players frequently moving higher value will have to move less but be safer. Players moving low value but high volume will be less of a valuable target, but accepting risk with the fitting choice.

To expand on 'this would be the best balance,' consider this little trinket of logic:

A cargo expander rig increases by a percent value the most important aspect of a freighter or jump freighter (or to a lesser extent Orca or Rorqual), directly affecting its bottom line by a significant amount. Its drawback, if made to be armor amount as suggested, will decrease -by a percent value (this is the important part)- an already minute and largely insignificant attribute of a freighter or jump freighter (the vast majority of a freighter's EHP is in its hull). So the drawback does not necessarily match the benefit, being an incredibly insignificant effect on an absolute scale.

A hull rig, decreasing speed, will indeed affect autopiloters, but let's face it, they weren't getting anywhere fast anyway. Active freighter operation, almost a hilarious contradiction in terms, would be largely unaffected. Remember the part about freighter/JF having a LOT of their ehp in hull? This means a hull rig, increasing a percent value of the hull, has a hell of a lot more of an effect on an absolute scale than a piddly max velocity reduction.

With my reputation as Miniluv chief on the line, I plan to get more accounts to gank more freighters anyway, but do consider making the drawbacks appropriately mirrror the benefits, at least in the case of freighters/JFs and to a lesser extent Orcas/Rorquals. As some guy above me said, though, the final balance numbers aren't out yet.

This would force the player to choose between tank or cargo, and making it a real choice with drawbacks either way.

Can you adjust the HULL Rig penalties to add a reduction to cargo for choosing to fit tank?
This would force the player to choose between tank or cargo, and making it a real choice with drawbacks either way. The cargo rigs should reduce hull, and the hull rigs should reduce cargo. This would be the best balance and reinforce the choices and roles the players will use these ships for.

Players frequently moving higher value will have to move less but be safer. Players moving low value but high volume will be less of a valuable target, but accepting risk with the fitting choice.

Let us know what you think!
-Fozzie

Real men hull tank. Thanks CCP! Now we can do it for REAL!

this.

I checked the numbers in evehq. A hull tanked neutageddon will have more ehp than an armour tanked neutageddon - if you ignore the effect of gang links.

This is because the hull rigs give a 5% larger bonus when compared to trimarks.

Hull rigs on orcas, with DC and Bulkhead. Yeah, not looking forward to trying to pop those.

lol whats a domi look like?

I'm all caught up on this thread, and although I won't make a decision quite yet, I do find the arguments for hull rigs affecting cargo to be quite compelling. I'll give it some more thought.

for the sake of consistency; bulkheads have a speed penalty, therefore so should the rigs.

does that mean, if you decide on a cargo penalty that you'd also change the penalty on bulkheads?

I won't rule it out, but changing one doesn't mean we'd NEED to change the other.

I won't rule it out, but changing one doesn't mean we'd NEED to change the other.

Hey everyone. Thanks for the feedback so far.

I just got back to work after a bit of post-fanfest death plague recovery. I'm working through a bunch of threads to catch up on what was discussed over Fanfest and the last two days.

I'm all caught up on this thread, and although I won't make a decision quite yet, I do find the arguments for hull rigs affecting cargo to be quite compelling. I'll give it some more thought.

I won't rule it out, but changing one doesn't mean we'd NEED to change the other.

Bulkheads reduce cargo, that doesn't mean these rigs would need to as well.

Considering the ships the hull rigs are most effective, i.e. Orca and Freighters, a cargo penalty would make their usefulness rather dubious.

trimarks and cdfe's are not stacking penalized either.

Stacking penalties go a long way to making rig and module combination choices interesting instead of just slapping a max number of one thing onto your ship, and this change will keep warp rigs competitive while also providing some more interesting choices around what your third rig should be.

I'm all caught up on this thread, and although I won't make a decision quite yet, I do find the arguments for hull rigs affecting cargo to be quite compelling. I'll give it some more thought.

Considering the ships the hull rigs are most effective, i.e. Orca and Freighters, a cargo penalty would make their usefulness rather dubious.

how about fixing hull reps/hullmods in the first place when you are planning on hull tanks?

to be honest a reduction in cargo it's not really a penalty on a bait hull tanked bs; and will be a very big hit on freighters; so maybe the speed penalty is the right thing for now

For freighters and Orcas, it really doesn't make a difference whether it's a cargo or speed penalty.

