|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 29 post(s) |
Valterra Craven
233
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 20:07:00 -
[1] - Quote
I get WHY you are doing alot of the industry oriented changes, but with a few minor exceptions it seems like all of the industry changes are across the board nerfs.
Things are getting more expensive Things are taking longer to research Minerals are getting less abundant Inflation will still be a problem.
While likely a lot of people would disagree I don't think better UI is a buff, but that's neither here nor there.
I guess what I'm saying is that if you are going to follow through with the freighter rig changes, you should balance the across the board nerfs to them by decreasing their build cost. For example a freighter with no rigs at all will be a straight nerf across the board and will have no upsides over the previous freighters. (Sophie's choice on rigs are not upsides IMO) So in terms of balance why dont you cut the mineral cost out of the hull by roughly the same percentage that you are nerfing the ship? This will be more than made up for by the cost adding rigs to the ship. |
Valterra Craven
233
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 20:12:00 -
[2] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Minerals are getting less abundant. objectively false. in one of the recent updates, and in one of the coming updates. extra minerals have been added to various ores. minerals are becoming nothing but MORE abundant.
50% Decrease across the board to minerals being removed from object refines is making them less abundant. Adding minerals to ores in deep 0.0 does not change this fact. Prices will increase. |
Valterra Craven
234
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 00:56:00 -
[3] - Quote
Fozzie, I know you guys see these posts, and I know you can't comment on everything, and lastly I know that introducing art assets to the game takes time. However this is my proposal and will likely be far more appeasing to all parties involved than the current changes.
Leave the current freighters as they are.
Make smaller new freighters.
Make them have half the cargo, hit points, align time and build cost and double the warp speed.
Give them 3 rig slots
Win
OR
Leave the current freighters alone
Make ONE new freighter in the ORE line with the above stats and say that ORE needed something with better agility for deep space mining or some mobo jumbo like that. |
Valterra Craven
240
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 13:26:00 -
[4] - Quote
I Love Boobies wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Fozzie, I know you guys see these posts, and I know you can't comment on everything, and lastly I know that introducing art assets to the game takes time. However this is my proposal and will likely be far more appeasing to all parties involved than the current changes.
Leave the current freighters as they are.
Make smaller new freighters.
Make them have half the cargo, hit points, align time and build cost and double the warp speed.
Give them 3 rig slots
Win
OR
Leave the current freighters alone
Make ONE new freighter in the ORE line with the above stats and say that ORE needed something with better agility for deep space mining or some mobo jumbo like that. Already in game... it's called an Orca.
Because an orca has 500k m3???
|
Valterra Craven
240
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 13:41:00 -
[5] - Quote
Azami Nevinyrall wrote:Valterra Craven wrote: Make smaller new freighters.
I'll say this slowly for you... DEEP SPACE TRANSPORT SHIPS! -OR- ORCA
I'll say this slowly for you... none of those ships do 500k m3. |
Valterra Craven
240
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 13:44:00 -
[6] - Quote
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote: 3. Every freighter killed is a giant ISK faucet, spewing several hundred million ISK into the economy.
I really really dislike people that don't understand what terms mean before they use them.
At best freighter ganks are a sink as they remove things from the game.
A faucet is something that creates something from thin air. aka NPC bounties. A sink is something that removes something from the economy, aka taxes and sov fees.
|
Valterra Craven
240
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 13:47:00 -
[7] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:I'll say this slowly for you... none of those ships do 500k m3. If you just want a sturdier, faster ship with half the cargo, JFs pretty much do that already. Orcas do about half of what a JF does (if we ignore the ship hangar). DSTs do about half of whan an Orca does.
The goal here is to comprise.
People wanted riggable freighters and those of us that are sane don't want these massive across the board nerfs.
JFs cost 7-8x times as much as regular freighters.
These would cost around the same as orcas, wouldnt have the boosting of orcas and would be totally devoted to hauling.
Personally I want nothing to change here at all, but I'm trying to come up with reasonable solutions. |
Valterra Craven
240
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 13:49:00 -
[8] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:I Love Boobies wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Fozzie, I know you guys see these posts, and I know you can't comment on everything, and lastly I know that introducing art assets to the game takes time. However this is my proposal and will likely be far more appeasing to all parties involved than the current changes.
Leave the current freighters as they are.
Make smaller new freighters.
Make them have half the cargo, hit points, align time and build cost and double the warp speed.
Give them 3 rig slots
Win
OR
Leave the current freighters alone
Make ONE new freighter in the ORE line with the above stats and say that ORE needed something with better agility for deep space mining or some mobo jumbo like that. Already in game... it's called an Orca. Because an orca has 500k m3??? 400k smb 50k ore bay 40k fleet hangar whatever your cargo ends up at with skills and fittings... yeah, it does have 500k m3... technically.
No it does not. If you could put 400k of regular general cargo in the SMB then you might have a point. but you can't. So you arent adding anything relevant to this conversation.
|
Valterra Craven
240
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 13:52:00 -
[9] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote: 3. Every freighter killed is a giant ISK faucet, spewing several hundred million ISK into the economy.
I really really dislike people that don't understand what terms mean before they use them. At best freighter ganks are a sink No. You don't understand what the term means. We're talking about ISK here. No ISK is removed from the game. Every freighter loss is a giant ISK faucet since their destruction creates ISK through insurance. Rivr Luzade wrote:None is suitable to transport things between 100k and 300k m-¦. Again, JFs fit that role perfectly.
I like how you are correcting me by putting words in my mouth.
Sinks and faucets can apply to game items as well as isk.
Insurance applys to every ship in game so the applicability to this ship is rather limited when talking about game balance as a whole. |
Valterra Craven
240
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 13:54:00 -
[10] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Valterra Craven wrote: So you arent adding anything relevant to this conversation.
neither are you, you're just whining.
Well we have me proposing alternative solutions to get things to a better state than we have now, and we have you who is only filling this thread with I told you so posts... Looks to me like the whining is falling more on your side than mine. |
|
Valterra Craven
240
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 13:57:00 -
[11] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Valterra Craven wrote: I like how you are correcting me by putting words in my mouth.
Sinks and faucets can apply to game items as well as isk.
Insurance applys to every ship in game so the applicability to this ship is rather limited when talking about game balance as a whole.
You are really bad at forums. You even said "isk sink" when you were talking about freighters. And you're wrong, because you have no freaking clue what you're talking about, because insurance is totally a thing as it turns out.
If I'm bad at forums you are as equally as bad at reading: This is my orginal post that is still unedited:
Valterra Craven wrote: #1193Posted: 2014.05.19 13:44 | Report Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:
3. Every freighter killed is a giant ISK faucet, spewing several hundred million ISK into the economy.
I really really dislike people that don't understand what terms mean before they use them.
At best freighter ganks are a sink as they remove things from the game.
A faucet is something that creates something from thin air. aka NPC bounties. A sink is something that removes something from the economy, aka taxes and sov fees.
NO WHERE IN MY RESPONSE DID I MENTION THE TERM ISK.
But yes insurance is a thing and it applies to all ships, not just this one. |
Valterra Craven
240
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 14:00:00 -
[12] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Valterra Craven wrote: So you arent adding anything relevant to this conversation.
neither are you, you're just whining. Well we have me proposing alternative solutions to get things to a better state than we have now, and we have you who is only filling this thread with I told you so posts... Looks to me like the whining is falling more on your side than mine. considering i haven't whined once; and literally every post of yours in the last 2 pages has been whining about orcas not carrying 400k of cargo... you might want to check the tally again, darlin'.
Because stating a mater of fact when trying to offer alternative arguments to your foolishness is whining? Right. I never said anything about orcas in any of my posts. Orca balance as it stands if fine. |
Valterra Craven
240
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 14:27:00 -
[13] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Right. I never said anything about orcas in any of my posts. might want to check your posting history. such as hereValterra Craven wrote:Because an orca has 500k m3???
Context. You offered an incorrect rebuttal to an idea post that I offered as an alternative to these changes. You were the one that brought up Orcas not me. Without your foolish post offering up the orca as a suitable alternative to my thoughts, these two pages of me stating what orca's actually do and don't do wouldn't exist.
Read the original post I made. There was no mention of Orca's or DST's or any other hauling ship.
I will say that you might have had a point way back when carrier hauling was a thing and JF's didn't exist. But that day has long come and gone. |
Valterra Craven
240
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 14:33:00 -
[14] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:I like how you are correcting me by putting words in my mouth. You mean by cutting off your failed attempt at correcting him when he was right all along?
You are correct. I should have quoted the whole post of both posters like so:
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:Wulfy Johnson wrote:Well eighter way, removing more ehp off these already fragile ships, making them more common with lower ehp will result in a rabbits race for kb padding. To me that would more of an isk sink short term, and leaves a no choice in fitting long term. 1. Freighters aren't fragile, they take considerable effort, manpower and strategy to gank. 2. No-one cares about KB stats, except for some ~elite-pvp~ groups, which are largely unimportant and easy to deal with. 3. Every freighter killed is a giant ISK faucet, spewing several hundred million ISK into the economy. [/quote] |
Valterra Craven
240
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 14:37:00 -
[15] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Right. I never said anything about orcas in any of my posts. might want to check your posting history. such as hereValterra Craven wrote:Because an orca has 500k m3???
Context. You offered an incorrect rebuttal to an idea post that I offered as an alternative to these changes. You were the one that brought up Orcas not me. Without your foolish post offering up the orca as a suitable alternative to my thoughts, these two pages of me stating what orca's actually do and don't do wouldn't exist. Read the original post I made. There was no mention of Orca's or DST's or any other hauling ship. I will say that you might have had a point way back when carrier hauling was a thing and JF's didn't exist. But that day has long come and gone. context? you said you didn't mention the orca in any of your posts (plural), we proved that you did.
This might make things clearer: (since forgetting words is bad)
I didn't mention the orca in any of my "original" posts. I wasn't whining about what the orca could or could not do. I didn't bring up the orca. You did.
|
Valterra Craven
241
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 14:48:00 -
[16] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:This might make things clearer: (since forgetting words is bad)
I didn't mention the orca in any of my "original" posts. I wasn't whining about what the orca could or could not do. I didn't bring up the orca. You did.
let's just clear things up easily; you were wrong. we proved it.
