|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 29 post(s) |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
105
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:46:00 -
[1] - 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. |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
105
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:53:00 -
[2] - 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.
|
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
105
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:38:00 -
[3] - 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 -
[4] - 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. |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
105
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:43:00 -
[5] - 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. |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
106
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:50:00 -
[6] - 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. |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
108
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:14:00 -
[7] - 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. |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
108
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:28:00 -
[8] - 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. |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
108
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:31:00 -
[9] - 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. |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
108
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:36:00 -
[10] - 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 -
[11] - 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. |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
108
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:51:00 -
[12] - 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. |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
112
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 21:27:00 -
[13] - 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. |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
112
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 21:45:00 -
[14] - 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.
|
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
117
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 03:26:00 -
[15] - 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. |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
123
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 21:49:00 -
[16] - 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. |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
123
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 22:00:00 -
[17] - 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. |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
123
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 22:02:00 -
[18] - 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. |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
123
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 22:06:00 -
[19] - 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. |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
124
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 22:09:00 -
[20] - 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. |
|
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
124
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 22:11:00 -
[21] - 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.
|
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
125
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 22:17:00 -
[22] - 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. |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
125
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 22:19:00 -
[23] - 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. |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
128
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 03:06:00 -
[24] - 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. |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
128
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 03:15:00 -
[25] - 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 -
[26] - 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. |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
129
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 12:53:00 -
[27] - 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.
|
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
129
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 01:15:00 -
[28] - 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 . |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
130
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:19:00 -
[29] - 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 . |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
130
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:24:00 -
[30] - 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. |
|
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
130
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:25:00 -
[31] - 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. |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
130
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:29:00 -
[32] - 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. |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
130
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:08:00 -
[33] - 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). |
|
|
|