| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 29 post(s) |
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
271
   |
Posted - 2014.05.19 07:47:00 -
[1] - Quote
The stated aim in the Fanfest mention of this was greater customisation. And yet the choice was Rigs?!?
The value of customisation is surely that the ship can be adjusted to suit needs which may be different today than they were yesterday and will be tomorrow (I'm going to Jita today, I'll fit for as many EHP as possible; tomorrow I'll be moving veldspar three jumps from the corp mining op to a station with a good refinery...).
Rigs aren't suitable for that task, they're far too permanent.
So was the only reason for the choice how potentially tough a freighter with a DCII would have been?
Additional thought:
One of the things which drove freighter capacity very particularly was always the size of Outpost Eggs and so forth. Are all those null infrastructure operations going to required cargo rigs to make them more vulnerable? |
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
280
|
Posted - 2014.05.26 09:14:00 -
[2] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Either way that's a discussion for another thread since these ships cannot fit Damage Controls.
I'd be interested to know why not (not in terms of "they don't have enough CPU"), why the decision was made to restrict the fitting to prevent the fitting of Damage Controls.
Doing so on a combat ship would be impossible (without applying strip miner or cov ops cloaking device fitting restrictions, due to the requirements of all of the other modules they require, not least their guns...) but I can't imagine it even being considered.
Similarly, when Rigs were the method of choice, the nerfs which "allowed" rigs to be fitted were out of place; when rigs were first introduced there were no such global changes to balance the potential for rig fitting.
When I first became aware of the sort of threads which (probably) led to this change I envisaged a minimalist approach - a counter to packaged capital ships (the current increase in packaged size being sufficient, a ban on packaged ships in freighter holds and the allowance of ships in freight containers would also have worked) and a single lowslot: The clear choice would have been Tank (DCII), Capacity (Expanded Cargohold), Align time/speed (Nano), or re-Jump time (Cap Flux Coil)... Would the impact have been significant? particularly compared to the current changes. |
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
280
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 07:19:00 -
[3] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:'Frictionless' movement of goods around highsec is undesirable. It leads to all regions of empire having nearly identical prices, as any differential in item prices between regions is quickly 'zeroed' when massive quantities can be autopiloted around in a single trip. Bad for traders and makes for a very uninteresting economic landscape.
I don't recall a significantly flatter market existing in the days when freighters didn't drop loot. The profitability of moving goods is dependent on more than the friction of transport.
There may well be a break-point at which freighter EHP really tips - but I don't know what it is and I'm not sure anyone else does either. Ignoring the persistence of outdated information the value of goods being shipped in higher EHP would either remain the same (bulk goods constrained by capacity) or increase in proportion according to the most publically recognised "gank threshhold". Only the risk takers, those who fill their freighter with Cal Navy Invulns or PLEX, would form any reduction in gank profit...
Perhaps I'm not thinking about enough aspects, not taking enough things into account, I'm still trying to work out how to get a fittable freighter back to at least the utility of a current freighter... |
| |
|