You proved I was wrong about what exactly? |
Valterra Craven
241
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 14:50:00 -
[17] - Quote
Azami Nevinyrall wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Azami Nevinyrall wrote:Valterra Craven wrote: Make smaller new freighters.
I'll say this slowly for you... DEEP SPACE TRANSPORT SHIPS! -OR- ORCA I'll say this slowly for you... none of those ships do 500k m3. So, you want a new ship line, that is smaller/faster/hold/tanky then current ships? I like your argument to WHY it should be in the game... Also...Orca 36,000 Cargo + 400,000 Ship Bay + 40,000 Fleet Hangar + 50,000 Ore Hold = 526,000...!!!!!1!!!!oneone1!! So, yes it does technically have....slightly more then 500,000 m3 Also...it has a tank! Drone bay Battle Orca capabilities ...3 reasons why I'd HAPPILY fly an Orca over a Freighter.......at a fraction of the price!
If you are going to compare apples to apples an Orca has exactly 76km3 cargo (without modifiers)
Also if you noticed in my orginal post, the goal was never to get a tankier ship or one that had combat abilities. The ship I mentioned would have half the carog and half the TANK but would allow customization. |
Valterra Craven
241
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 14:52:00 -
[18] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:This might make things clearer: (since forgetting words is bad)
I didn't mention the orca in any of my "original" posts. I wasn't whining about what the orca could or could not do. I didn't bring up the orca. You did.
let's just clear things up easily; you were wrong. we proved it. You proved I was wrong about what exactly? read the posts and find out.
I will when you do. |
Valterra Craven
241
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 15:11:00 -
[19] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote: get on with it then, reading it was how i proved you wrong.
Here are my posts in this thread from the last few days
#1062 Posted: 2014.05.19 00:56
Fozzie, I know you guys see these posts, and I know you can't comment on everything, and lastly I know that introducing art assets to the game takes time. However this is my proposal and will likely be far more appeasing to all parties involved than the current changes.
Leave the current freighters as they are.
Make smaller new freighters.
Make them have half the cargo, hit points, align time and build cost and double the warp speed.
Give them 3 rig slots
Win
OR
Leave the current freighters alone
Make ONE new freighter in the ORE line with the above stats and say that ORE needed something with better agility for deep space mining or some mobo jumbo like that.
#1183 Posted: 2014.05.19 13:26
I Love Boobies wrote:
Already in game... it's called an Orca.
Because an orca has 500k m3???
#1191 Posted: 2014.05.19 13:41
Azami Nevinyrall wrote:
I'll say this slowly for you...
DEEP SPACE TRANSPORT SHIPS!
-OR-
ORCA
I'll say this slowly for you... none of those ships do 500k m3.
#1196 Posted: 2014.05.19 13:47
Tippia wrote:
If you just want a sturdier, faster ship with half the cargo, JFs pretty much do that already. Orcas do about half of what a JF does (if we ignore the ship hangar). DSTs do about half of whan an Orca does.
The goal here is to comprise.
People wanted riggable freighters and those of us that are sane don't want these massive across the board nerfs.
JFs cost 7-8x times as much as regular freighters.
These would cost around the same as orcas, wouldnt have the boosting of orcas and would be totally devoted to hauling.
Personally I want nothing to change here at all, but I'm trying to come up with reasonable solutions.
No where did I bring up Orca's. In each of these posts I am responding to someone else that is bring up a false equivalency argument. Orcas can not do the same job as freighters. DST and other haulers can not do the same jobs as freighters. They still wouldn't be competitive with the riggable mini freighter I'm fighting for.
What I want is for this change to not to go through and freighters be left alone. In loo of that I'm proposing that instead of nerfing a class across the board to give people what they've foolishly been asking for that instead we create an already nerfed ship that has what these people want. Case close.
|
Valterra Craven
241
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 15:17:00 -
[20] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Here are my posts in this thread from the last few days i already quoted the relevant parts here. stop embarrassing yourself.
No what you did is quoted posts that you edited to make it seem like you had a point. Stop lying. |
|
Valterra Craven
241
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 15:22:00 -
[21] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Here are my posts in this thread from the last few days i already quoted the relevant parts here. stop embarrassing yourself. No what you did is quoted posts that you edited to make it seem like you had a point. Stop lying. i didn't edit any of the posts, i even linked the original post that you made.
If by didn't edit you mean took out the part where people brought up orcas to make it look like I was talking about something out of the blue... then sure. |
Valterra Craven
241
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 15:23:00 -
[22] - Quote
Ben Hatton wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Here are my posts in this thread from the last few days i already quoted the relevant parts here. stop embarrassing yourself. No what you did is quoted posts that you edited to make it seem like you had a point. Stop lying. Both of you, please shut the F up and take it elsewhere so that the devs might actually find some of the better posts here amongst your bickering ffs
No. |
Valterra Craven
241
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 15:31:00 -
[23] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:
i mean, i didn't change a single word you said. as evidenced by the fact that i lnked the post i quoted and what you said was identical.
Just because didn't edit my words doesn't mean you edited the post.
This:
Valterra Craven wrote:I Love Boobies wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Fozzie, I know you guys see these posts, and I know you can't comment on everything, and lastly I know that introducing art assets to the game takes time. However this is my proposal and will likely be far more appeasing to all parties involved than the current changes.
Leave the current freighters as they are.
Make smaller new freighters.
Make them have half the cargo, hit points, align time and build cost and double the warp speed.
Give them 3 rig slots
Win
OR
Leave the current freighters alone
Make ONE new freighter in the ORE line with the above stats and say that ORE needed something with better agility for deep space mining or some mobo jumbo like that. Already in game... it's called an Orca. Because an orca has 500k m3???
does not equal this:
Valterra Craven wrote: Because an orca has 500k m3???
I never once brought up the orca. |
Valterra Craven
241
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 15:35:00 -
[24] - Quote
Tippia
[quote=Valterra Craven wrote:I never once brought up the orca. That was never the question, either.[/quote]
Maybe not your's but it was his. To answer your original question. I don't want a smaller more tankier version of the freighter (which would be the JF) I wanted a smaller less tankier version than a freighter so that a ship would exist in its proper pre-nerfed form so that it could have rigs.
|
Valterra Craven
241
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 15:45:00 -
[25] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Maybe not your's but it was his. No, not his either. You claimed that you ever said anything about orcas in any of your posts. He demonstrated that your claim was wrong.
No, what he did was showed that the word orca existed in my post. What it didn't do was show anything else.
Quote:To answer your original question. I don't want a smaller more tankier version of the freighter (which would be the JF) I wanted a smaller less tankier version than a freighter so that a ship would exist in its proper pre-nerfed form so that it could have rigs.
It wasn't really a statement. It was a demonstration that what you're asking for is pretty much already in the game. We have a neat progression of an almost constant doubling of capacity between DST GåÆ Orca GåÆ JF GåÆ Freighter. There's very little room for any additional ships in that progression.[/quote]
And I would agree with your assessment if nothing were changing. But things change, and with change old things don't hold up anymore.
With the proposed nerfs fozzie is proposing your progression chart doesn't hold up anymore. My point was merely that if we must have change for the sake of it, it would create far less fuss to create a pre-nerfed ship than it would to nerf an existing one to give it false choices. |
Valterra Craven
241
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 15:51:00 -
[26] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:What it didn't do was show anything else. yes it did. read the post.
I did read it.
Your argument was that I was whining about what an orca could and could not do. My response was that you were wrong and I never mentioned the orca. My point still stands. I never did mention the orca. Someone else brought it up and I corrected them. |
Valterra Craven
241
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 15:56:00 -
[27] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:No, what he did was showed that the word orca existed in my post. What it didn't do was show anything else. It showed that you said something about orcas in your posts, thereby proving your claim wrong. You forgot what you had said and made a boo-boo. Just live with it. Quote:
I won't live with it because he was wrong. I never mentioned nor did I ever whine about anything.
[quote=Tippia][quote=Valterra Craven]And I would agree with your assessment if nothing were changing. But things change, and with change old things don't hold up anymore.
They hold up even more now since there's a lot more variation in the ships that fill out any gaps that existed before.
While there may be variation there is no functional way to achieve the same stats of the ship you had before. If you chose to buff one to get back to where you were you also nerf your ship in another way even more. |
Valterra Craven
241
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 15:58:00 -
[28] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:What it didn't do was show anything else. yes it did. read the post. I did read it. Your argument was that I was whining about what an orca could and could not do. My response was that you were wrong and I never mentioned the orca. My point still stands. I never did mention the orca. Someone else brought it up and I corrected them. go and read the posts, you're just embarrassing yourself with how wrong you are. you said you didn't mention orcas; i quoted the post where you did. you were wrong; it's that simple.
And I didn't mention orcas.
Here I will make this simple
These were the people that mentioned orcas: I Love Boobies Azami Nevinyrall Tippia
I responded to their mentionings. That is not the same as what you are accusing me. |
Valterra Craven
241
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 16:00:00 -
[29] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:And I didn't mention orcas. yes, you did. as per the quote i've linked, several times.
You can say this all you want, but it doesn't make it anymore true. |
Valterra Craven
241
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 16:03:00 -
[30] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:And I didn't mention orcas. yes, you did. as per the quote i've linked, several times. You can say this all you want, but it doesn't make it anymore true. no, the fact that you said it, and i subsequently quoted it, proves it to be true.
Well had the fact that I said it actually occurred. it would have proved it. But because it didn't happen, its not true. |
|
Valterra Craven
241
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 16:04:00 -
[31] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:You can say this all you want, but it doesn't make it anymore true. That's true enough. It can't really be more true than true, which it is, as demonstrated by the post where you mention them. Now, if you want to claim that you didn't mention Orcas, can you explain what you were doing when you mentioned orcas in the post in question?
