|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 29 post(s) |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
32
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:03:00 -
[1] - 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. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
34
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:25:00 -
[2] - 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?
|
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
34
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:34:00 -
[3] - 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. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
36
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:50:00 -
[4] - 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 |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
36
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:54:00 -
[5] - 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. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
36
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:57:00 -
[6] - 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. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
37
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:40:00 -
[7] - 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. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
37
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:44:00 -
[8] - 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. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
37
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:26:00 -
[9] - 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. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
39
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:30:00 -
[10] - 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? |
|
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
39
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:50:00 -
[11] - 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. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
39
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 22:55:00 -
[12] - 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. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
39
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 23:00:00 -
[13] - 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 |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
39
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 23:09:00 -
[14] - 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? |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
46
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 05:14:00 -
[15] - 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. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
46
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 05:44:00 -
[16] - 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. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
46
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 05:59:00 -
[17] - 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.
|
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
46
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 06:12:00 -
[18] - 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 |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
46
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 06:50:00 -
[19] - 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.
|
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
46
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 07:16:00 -
[20] - 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? |
|
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
46
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 08:08:00 -
[21] - 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. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
46
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 10:26:00 -
[22] - 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. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
46
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 10:35:00 -
[23] - 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 |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
46
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 10:40:00 -
[24] - 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)
|
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
47
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 11:10:00 -
[25] - 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 |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
47
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 01:38:00 -
[26] - 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. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
56
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 01:12:00 -
[27] - 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. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
59
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 03:11:00 -
[28] - 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 -
[29] - 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. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
62
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 16:41:00 -
[30] - 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. |
|
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
62
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 17:43:00 -
[31] - 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. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
63
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 18:06:00 -
[32] - 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 -
[33] - 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. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
63
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 19:00:00 -
[34] - 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 |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
64
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 20:02:00 -
[35] - 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 |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
64
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 20:13:00 -
[36] - 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. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
66
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 23:30:00 -
[37] - 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 -
[38] - 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... |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
67
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 23:42:00 -
[39] - 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? |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
69
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 04:56:00 -
[40] - 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. |
|
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
69
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 07:35:00 -
[41] - 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
|
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
70
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 07:54:00 -
[42] - 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. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
72
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:27:00 -
[43] - 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" |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
72
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:44:00 -
[44] - 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. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
72
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:48:00 -
[45] - 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. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
74
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:02:00 -
[46] - 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. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
74
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:09:00 -
[47] - 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. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
74
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:10:00 -
[48] - 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.
|
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
75
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:49:00 -
[49] - 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. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
75
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:55:00 -
[50] - 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. |
|
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
75
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:04:00 -
[51] - 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. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
75
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:13:00 -
[52] - 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. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
76
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 17:27:00 -
[53] - 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. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
76
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 00:36:00 -
[54] - 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. |
|
|
|