With a speed penalty: if you're on autopilot odds are good that you really aren't that worried about shaving a couple of minutes off of a trip (10-20 seconds per gate). If you're not on autopilot, it makes no difference.

If you do care about the time, you'll put on agility, velocity, and/or warp speed rigs.

With a cargo penalty: for freighters hauling high value stuff, a drop of 40-90K m3 won't be missed because the ship is probably only half-full anyway. For an Orca, if you're putting on hull rigs a loss of 2-3K m3 of cargo is insignificant, and the corporate and ship maintenance bays don't change.

If you haul a lot of high volume, low value stuff you'll put on cargo rigs.

For combat ships and fringe cases: a drop in velocity might matter, and a drop in cargo will rarely matter.

Personally, I'd rather see the cargo penalty.

Fitting Hull Rigs alone effectively removes 40k m3 from the Orcas cargo capacity, Bulkhead ll and DCU ll, removes another 30k m3 and you want to remove more by having a Cargo Capacity Drawback on Hull Rigs?
Adding a speed deficit to hull rigs for a ship that does 75m/s now, sort of defeats the purpose of fitting the extra hull, once you leave the safety of highsec..

While 30k or 40k Cargo reduction on a T1 Freighter may not have much effect - The same reduction applied to a JF has a massive impact - 50% more fuel being required to move a JF about + reduction to carrying capacity by fitting rigs = Disaster for Lowsec and Nulsec logistics.
Further reducing the speed of JF's by having speed drawback for hull rigs = More time for gankers to get through the extra bit of hull you picked up with the rigs.

Hull Rigs, IMO should have the same Drawback as Engineering Rigs - None - The ships they will benefit most already have enough draw backs. Speed, Agility, Target Value, just to name a few. Why give them the ability to help overcome some of the drawbacks then add drawbacks that all but neutralize what they are being given.

As much as I see your reason here for freighters and jump freighters, hull rigs without drawbacks are not going to happen. Simple reason: they can also be used on other ships, where draw backs are absolutely essential. In the end, this means a (potential) massive nerf to freighters and jump freighters.

I'm struggling to understand why a reduction in sub-warp speed is in any way a drawback for a freighter or industrial.

Slow boating these ships is an error. They should be in warp.

The max speed in no way affects the time to warp.

Thus the speed penalty is no penalty at all for industrials.

It's barely a penalty for combat ships, since we have already learned to live with the idea that trim arks slow a ship down.

The fix for that is really quite simple.
Drawbacks apply to hulls not rigs. This could be built into the rigs so bonuses and attributes on ships don't need to be changed.
EG; Hull Rig Drawback, -10% to speed, does not apply to Capital Industrial Ships, Jump Freighters or Freighters.

I understand the need for drawbacks on combat hulls but if the drawbacks apply to those mentioned, they could create a balance where the rigs are of very little or no benefit.

We are also going to swap the speed penalty on all reinforced bulkhead modules to an equal percentage cargo capacity penalty.

Do this mean that Freighters/JFs will be getting low slots too?

After some thinking over the feedback in this thread and discussion with the CSM, we've decided to switch the penalty for the hull hp rigs to cargo capacity.

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.

I'm trying to parse your post... a "equal cargo penalty" means that whatever they currently lose in speed they'll lose in cargo instead? (so, like, -11% speed becomes -11% cargo?)

and who would use them?

After some thinking over the feedback in this thread and discussion with the CSM, we've decided to switch the penalty for the hull hp rigs to cargo capacity.

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.

After some thinking over the feedback in this thread and discussion with the CSM, we've decided to switch the penalty for the hull hp rigs to cargo capacity.

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.

Law of unintended consequence alert:

Bulkheads are used by dread pilots to rescue the dread while still in triage once the cap is gone.

Now when dreads refit they will find gat the cargo hold is suddenly overful.

Has CCP coded for this consequence?

CCP seems to have addressed this by ensuring that you cannot fit triage to a dreadnaught. As for overfull cargoholds, this isn't anything new, any shouldn't cause any problems, unless of course, you eject from the ship, you'll get a warning that the ship is overfilled.