I didn't mention them, you and others did as a false equivalency to what I was fighting for. I was responding to what you posted which is not the same as mentioning them. |
Valterra Craven
243
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 16:10:00 -
[32] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:I didn't mention them. at this point i'm honestly not sure if you don't understand english, or you've got some kind of underlying detrimental condition. because you did, and evidence has been produced to prove it.
No I didn't.
Think of it like the Clinton scandal.
How do you define the word sex? His view was that oral was not "sex". IE there was no insertion into something that could make children.
I didn't mention orca because there was no need to bring them up. Someone else mentioned them and I responded to their comments. Once you mention something it can be re-mentioned. |
Valterra Craven
243
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 16:17:00 -
[33] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Well had the fact that I said it actually occurred. it would have proved it. So it's proven then, since it is indeed a fact that you said it. Look, you're just clogging up the thread with this idiotic refusal to accept reality. You mentioned them. It's right there in the thread. You thought you hadn't, or you made a mistake about what people were saying, but the facts are the facts. Just live with it GÇö it will all be deleted anyway. Also, look up what the word GÇ£mentionGÇ¥ mean because you seem to be a bit confused by it.
Well if I am guilty of clogging this thread up, then you are equally as guilty for it as well and therefore are no point of authority to lecture me on the topic.
Tippia wrote:[quote=Valterra Craven]I responded to their mentionings. That is not the same as what you are accusing me. You're so far around the bend now it's getting silly. He's not accusing you of anything. He's saying that you mentioned orcas. You did. In responding to other people bringing them up, you mentioned them GÇö you rather had to unless you wanted to make a completely nonsensical answer.
I'm not. His accusation was that my posts over a two page history were wines about the orca's capabilites. I'm arguing that I couldn't be whining about something I didn't even bring up and could care less about since they aren't getting any changes.
What I'm saying is that if you change the word "orca" with the word "they" it functionally changes nothing, the meaning stays the same, and I am still not the one that brought it up or "mentioned it".
aka: "Because orca's have 500k m3?" is the same as: "Because they have 500k m3?" because there is context there since I quoted the full posts of everyone. Just because I used the word orca doesnt mean that I'm the one that mentioned it. |
Valterra Craven
244
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 16:59:00 -
[34] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Tu quoque is a fallacy. Quote:One that applies both ways. Tippia wrote:You're the one who said that their capabilities aren't sufficient for you. No, I said they were not a sufficient comparison given the different capabilities and roles the ships play. [quote=Tippia]And what I'm saying is that if you change the word "orca" with the word "they" it functionally changes nothing GǪand since GǣmentionGǥ also means GǣreferenceGǥ that's hardly a surprise. You referenced them. You even mentioned them by name. The mention is there, no matter how much you claim it isn't. You have decided that you will only accept the meaning Gǣbring upGǥ, which means you have dived head first down the true scotsman well, and now have trouble getting back to the surface. The fallacy does not disprove the fact of what you did.
What I did was respond to a post, nothing more. |
Valterra Craven
244
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 17:05:00 -
[35] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:No I didn't. we've been through this; you did. as much as it's amusing to watch you say you didn't even though the post has been quoted and linked several times, it's getting boring listening to you drowning in denial.
People that are bored with something generally find something else to do that is entertaining. Given that you continue to respond You actions contradict your words. |
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 17:07:00 -
[36] - Quote
double post |
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 17:12:00 -
[37] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:being wrong still stop it
I will stop when you admit that I wasn't whining in my responses.
|
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 17:31:00 -
[38] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:What I'm saying is that when you evaluate things in a chronological order there is a difference between something being mentioned and something being responded to. The difference is only in who mentioned it first. Being the second still means you mentioned it. You rather have to for your response not to be off topic and nonsensical. Would you prefer that interpretation instead? That you were just spamming irrelevant troll posts?
Well its not an interpretation, that is pretty much what I was doing. Much like a vast majority of the posts by both and you Dave. |
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 17:40:00 -
[39] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:I'm sorry, but it is insane to balance agility, speed, capacity, and tank around such a powerful module.
which is arguably why rig slots were chosen instead of low slots. in order to accommodate the potential use of a DCII the nerf to freighter EHP would have been unpleasant. Rigs are permanent upgrades, and cannot be easily swapped to fit the situation. I'm alright with simply adding rigs to freighters, I'd prefer the ability to fit modules though. Preventing the use of DCU2's shouldn't be that arduous, and would allow a nice balance spot between the modules already in the game. Harder than you might think. Eve has no understanding of 'only these modules' or 'but not that class of ship'
What eve are you playing?
Bastion mods, siege mods, MWJD mods, strip miners.... all have ship restrictions tied them. Would it be a hack to say that this mod could fit on every ship but a freighter? Yes. Would it be hard to do based on current code? Doesn't seem likely.
|
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 17:45:00 -
[40] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Harder than you might think.
Eve has no understanding of 'only these modules' or 'but not that class of ship' WellGǪ there is an easy way: give them 0 CPU. That rather ruins the ability to fit a DCU. I can't think of any modules that increase CPU by a fixed amount the way you can with MAPCs and grid, and any percentage-based ones would just increase 0 by some percentage of 0 (i.e. 0). Could you gently kick some dev and make them investigate what kind of disaster zero-CPU bulkhead modules would cause?
Why should bulkheads be the exception? Armor Plates have fitting requirements... and thus so should bulkheads. |
|
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 17:57:00 -
[41] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Why should bulkheads be the exception? Because they're hull upgrades. The other hull upgrades don't have any fitting requirements. Also, because no-one seriously fits hull when armour or shield is an option, and armour and shield is what really separates the races so it doesn't particularly affect most ships. It's not really the fitting restrictions that keep people from fitting hull tanks, but the sheer lunacy of hull tanking. Well, with one exception: Orcas. And post-patch freighters.
And my point is that hull tanking upgrades aren't properly balanced and making them require 0 fitting just to fit the freighter case is horrible and only furthers their imbalance. |
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 18:02:00 -
[42] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:And my point is that hull tanking upgrades aren't properly balanced and making them require 0 fitting just to fit the freighter case is horrible and only furthers their imbalance. How so?
Well you said so earlier yourself, no one seriously fits hull upgrade tanking mods seriously except in two cases. This is not balanced. The drone rebalance thread is a perfect example of this. Two types of drones weren't getting used because they suck (and this will likely still be the case afterwards) so they got changed. Since there are three types of HP and people only tank two of them because the third isn't viable, then the third is not balanced. |
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 18:28:00 -
[43] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Well you said so earlier yourself, no one seriously fits hull upgrade tanking mods seriously except in two cases. This is not balanced. No, it just means that only two (well, three) classes are set up in such a way that they benefit from hull tanking. That in and of itself is not unbalanced. Even if it were, that would just mean that making the hull buffer module more viable would improve the balance, not make it more imbalanced.
But you aren't arguing to make the hull buffer module more viable. Removing the fitting requirements from the model wasn't the imbalanced aspect of them anyway and doing so would only make them fittable in this one off case in which devs have already stated they don't like doing. |
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 19:31:00 -
[44] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:But you aren't arguing to make the hull buffer module more viable. Removing the fitting requirements from the model wasn't the imbalanced aspect of them anyway Then we're back to: how so? How are they imbalanced?
I don't understand why you are being intentionally dense.
You said that no one fits hull tanking mods because they aren't viable... so if you believe they aren't viable, then please say why. When you do so I will tell you why they aren't balanced. It has nothing to do with fitting.
Tippia wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:doing so would only make them fittable in this one off case in which devs have already stated they don't like doing. Which case would that be?
Let me rephrase, changing the fitting requirements to what you are proposing would not improve their viability on any other ship while only benefiting the freighter case if you were to give it low slots and keep the CPU the same. |
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 20:08:00 -
[45] - Quote
Tippia wrote:
Also, because no-one seriously fits hull when armour or shield is an option, and armour and shield is what really separates the races so it doesn't particularly affect most ships. It's not really the fitting restrictions that keep people from fitting hull tanks, but the sheer lunacy of hull tanking. Well, with one exception: Orcas. And post-patch freighters.
I've bolded the important part of your words. Why is hull tanking sheer lunacy?
Tippia wrote:No. I said that you only very rarely fit them because hull tanking isn't a proper tanking style outside of Orcas and (now) freighters. As such, giving them no fitting requirements won't affect any other ships, which is a good thing since the point would be to give freighters, specifically, a tanking option that freed them from the problems of damage controls under the proposed scheme.
Saying something is lunacy and saying something isn't a proper tanking style are not the same thing. The first has connotations that the idea isn't viable, while the other has connotations that it could be viable but is not optimal.
So I will ask again, why is hull tanking not viable/lunacy?
Tippia wrote:Quote:Let me rephrase, changing the fitting requirements to what you are proposing would not improve their viability on any other ship while only benefiting the freighter case if you were to give it low slots and keep the CPU the same. And?
And balancing mods around one use case when they could be used on numerous ships is bad balancing. |
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 20:27:00 -
[46] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Because of the low EHP and non-existing rep rates you get out of it compared to the intended tanking style of the ship.
It's entirely viable.
Hull tanking is not viable on any ship currently with two exceptions as stated above. And the ONLY reason its viable on those two ships is because they have massive Hull HP with meager shield and armor HP. If those two ships had been balanced properly when they first came out, they would be balanced around capital ship armor or shield tanks since that's what those two ships are. Its been awhile since those ships were released, but given CCP's history I don't think that those two ships being the only one in game that can fit viable hull tanks was done intentionally. If it was, that, much like these changes were a bad idea.
Tippia wrote:Valterra wrote:And balancing mods around one use case when they are used on numerous ships is bad balancing. What other ships are those? How is it bad balancing to balance around the ships that use a given module? And how are bulkheads imbalanced? How would making them take up no fitting space make them more imbalanced? You're not making any sense here.
Well, according to this statement: "It's entirely viable." You yourself made the argument that Hull tanking was viable for all other ships. So if that's the case, then balancing around the freighter is a bad way to balance. So which is it? Is hull tanking viable on all ships? I'm not the one thats making no sense here. |
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 21:23:00 -
[47] - Quote
Markus45 wrote:How is this a nerf exactly? Freighters: - You are given the option to fit more EHP at the cost of cargohold - You are given the option to fit more cargohold at the cost of a small amount EHP - You are given more shield/armor thereby increasing the viability of RR support Jump Freighters: - You are given the option to fit more EHP, to the point of having absurd EHP, at the cost of cargohold - You are given the option to fit more cargohold at the cost of a small amount of EHP - You are given substantially more shield/armor and T2 resists thereby making RR support very viable. Nerf? What? Look at the charts http://themittani.com/news/proposed-freighter-and-jump-freighter-changes-kronos
I have looked at the charts... and I still think this is an across the board nerf.
You are given the option to fit more EHP at the cost of cargohold. Right, so I gain around 40% HP to loose 50% cargo and at best it costs half of the value of the ship to do so. Nerf I also
- You are given the option to fit more cargohold at the cost of a small amount EHP Right, so I gain around 10% more cargo to loose 10% HP and at best it costs half of the value of the ship to do so. Nerf
Any of the rest of your examples suffer the same problem. Little gain for massive cost.
|
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 21:50:00 -
[48] - Quote
Tippia wrote: .See how they don't include the strawman bit you added?
You mean how they exactly include evasion and confusion and state that hull tanking is viable because its viable on just one ship?
Tippia wrote:Mu./quote] Figures you can't answer a simple question. Tippia wrote:Since you offer no reasons why, yes. You mean I didn't offer reasons that you agreed with. The balancing convention to date is that mods that modify attributes that modify your HP in any way have fitting requirements. This is true for plates and this is true for extenders and it should be true for bulkheads. Balancing bulkheads just so they could fit your one off idea is bad because as stated the hole field of hull tanking should be balanced for all ships to make them viable(and this is something that's been asked for ad nausem just as much as rigs for freighters has) [quote=Tippia] I'll ask again. Last chance this time GÇö any further evasions or general failure to respond will be interpreted as you trolling; as their not being imbalanced; and as their being no appreciable effect on balance from giving them zero fitting requirements as far as you can tell. Here goes: how is it bad balancing to balance around the ships that use a given module? And how are bulkheads imbalanced? How would making them take up no fitting space make them more imbalanced?
Right, I'm the one evading when you provide nonsensical answers like this: "Mu". As to your opinion on what my posts are or not is irrelevant.
Its not bad to balance around ships that use a given module. Its bad to balance around ships that use a given module when the module should be just as viable on other ships in the game. Because they are tanking mods and tanking mods require fitting tradeoffs. You shouldn't get something for nothing.
|
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 23:16:00 -
[49] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Right, I'm the one evading when you provide nonsensical answers like this: "Mu". Just because you don't understand the answer does not mean it's nonsensical. Look up the term (or just ask) if you don't know what it means.
Uh huh. So the phrase "not nothing" when asked a point blank simple question isn't evasive and nonsensical. Good to know that I'm not the troll after all. At least I answered your posts. |
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 23:18:00 -
[50] - Quote
Tippia wrote:5GÇô15 kills per day, many of which aren't even suicide ganks since they happen outside of highsec and/or during wardecs? Yeah, that's laughably rare.
Hey looks its Mu! |
|
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 23:22:00 -
[51] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Valterra Craven wrote: So I will ask you point blank:
Is hull tanking viable for one ship, or all ships?
Neither, and you are really bad at false dichotomies.
So if I'm so bad at false dichotomies, what other options are there for hull tanking if not "viable" or "not viable" aren't the only two options? |
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 23:24:00 -
[52] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Uh huh. So the phrase "not nothing" when asked a point blank simple question isn't evasive and nonsensical. Nope. It is, in fact, the only sensible answer to your false dichotomy.
So the answer to the post is not "Mu". The answer to the post is "these are not the only two options, here are some other examples."
That's how to not be an evasive non nonsensical troll. |
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 23:30:00 -
[53] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:So the answer to the post is not "Mu". Yes it is.
If your a troll it is.
Tippia wrote:Oh, and: how are bulkheads imbalanced? How would making them take up no fitting space make them more imbalanced?
See post #1375 for my stated answer that states exactly this. |
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 23:32:00 -
[54] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Valterra Craven wrote: So I will ask you point blank:
Is hull tanking viable for one ship, or all ships?
Neither, and you are really bad at false dichotomies. So if I'm so bad at false dichotomies, what other options are there for hull tanking if "viable" or "not viable" aren't the only two options? That is not what you wrote. Hull tanking is not viable for just one ship, nor is it viable for all ships. The possibility of it being somewhere in between those two extremes seems to have escaped you.
No, it hasn't escaped me. I'm saying that I have seen no other provable examples to counter your point that what I've said isn't true. In fact, if what you are saying is true, the statement "Hull tanking is only currently viable for one ship" would be easily demonstrated as false by ONE example. So, let me ask you point blank. How many ships is hull tanking viable on? |
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 23:54:00 -
[55] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Valterra Craven wrote: No, it hasn't escaped me.
In which case, like I said, you are really bad at false dichotomies.
Either way, you still can't/haven't shown even one more example besides the Orca where hull tanking is viable. I'm sure neither of us is going to take the time to fit every ship in game with a hull tank to find out if even one more example exists. So again, your point is irrelevant. |
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 00:00:00 -
[56] - Quote
Holder |
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 00:14:00 -
[57] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Not particularly if it's in response to just more ad hominem fallacies. Shame IGÇÖm not using ad hominem fallacies.
Quote: It's entirely in line with the other hull upgrades. vOv . Which are also not balanced relative to other tanking mods.
Quote: Yeah, seeGǪ the entire mistake you're making here is that you think that balance involves behaving like other modules. What other modules do is irrelevant. What you have to ask is what the effects are on a ship for fitting this module and how it stacks up to other options available.
ItGÇÖs not a mistake. LetGÇÖs look at the phoenix for simplicities sake (all lvl 5 skills). It has 5 lows. If we give it 5x t2 bulkheads, that adds roughly 480k effective HP for a measly 100 cpu and 5 grid If we give it 5x t2 large shield extenders, that adds roughly 22k effective HP for 230cpu and 630 gridGǪ And thatGÇÖs balance to you?
|
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 00:22:00 -
[58] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Valterra Craven wrote: ItGÇÖs not a mistake. LetGÇÖs look at the phoenix for simplicities sake (all lvl 5 skills). It has 5 lows. If we give it 5x t2 bulkheads, that adds roughly 480k effective HP for a measly 100 cpu and 5 grid If we give it 5x t2 large shield extenders, that adds roughly 22k effective HP for 230cpu and 630 gridGǪ And thatGÇÖs balance to you?
So I guess more ship types than just the Orca can be hull tanked. Are you running around in circles contradicting yourself on purpose, or is this accidental? It's equally hilarious regardless, so you may as well tell the truth.
The mistake you are making is that this post doesn't prove that that hull tanking is viable on this ship. For that to happen you would have to prove that a proper setup with a cap hull repair would equate to the same amount of damage as its shield tank... which you know is not possible. |
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 00:33:00 -
[59] - Quote
Then lets so some examples.
Tippia wrote:They're not tanking mods so why would you make that comparison? /quote]Since when are repair modules not tanking mods? Tippia wrote: I mean, yes, your basic answer is correct: the bulkhead isn't balanced in the sense that they don't stack up well to the other modules on this ship.
And given the topic of what we are talking about (capital ships) My argument works for the freighter too. [quote=Tippia]The intent of your answer is wrong: the bulkheads are vastly underpowered compared to the other tanking options available.
The problem here is that you think I'm arguing bulkheads are underpowered. The example I used was to prove that they are overpowered. They will be more so with no fitting costs.
|
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 02:05:00 -
[60] - Quote
Tippia wrote:See the post that started it, perhaps? And the one that followed. Of course, you'll just claim that you didn't say what you said like last timeGǪ
You mean the one where you accused me of trolling or the one where you accused me of spamming? See the thing is you know that you started this BS in the first place. So I'm not sure how you have the right to argue such points when I've done no such thing but respond to your posts showing the hypocrisy of your words.
Tippia wrote:Oh myGǪ you don't even know what hull upgrades are. We're not talking about repair modules here.
Correct, I misunderstood what you were implying. I thought you were trying to that because you don't believe bulkheads are unbalanced that hull tanking is viable and thus were bringing repair mods into the discussion. That aside, I also know that just because a mod rests in a certain spot in the market list doesn't mean that that is how the modules are balanced. The other hull upgrades ARENT tanking modules and are thus not balanced like they are. Bulkheads are a tank module and as such rightly have fitting requirements even though in the current meta their benefit is woefully overpowered to their fitting cost.
Tippia wrote:More accurately, your argument doesn't work for freighters either, since expanders are not part of the tanking arsenal, and in the end, it turns out that bulkheads are actually underpowered compared to all the other options. Since their fitting requirements have no effect on that particular characteristic, lowering them to 0/0 makes no difference for that balance.
I have no idea what you trying to say here. But at least we agree one one thing: Expanders are not tanking modules and bulkheads are.
Tippia wrote: The example you used proved that you have no idea how capships are fitted. What you actually and accidentally proved was that bulkheads are underpowered; that if there is a balance problem, it's in the opposite of the direction you're thinking; and that reducing their fitting requirements to be in line with the other hull upgrades won't create or inflate any kind of imbalance.
The problem is that we are arguing at two ends of the spectrum. I'm arguing that hull tanking isn't viable on more than one ship due to the meta. You are arguing that bulkheads aren't overpowered when their benefits are applied to the cap ship class.
So on point: *Sigh* Right, do you really think someone thats been in game since 2005 would actually fit a capship that way? What I actually proved was that in terms of their fitting costs that they give orders of magnitudes more effective HP than comparable modules.
But as usual you have to keep moving the goal posts even though you are only argueing that bulkheads aren't overpowered and DCU's are not bulkheads. So lets look at another comparable example. If you were to make a similar fit comparison and did just invuls and extenders and then did a DCU and bulkheads, the outcome is still the same. Orders of magnitudes better buffs than comparable.
1 DCU t2 4 bulkheads t2 1.3mil effective hp boost
1 t2 invul 4 t2 large extenders 164k effective hp boost
But lets keep going... even at the best case of 5 t2 invuls thats still only half a mil effective HP boost.
My point is merely this: bulkheads percentage based boosts for cap ships are overpowered given the huge amount of hull they all have. The ONLY reason people don't hull tank cap ships is because there are no cap ship hull repair mods that use a comparable amount of cap to armor or shield repair mods.
|
|
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 16:29:00 -
[61] - Quote
Tippia wrote:No, I mean the one where you flat out said that I was trolling. I only asked if you were because you've already admitted that you're doing it once, and I only said you were spamming because you were spamming.
You mean the one where you asked me if I was trolling and I said IGÇÖd admit to trolling only if you admitted that your GÇ£I told you soGÇ¥ posts were trolling as well? Besides I never said that your whole argument was invalid just because you were and are trolling. I was simply saying youGÇÖre being a butt hole for the sake of it.
Tippia wrote:Maybe you should pay more attention to what I'm actually writing and less to the confused mess that's going on inside your head. That's how all your fallacies are created.
Maybe you should write better instead of inviting confusion with posts like GÇ£Mu.GÇ¥
Tippia wrote: Bulkheads are hull upgrades.
Bulkheads are hull upgrades only because thatGÇÖs how they were classified when the game first came out. How many market changes have been made recently to move things around to where they actually make since? Bulkheads ARE tanking modules because the only reason for adding more HP is if you want to ya know live longerGǪ. IGÇÖll get to their OPness later.
Just because no one fits that way doesnGÇÖt mean that the modules arenGÇÖt overpowered. So if you want to use real examples lets provide better context with the first example you provided, 1 dcu t2 and 3x invul t2. At level 5 skills this has an effective HP of 1.78mil hp. Now, IGÇÖm not saying the most people fit a PDU in that second low slot, but letGÇÖs say for the sake of the argument that most people do. In doing so you get a little bit better cap and your EHP jumps to 1.83mil. BUT, instead, letsGÇÖ put a t2 bulkhead thereGǪ your hp jumps from 1.78 to 1.934! AMAZING! You get 100k more EHP for that one slot than you do for using a PDU! Now the real question I would ask is why no fits a large t2 shield extender? Is it because the measly boost in EHP it gives for a cap ship isnGÇÖt worth the slot compared to just adding another invul or maybe another hardner?
Tippia wrote:So you argument is a strawman fallacy. If no-one fits a capship that way, you think there might be a reason for it? Do you also think there might be a reason why they don't fit your supposedly GÇ£overpoweredGÇ¥ bulkheads either?
No, itGÇÖs not. It was an example to illustrate my point of how your idea was bad. The question asked was why are BULKHEADS overpowered, not DCUGÇÖs, not invuls, and not any other module. So I tried to show you using the only comparable modules we have to them which are mods like extenders, and then you change your argument to add in other things like DCUGÇÖs and invuls.
[quote=Tippia ] No, you didn't prove that because you didn't use comparable modules. By picking a capship, you disqualified any kind of raw buffer expansion from being part of the discussion, be it armour plates or shield extenders. If you want to compare against those, use a ship and fit that actually makes use of those modules like, say, a BC or a BS.
If you're going to use a capship as your testing bench, you'll notice that all modules on it are percentage based. You'll also quickly notice that bulkheads give pitiful percentages compared to the other modules. Finally, you'll notice that bulkheads have massively inflated fitting costs compared to many of those modules, especially once you factor in the percentage bonuses they give.
"Well look at thatGǪ lowest bonus, second highest fitting cost, significant penalties. Yes, that combination just screams overpowered.
So: since every sensible option on a capship yields better tank for fitting space anyway (and fitting space is not something they lack so differences there are minute); since all other hull upgrades cost 0/0; since subcaps only ever fit bulkheads because they have a slot and some CPU left over; since subcaps also yield far better tank using other modules in their fewer lowslots; there is nothing that becomes imbalanced by removing the fitting costs for bulkheads as well."
IGÇÖm not disqualifying anything. I was simply showing an extreme edge case that is possible. The point of balance is not to look at things that are working. ItGÇÖs to look at things that donGÇÖt. Now the reason I picked a cap ship is several fold. A. your idea was to give low slots to a freighter, not to a bc, not to a cruiser or anything else. A freighter is a cap ship. B. Cap ships have problems in terms of fitting buffer modules because of the current meta. Generally speaking, for all sub cap ship classes, buffer fits typically include both resists and raw hp boost mods aka 2-3 invuls and a couple extenders for shields. However for cap ships, there are no raw HP mods that offer usable boosts on cap ships BESIDES bulkheads. This includes extenders, and this includes plates. For example, if there was a mod that gave your ship a 25% percent straight boost to shield HP youGÇÖd see a vastly different fit on caldari cap ships than you do today. But there isnGÇÖt and the reason is because a boost like that on a cap ship would be over powered.
Now as far as IGÇÖm concerned your comparison to other modules that arenGÇÖt raw HP boosters is garbage. You know as well as I do that A. Hull starts out with no resist, and B that there are no other Hull resist mods besides the DCU. If hull tanking was properly coded to be comparable to other forms of tanking this comparison would be easier. Further, your comparison numbers are a bit skewed. T2 bulkheads give 25% to hull. If you want to argue that no one fits hull tanks because of how skewed the current meta is towards other mods thatGÇÖs fine. But that doesnGÇÖt change the fact that bulkheads and hull tanking in general is broken. You know it and I know. |
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 17:36:00 -
[62] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Mu was the only vaild answer to the question.
Saying something doesnGÇÖt make it true. See below.
Tippia wrote:which doesn't particularly impact how they should be priced in terms of fitting. That price is more related to what class of modules they belong to.
Fitting is always a factor in terms of the benefits a module provides. If that wasnGÇÖt the case then t2 mods wouldnGÇÖt take more fitting. Now class is A FACTOR, but these modules have NO CLASS. Aka there are no small and medium and large versions. Therefore their balance has to be spread across the whole spectrum of classes and fitting is an important way to do that.
Tippia wrote:Yes, it does. You see, if something is overpowered, players exploit the hell out of it. It's just what they do. It's kind of a defining trait of something overpowered: that it outshines all options and everyone uses it as much as they can. No-one is exploiting bulkheads for the simple reason that they're pretty weak as modules go. They have a couple of niche uses that makes them an interesting option, but for the most part, it's not a good use of a slot.
If something is rarely fitted, this is your first clue that, if anything, it may actually be underpowered. It simply cannot be overpowered because then it would not be fitted rarely. If you try to argue otherwise, you have simply not understood how fitting works.
I understand what you getting at with players and exploiting, but the problem is not that bulkheads arenGÇÖt overpowered, its that hull tanking is underpowered. If hull tanking had the same options that others did then bulkheads would have to be significantly tweeked. No one fits bulkheads not because they are underpowered but because the supporting modules around them make no fin sense.
Tippia wrote:Too bad that it failed to do so since you invented a scenario that has no connection with reality.
Really? So the fitting I just mentioned in my previous post of 1 dcu t2 and 1 t2 bulkhead has no connection with realityGǪ Good to know that your reality is skewed.
But letGÇÖs get back to the point, and really the entire point of this back and forth in the first place on the freaking question I asked you originally. GÇ£Is hull tanking viable on one ship or all ships?GÇ¥
And here is your true answer: GÇ£They aren't overpowered on capships because all other tanking options (hardeners) are a better use of your space. They aren't overpowered on subcaps because all other tanking options (buffers and hardeners) are a better use of your space.GÇ¥
Granted you were speaking specifically of bulkheads, but because as you demonstrated, you canGÇÖt evaluate just one module in vacuum against its similar competing modules, this equally applies to hull tanking in general as well. In other words, if hull tanking were viable then more people would do it on more ships than just one.
But seriously, was that answer so dang hard that it required all of this back and forth to get to? |
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 19:04:00 -
[63] - Quote
Tippia wrote: Saying something doesnGÇÖt make it true. Doesn't change the fact that mu was the only valid answer. If by valid you mean that itGÇÖs completely meaningless, then sure.
Tippia wrote: Not really, no. It's only a factor if it eats away at a rare resource. In this case, the resource in question is not the fitting space but the module slot In this case? You start putting cit torp launchers on a dread and suddenly you have infinite CPU all of a sudden? Fitting is always a factor because no ship has infinite fitting resources.
Tippia wrote: You mean the tanking style that can only be done with two modules: bulkheads (which provide a very small bonus) and DCUs (which provide a very large bonus) as a whole is underpowered. Then it rather follows that of the two possible combinations, the one that provides the much smaller-bonused module is what brings the whole package down, rather than the one that provides a massive bonus.
Hey look a fallacy! The other possibility is that the tanking style doesnGÇÖt have the proper support modules to make it an effective choice. Aka both modules could potentially be fine on their own and together, but still arenGÇÖt effective when viewed against the other choices a player can make because they lack the other choices that other tanking styles provide.
Tippia wrote: Yes, really. Your using modules normally fitted to cruiser and battlecruisers as a point of comparison means that your fit has no connection with reality and that your comparison only proves that you know how to failfit a ship.
And why am I comparing them to battleship mods, oh right, because again comparable modules do not exist for the class we are talking aboutGǪ or did you miss that whole point? So the question then becomes WHY they donGÇÖt exist. Is it because there wasnGÇÖt time? They werenGÇÖt thought about? Or even because if they did they would be stupidly overpowered?!
Likely a combination of all of the above.
Tippia wrote: And no, that was neither the original question nor the entire point, so you manage to be as utterly and completely wrong about that as you have been about every single thing you've ever said. The original question, and the entire point of the conversation, was GÇ£How are bulkheads imbalanced? How would making them take up no fitting space make them more imbalanced?GÇ¥ GÇö questions you have not been able to answer in a way that supports your original claim.
Instead, using your failures as very helpful support, we have satisfactorily proven GÇö beyond any doubt GÇö that bulkheads are not overpowered, but are rather, if anything, massively underpowered. If we compare them in a vacuum, they come out behind the other modules. If we compare them in context, they come out behind the other modules. You have not been able to come up with any scenario where they offer any kind of advantage (much less an overpowered one) and you've shown that they are actually such a drag that they make an entire tanking style under-perform. We can therefore further conclude that reducing their fitting requirements will not unbalance anything, since it does not alter their performance in any way, and no matter how cheap, they will not replace those other modules.
No, the original question was why should bulkheads be the one off exception to how every other tanking module works in the game? Your response is because they are completely underpowered relative to all of the other tanking modules. And my answer is that just because an entire way of doing things is underpowered doesnGÇÖt mean we should acknowledge that fact by putting a square peg into a round that is an even nicher use case than what we currently have. What should be done instead is that Hull tanking and all aspects of it should receive a massive rebalance as well as the only ship that does so: the orca. (Which given everything changed in the last year needs one anywayGǪ) But youGÇÖd rather cut off your nose to spite your face instead of just acknowledging that simple fact.
|
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 19:45:00 -
[64] - Quote
Tippia wrote:If you still don't understand the answer, you can (sitll) ask. Don't worry, I won't bite. I did ask, but you donGÇÖt answer point blank questions, so there really isnGÇÖt much point in asking again.
Tippia wrote:Yes, in this case. A low-slot is far more valuable than 40tf CPU, especially on a Phoenix, since the other, far more useful modules you want to put in that slot cost more CPU.
Oh? LetGÇÖs look at the example of 1 dcu and 1 bulkhead on the phoenix. IGÇÖve seen people put maybe one other mod in the bulkheadGÇÖs spot besides a PDU and that would be a 4th BCU (since really the first three are nearly mandatory given its roll) So what would be more important than a PDU or a BCU?
Tippia wrote: one problem: it does. It has the most effective support module of them all, as it happens. So that's not really a possibility at all, nor is it a fallacy unless what you said was all wrongGǪ which, I'll grant you, is highly probable.
Oh really, because cap ships have a local cap sized hull repair mod? Oh rightGǪ it doesnGÇÖt exist. One module a tank does not make.
Tippia wrote: it's the only way for your claim to be true.
Then why is it that all other HP mods are fixed amounts and not percentage based? I mean if percentage based boosts werenGÇÖt OP and easily balanced then how come all the other buffer mods are broken into separate sub classes? |
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 20:51:00 -
[65] - Quote
Tippia wrote:GÇó Replacing it with a WCS gives 25% more hull EHP and you're now safe from a single long point. Yay.
You do realize that stabs take fitting right? 20-35 cpu and 1 grid...
And if the baseline is one DCU you'd you have to lose the DCU to fit a stab. |
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 21:05:00 -
[66] - Quote
Tippia wrote:I won't bite. I donGÇÖt believe you and evidence of prior behavior speaks to the contrary.
[quote=Tippia] Fair enough. I thought for a moment that they cost 44, not 40. The point is still the same: the bulkhead is a waste of a slot, and it's not skipped over for a lack of CPU GÇö it's skipped over because there are far better things to put in that slot. Pretty much anything, in fact, is a better use of the slot. People might start fitting it if it was free (and they were a bit daft), but that rather suggests once more that they are far from overpowered. [quote]
I donGÇÖt understand how the bulkhead in that case is a waste of slotGǪ If thatGÇÖs the case then the bulkhead thatGÇÖs fitted to the orca is just a waste of a slot there as well. After all what IGÇÖm proposing is basically the same thing, you have your invuls in mids on the orca just like the phoenix and you have your dcu as well. A PDU offers marginal HP compared to the bulkhead and not much in terms of cap recharge unless you are trying to stack with cap charge mods to get cap stable, at which point buffer tanks are irrelevant and its more about repairing HP. The 4th BCU only offers marginally better DPS due to the stacking penalties. So again, if the bulkhead is such a waste, what other module would be a better fit?
[quote=Tippia]They have the same superior hull-tanking support module as every other ship in the game. You understand the value of resistances over just bulk HP, yes? And you understand the value of massive resist bonuses over very very tiny raw HP increases?
And you understand that buffer tanks arenGÇÖt the only way to tank ships as well? I understand the value of resistances, but only to a point. ThereGÇÖs a reason sub caps fit a mix of resistances and HP boosters. Resistances are stacking penalized and therefore at some point the best option is to fit a mix a both. But when you have 200k HP and you buff that by 25% and itGÇÖs not stacking penalized thatGÇÖs not very very tinyGǪ
|
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 21:24:00 -
[67] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:You do realize I added an edit before you posted right? You do realise that it makes no difference, right? And you do realise that what I quoted was what was in your post at the time, right? Again, you made a mistake. Live with it.
What was the mistake? |
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 21:33:00 -
[68] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:What was the mistake? You assumed that CPU and grid was in any way a problem because you failed to read and thus didn't notice that we're talking about a completely different scenario.
No, it appears the problem is that I assumed you were working under your old proposal + the new one and bulkheads wouldn't require CPU. So instead of giving freighters 29 CPU you'd be giving them 59 CPU and 1 grid. (since they already have 1 each) |
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 23:17:00 -
[69] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:No Yes, it appears the problem is that I assumed you were working under your old proposal
In other words, you assumed that CPU and grid was in any way a problem because you failed to read and thus didn't notice that we're talking about a completely different scenario. I fixed your post, by the way. So yes, you made a mistake. Live with it.
Man for someone that claims they don't bite you sure don't act like it. Also its not COMPLETELY different since your original proposal was arguing for low slots, the one you started posting about recently is only a modification of that to add fittings to able to fit certain things. |
Valterra Craven
246
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 23:50:00 -
[70] - Quote
Tippia wrote:It's because you never honestly ask for information.
And the rebuttal to that would be Mu.
Tippia wrote:You made a mistake. Live with it. Also, take the opportunity to learn to read posts rather than assume what will be in them and act on the strawman you just erected.
And you are being a butt for the sake of it. Live with it. Also I did read, otherwise I wouldn't have made any edits to try and make things clearer as to what I was talking about. Also, learn what a strawman is.
|
|
Valterra Craven
246
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 00:33:00 -
[71] - Quote
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:Dirk MacGirk wrote:Fozzie, can you confirm: Is my dream of a cloaky freighter really coming true? Tippia is winning this thread ... at the moment... therefore, 6 highslots. + Tippia 151 (8,8%) + Dave Stark 149 (8,7%) (Though CCP's opinion could quickly shift back toward Dave Stark's views!) Tippia wrote:Attempt #2: Only highslots. 6 of them! Role bonus: may launch bombs in highsec.
I don't see them doing either. I don't recall a time where they announced changes and then completely rolled them back immediately based on negative feedback. (AKA the new bounty structures for 0.0 being a good example of the hatred of them and them going in with only minor changes) Whats likely to happen is they refine the numbers a bit to make them less painful. or maybe at the very least tune the build costs a bit given how massive the baseline changes are and how expensive it will be to get back to baseline on just one value. |
Valterra Craven
246
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 04:06:00 -
[72] - Quote
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 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. |
Valterra Craven
247
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 14:23:00 -
[73] - Quote
Gregor Parud wrote:The changes FORCE people to start doing industry locally, which is good because it helps with populating null, beyond the empty borefest it is atm. .
I'm not going to lie, I haven't been to null since 2008. That was before JF's and I think slightly before jump bridges. I remember the freighter conveys we had, at least until BoB built its first couple of titans. But you know what wasn't any different? The amount of people in Null. Seriously I remember having to coordinate three different NPC stations worth of t2 comp production 24/7 and that was just for BNC.E. You know how many people real people it took to do that? Less than 15 (alts and such). People keep talking about force projection like its the reason that no one is in null or its the reason more industry doesn't happen in null. Cept the thing is, I was around when those things didn't exist and you know what? Nothing was different. While thats a lie, one thing was different, people own less space.
But I am being a bit disingenuous. The big difference between t2 comps and normal manufacturing is that it doesn't require actual effort to acquire the raw mats. I'm sure things would have been different had mats not magically appeared from our POSes every hour. Big difference between having to have actual people mine ore and ice... |
Valterra Craven
247
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 14:45:00 -
[74] - Quote
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. |
Valterra Craven
247
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 14:50:00 -
[75] - Quote
Xander Phoena wrote:Hopefully the swap from rigs to low slots will keep some of the doubters happy. The flexibility this provides should make for a far more interesting time for those of you wondering how to fit your freighters as opposed to simply putting in T2 rigs and never changing it.
CSM9 (particularly but not exclusively the likes of Mynnna, Corbexx, Steve Ronuken and Sugar Kyle) have worked real hard with Fozzie on getting these numbers right. Looking forward to hearing your feedback.
I like this better but I still don't like the fact that armor can be tanked somewhat (resistance plates) and shields can not. This wouldn't have been a big deal had you leave HP values in hull so every could tank roughly equally, but since you guys moved such a large chunk of HP to shields and armor this seems to be an unfair advantage for armor based races.
I wish i knew how to edit EFT files to create fits based off this to see just what the difference is. |
Valterra Craven
247
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 14:53:00 -
[76] - 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.
Then explain why Null was just as empty from 2005-2007 when power projection didn't exist. |
Valterra Craven
247
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 14:55:00 -
[77] - Quote
Xander Phoena wrote:Kaarous Aldurald 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! It was done this way to specifically avoid you being able to double your tank with one module. This. You aren't getting DCUs on a freighter.
What about a role bonus for CPU on PDU's?
This way you could fit some shield tanking mods like the resistance plats for armor? |
Valterra Craven
247
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:00:00 -
[78] - Quote
Arya Regnar wrote:TheMercenaryKing wrote:Love the new update, but one question, when will damage controls become passive mods? Never.
Actually devs have expressed that they have thought about it and it might be possible in the future. This question doesn't however directly mean you'd be able to fit them to freighters as you'd still have to get around the fitting costs... |
Valterra Craven
247
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:04:00 -
[79] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Just a note, if people want to play around with the numbers, EveHQ has the ability to make custom ships, very easily. (load up the ship fitter, then use the HFQ editor, copy one of them, and fiddle with the numbers. Including the role bonuses.)
Any thoughts about a role bonus for PDU's....? |
Valterra Craven
247
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:06:00 -
[80] - Quote
Gregor Parud[ wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Then explain why Null was just as empty from 2005-2007 when power projection didn't exist. Valterra Craven wrote:Charts without proper interpretation are meaningless. You would need to compare the ratio of total players active at any given time to players that live primarily in null and then those that lived other places. I bet the ratios are the same now as they were then. Given that we have more subs and a much higher PCU while "it's just as empty at it was back then", as you put it, the logical conclusion is that it's not what you think/hope it is.
Well like I said, I haven't been to 0.0 since 2008. I still bet with PROPER study the ratios would be nearly the same. |
|
Valterra Craven
247
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:36:00 -
[81] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
I won't rule it out.
Have you ruled out a role bonus so that PDU's can be fitted so that shield based freighters can have at least one mod they can use to tank to put them on parity with armor based freighters?
Even a t2 PDU is only a little more than half what a t2 resistance plate does... I don't see how the cap recharge, or cap bonuses affect anything (might benefit armor ships too) and giving a ship with 3 grid a 15% bonus should still be just 3 grid with rounding. That only leaves shield regen and well I don't think that matters too much in any situation these ships would be under fire...
So that's +15% to shield HP (if you fit three) while the Layered Platting t2 can get armor up to 24%... |
Valterra Craven
247
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:43:00 -
[82] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote: - low slot shield mods that can only be fit to freighters?
PDU!!!!!! |
Valterra Craven
247
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:50:00 -
[83] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote: - low slot shield mods that can only be fit to freighters?
PDU!!!!!! if thats a power dag, then cpu may be a bit of an issue...
yes, which is why I'm arguing for a role bonus to cpu fitting just like they did with bulkheads! |
Valterra Craven
247
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:03:00 -
[84] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:You aren't getting DCUs on a freighter.
My kingdom for a PDU instead? |
Valterra Craven
247
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:20:00 -
[85] - Quote
Gregor Parud wrote:
So what you're saying is "I made **** up, I haven't even seen it first hand AND I can't use and apply basic logic", duly noted.
No, what I'm saying is that based on prior evidence I've extrapolated the data. |
Valterra Craven
247
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:29:00 -
[86] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:addelee wrote: JF's are having their fuel usage increase by 50% in kronos.
This is not correct. The fuel change is currently scheduled for Crius.
So still no comment on getting a role bonus on t1 freighters to at least to be able to fit a PDU? |
Valterra Craven
247
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:48:00 -
[87] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:addelee wrote: JF's are having their fuel usage increase by 50% in kronos.
This is not correct. The fuel change is currently scheduled for Crius. So still no comment on getting a role bonus on t1 freighters to at least to be able to fit a PDU? let the PDU go. it'll never balance against resistance and layered plating.
You mean it will never be as powerful as either of those fitting choices that armor freighters get?
I'll be fine with dropping it as long as as they revert the changes to HP and just put everything back in hull where it should be. |
Valterra Craven
247
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:31:00 -
[88] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Brib Vogt wrote: But why is the maximum velocity modifier of -11% replaced with -10% cargo capacity. Thats my whole point
Because velocity isn't a real penalty on a freighter.
That's not technically true. (but this would an extreme example) Lets say you want to afk your freighter with cargo from point a to b. Lets also say that you have a tool that will roughly calculate the amount of time it would take you to afk that distance. You could then set things up in such a way that you could be doing a lot of runs and that would significantly affect your time in the long wrong, especially if you used 3... I could see this mainly affecting people like Red Frog freight if they ran things this way (which they could given all the stipulations they put on you fro cargo value etc) |
Valterra Craven
248
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:40:00 -
[89] - Quote
Warr Akini wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Brib Vogt wrote: But why is the maximum velocity modifier of -11% replaced with -10% cargo capacity. Thats my whole point
Because velocity isn't a real penalty on a freighter. That's not technically true. (but this would an extreme example) Lets say you want to afk your freighter with cargo from point a to b. Lets also say that you have a tool that will roughly calculate the amount of time it would take you to afk that distance. You could then set things up in such a way that you could be doing a lot of runs and that would significantly affect your time in the long wrong, especially if you used 3... I could see this mainly affecting people like Red Frog freight if they ran things this way (which they could given all the stipulations they put on you fro cargo value etc) I think the point with cargo expanders affecting cargo versus velocity was that CCP preferred to make the reward versus tradeoff balanced and was less concerned with protecting autopiloters/AFKers (which CCP has said several times that active should trump passive wherever possible).
I know, was just playing devils advocate :) |
Valterra Craven
248
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:52:00 -
[90] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Walter Hart White wrote:My main issue now is that you can't shield tank freighter but you can armor tank... The question is, why would you want to do either?
To boost tank a marginal amount without having to loose what cargo is left after the re balance.... |
|
Valterra Craven
248
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:19:00 -
[91] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Walter Hart White wrote:My main issue now is that you can't shield tank freighter but you can armor tank... No you can't. Go back and look at the modules that you can fit.
Yes, you can. I'd say the same thing to you, but for the sake of not being a d!ck like others, I will just tell you that armor mods exist that don't require cpu and only need 1 grid.... Look under the group called Resistance Plates.... |
Valterra Craven
248
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:40:00 -
[92] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Adaptive Nano Platings are hardly even worth talking about.
Well in the sense that your correction was incorrect it is worth talking about. (Been there done that, same thread even!) |
Valterra Craven
248
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:42:00 -
[93] - Quote
Daenika wrote:Tippia wrote:Ok, new tables: GÇó New alignment times depending on base and a more balanced fit (red = worse than Rubicon, Green = better than rubicon). GÇó The full gamut of Tank vs. Cargo (red = worse than both base and Rubicon stats; yellow = better than Rubicon, worse than base; blue = better than base, worse than Rubicon; green = better than both). I haven't really done any other combos because the other sensible modules (CPR, istab, hacc) either have no effect at all or no effect that freighter pilots care about. tl;dr: the only ones who have anything to complain about anything anymore are gankersGǪ Erm... Since when to Bulkheads reduce cargo space? I thought that was just istabs. Bulkheads appear to only have 3 effect: increased hull HP, reduced top speed, (slight) increase to inertia. Are they changing that? Or did you accidentally include the istab cargo reduction in your numbers?
Well thats a good point actually. Bulkheads right now have a -11% speed penality... it was the rigs that were changed to hull penalty... my bet is that now that you just pointed it out it gets changed.
|
Valterra Craven
248
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:08:00 -
[94] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Oh, and for those thinking that armour-tanking is a good ideaGǪ
Providence: gives up 33.1pp tank for 160k m-¦. Charon: gives up 35.6pp tank for 171k m-¦. Obelisk: gives up 38.8pp tank for 162k m-¦. Fenrir: gives up 26.0pp tank for 160k m-¦. Ark: gives up 18.4pp tank for 50k m-¦. Rhea: gives up 36.7pp tank for 53k m-¦. Anshar: gives up 36.6pp tank for 51k m-¦. Nomad: gives up 27.9pp tank for 49k m-¦.
To clarify: if the providence armour tanks, it gets a 33.1 percentage points lower tank increase (18.2% rather than 51.3%) than if it had chosen to hull tank, but doesn't lose the 30% cargo space that a full hull tank costs.
Based on this it would appear that EHP should likely be adjusted some... It dosn't make sense that the fenrir would get 10pp more tank than a Charon for only losing 9km3, Course the Obelisk looks really bad for some strange reason. Couldn't this be balanced to all of them be around 30% even? |
Valterra Craven
248
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:23:00 -
[95] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Based on this it would appear that EHP should likely be adjusted some... It dosn't make sense that the fenrir would get 10pp more tank than a Charon for only losing 9km3, Course the Obelisk looks really bad for some strange reason. Couldn't this be balanced to all of them be around 30% even? Nah. The lesson is simply that, just because you can fit something doesn't mean it's a good idea. The Obelisk looks really bad because it's a particularly bad idea to try to tank it with armour. Conclusion: don't try to armour tank.
But why is fitting a small tank when you want to keep the same level of cargo not a good idea? (I worded this on purpose so as not to setup a two choice only scenario :) )160k m3 is over 25% of your cargo on all these ships, so its not like a mid point between those two options should be right off hand considered bad, unless of course you are on obelisk.
|
Valterra Craven
248
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:31:00 -
[96] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Because you get better results with an expander/bulkhead combo.
Yes, at significant costs to your ships capability. I mean if you're shield tanking a combat ship its not as if fitting more tank makes your DPS suffer.... (Though you could say that about armor ships in a round about way)
I guess the real question here is how much space do you need to hit the 1-2bil cargo limit. Since most people here were stating that a majority of the time the goods they were moving never filled a freighter up before they hit the cargo cost limit, how much m3 were the using? If it was less space than what you would loose to hull tanking, aka 1-2bil is 150k m3, then sure fit a hull tank, but if 1-2bil goods is closer to say 300k-400k m3 then fit armor? |
Valterra Craven
248
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:34:00 -
[97] - Quote
Also, has anyone run the numbers for what the new baseline is for cargo cost?
Aka if you run with no low slots how much value can you stuff before you get ganked? |
Valterra Craven
249
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:42:00 -
[98] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Also, has anyone run the numbers for what the new baseline is for cargo cost?
Aka if you run with no low slots how much value can you stuff before you get ganked? Granted, this is napkin math since I'm at work. No lowslots is about 900 mil. Triple bulkheads turns into about 2.4 billion.
Man,I just realized how many combos there are that could affect this. Lol now we need a tool to determine cargo value based on fit!
1 expander 1 bulkhead, and 1 adaptive nano plating? |
Valterra Craven
249
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:44:00 -
[99] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Also, has anyone run the numbers for what the new baseline is for cargo cost?
Aka if you run with no low slots how much value can you stuff before you get ganked? Granted, this is napkin math since I'm at work. No lowslots is about 900 mil. Triple bulkheads turns into about 2.4 billion. Man,I just realized how many combos there are that could affect this. Lol now we need a tool to determine cargo value based on fit! 1 expander 1 bulkhead, and 1 adaptive nano plating?
Seems like moving around ice isotopes without getting ganked is going to be a real pain. |
Valterra Craven
249
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 17:11:00 -
[100] - Quote
So I've been playing around with the fitting tool here:
http://xyjax.com/optimizer_kronos/
and the most comparable fit to today is the following (for t1 freighters)
2x t2 Cargo holds 1x t2 ANP
This fit will yield a slight nerf to current m3 numbers for a slight boost in EHP numbers (this of course assumes all skills except racial freighter at 5 with the racials being at 4)
This fit also comes with a nerf to max velocity since cargo holds have not one, but two penalties.
Fozzie, any chance we could get a slight max velocity boost on all the freighters? Maybe 15-20m/s ? |
|
Valterra Craven
250
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 23:36:00 -
[101] - Quote
Phugoid wrote:Ok, seems fair enough. But I do have one big gripe! Why is the align time being bascially tripled???? Isnt 40 seconds to get to warp long enough as it is? Now at 114 seconds it is absolutely an idiotic change! Someone please explain the why/how of that decision......
Base Stats vs Skill modifiers. Align time didn't change. |
Valterra Craven
253
|
Posted - 2014.06.03 17:05:00 -
[102] - Quote
So I just got on TQ and it appears the numbers were worse then we were lead to believe
Charon before with my skills (all lvl 5 except racial freighter)
165k HP 942km3 cargo
Charon after, with 2x t2 cargo expanders and 1x t2 ANP
150k HP 907k cargo
Charon after, with 2x t2 cargo expanders and 1x t2 Bulkhead
160k HP 807k cargo
So like I said all along, this was a nerf with no way to achieve the same freighter that you had before patch without massive sacrifices. |
Valterra Craven
253
|
Posted - 2014.06.03 17:07:00 -
[103] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: We don't believe that these changes skew the balance too far against suicide gankers, although they do provide some good options for smart players to manage their risk.
How could they? These are massive HP nerfs in favor of gankers! |
Valterra Craven
253
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 15:28:00 -
[104] - Quote
SO I've been thinking a lot about why these changes are bad and why I hate them.
The answer seems to be that the changes to freighters and giving them lowslots is not inherently bad and the problem seems to lie with the module balance.
Based on what I'm seeing the penalties for cargo expanders and bulkheads are the problem.
So if we compare the charon from two days ago to the charon of today this is what we get.
Rubicon Charon: Cargo is 942k EHP is 180k
Kronos Charon Cargo is 558k EHP is 210k
Now if we start adding modules
x3 t2 Cargo expanders Cargo is 1.15m EHP is 160k
This looks fine so far. We see a modest boost in cargo capacity for a modest reduction in EHP
3x t2 bulkheads cargo is 393K EHP is 303k
What we have here is a significant lose in cargo for a significant gain in EHP. This looks fine at first glance, but when you consider the fact that the ship already lost 384k of its cargo just for the option to fit for EHP, and then combined with the fact that you loose even more cargo to do so, stings to say the least.
This is problematic when you realize that most ship fittings don't work this way. In other words the penalties you suffer for fitting mods (if they even have penalties) never detract from the main purpose of the ship. For example, fitting more tank on a ship doesn't penalize your dps, fitting ewar doesn't comprise your ships sensors, fitting speed doesn't comprise your warp time, etc etc.
What you've failed to realize with the bulkhead changes is that the penalty changes weren't necessary. Eve is a game about fitting choices and even fitting something on the ship in the first place is an opportunity cost. Aka if you fit for cargo you can't fit for EHP. if you fit for EHP you can fit for align, if you fit for align, you can't fit for warp speed. In other words, I think that if you reverted the bulkhead changes then these changes would be alot easier to swallow.
|
Valterra Craven
254
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 18:16:00 -
[105] - Quote
Vhelnik Cojoin wrote: On the other hand, then the old Reinforced Bulkhead penalty to velocity would have been a nasty trade-off for AFK hauling in your tanked freighter. This is why I basically jumped with two feet and said 'Yes, please!' when Fozzie asked for comments on this suggested change.
... So basically you want your cake and to eat it to. You're fine with the changes because it made your gameplay better. aka you can now afk with more goods in your freighter at the same speed as before. Sounds like the yes please was a way to screw other people over to your benefit. Seems to me that the trade off should still be speed since you are afking with more HP. You get no trade offs while everyone else gets massive ones that don't afk. |
Valterra Craven
254
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 19:08:00 -
[106] - Quote
Vhelnik Cojoin wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:... So basically you want your cake and to eat it to. You're fine with the changes because it made your gameplay better. aka you can now afk with more goods in your freighter at the same speed as before. Sounds like the yes please was a way to screw other people over to your benefit. Seems to me that the trade off should still be speed since you are afking with more HP. You get no trade offs while everyone else gets massive ones that don't afk. If you wish, then I will try and dig out the relevant part of the thread, where the module changes were discussed. *Everybody* approved of the suggested change, including people from the GSF and various HiSec ganking groups. I even went as far as asking CCP Fozzie to try and quickly make up his mind. This before people woke up and realized why the penalty change was actually good for the HiSec haulers. Apparently no-one bothered to think this though, even though I tried to hit them with a clue-by-four. Either that, or many of them realized there will still be plenty of fail-fit freighters to gank, while they themselves can benefit from the change when flying AFK on their hauler alts.
Well I spoke up in that thread and I for sure didn't agree with that change, so no, not everyone did. I'm also sure I wasn't the only detractor either. As far as the opinion of GSF, and ganking groups... well its not worth more than the poop in my toilet, since they both knew that this was far more likely to create juicier targets than not and they were both salivating like rabid dogs at the thought of more meat.
Edit: Post 238: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4590841#post4590841 |
Valterra Craven
254
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 19:34:00 -
[107] - Quote
Vhelnik Cojoin wrote:
I'm confused though, whether that discussion took place before the decision was made to give freighters low instead of rig slots.
Considering that the penalty for freighter is the same regardless of it being lows or rigs, its kinda irrelevant when it took place since the effects are the same either way. Aka bulkheads and bulkhead rigs both reduce cargo...
|
Valterra Craven
259
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 14:51:00 -
[108] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:That would be because you aren't fitting balance changes to your ship...
Simply noting "there's a cost, give me more benefit" isn't a great argument for where the balance point lies. Of course you rather it lie further away from the nerf side...
I'll note that there's a difference between "there's a cost, give me more benefit", and "there's a cost, give me less penalty". |
Valterra Craven
259
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 15:00:00 -
[109] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote: Your sub-literate rant doesn't jive with reality.
While I agree his post was hard to read, why not instead stick to the meat of what he's saying instead of insulting him? It doesn't change his argument and it doesn't change yours.
Herr Wilkus wrote: You can whine that the Charon came out slightly worse than other freighters, but the class as a whole came out much stronger - insanely so. Never before has so much ISK been movable without meaningful risk. DST got a huge buff across the board, as did the Orca (due to the creation of hull rigs).
I always love how people make the risk vs reward argument. Eve is so squewed in terms of risk vs reward towards griefers that it isnt even funny. What risk is there for people creating accounts solely to spam jita or other trade hubs for isk? They never leave station and even if they did losing a pod wouldn't matter to them since they have no sp invested. OR how about the code butts that bump miner ships? They have no real risk because A they fly nothing of value, and B there are no counter tactics to their greifing. So as a miner you either pay up or find somewhere else to play. As much as the devs want to make this argument I don't think I've ever seen them make meaningfully balancing decisions to ensure that risk vs reward actually exists in this game.
Herr Wilkus wrote: Carebears crying nerf in this case is just sad and irrational.
Well actually its a fact.
Herr Wilkus wrote:
Just saying freighters got nerfed doesn't make it so. And freighters didn't even NEED a buff. As it is, their ganking is quite rare relative to the huge numbers that exist and roam freely.
No, but the fact that they did does make it so, whether how minor or major is up for debate, their abilities are not the same they were. While we agree that they didn't need a buff, people are upset because they didn't need a nerf either. They should have just left well enough alone.
|
Valterra Craven
259
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 15:01:00 -
[110] - Quote
Lei Merdeau wrote:
Rig penalties are reduced by the relevant rig skill.
They are also never zero. |
|
Valterra Craven
260
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 16:32:00 -
[111] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Angelus Arareb wrote: Then Chronos came and I logged onto my freighter which I had trained up to level 3 and guess what, after a 15% increase to cargo capacity via training it now had the same cargo capacity as a Jump Freighter. if your cargo is the same as before, you're doing something wrong. New max is 1.2mil/m3
You appeared to have missed the relevant part... |
Valterra Craven
260
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 19:43:00 -
[112] - Quote
Rowells wrote: You didn't read the whole thing did you? just the first few sentences, perhaps?
I corrected your snip for you to the part i was referring to.
he should still be around 1.1mil. thats about 200k more than rubicon.
e: hell, even with caldari freighter at 1, three expanders should give him more than pre-patch
No, I read the whole thing, the new max has nothing to do with what he was saying. and adding 100k~ is more like what we were talking about for a huge penalty to EHP.
|
Valterra Craven
260
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 17:29:00 -
[113] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:
And you conveniently ignore the substance of most of my own, and others' posts.
Where did Freighters and JF's get nerfed?
First, alignment wasn't touched at all, it can only be improved upon by gaining lowslots.
Cargo you say? Sure, the m^3 was significantly reduced when you fit for EHP.
But that isn't the important value when hauling in highsec. Ganking is the ONLY threat to a freighter pilot. And gankers don't care about how much "m^3" you are carrying. Bulky, low value cargo that requires Cargo Mods are not profitable to gank and not interesting. Gankers care about ISK value vs EHP.
95% of trade items that will stack up into '5-6 Billions ISK' fits quite neatly into the reduced cargobay of Freighters and Jump Freighters, but in turn, are shielded by twice as much EHP - doubling the size of the fleet required to destroy it.
This often reduces the profitability to zero - meaning very, very low risk of ganking.
Especially when you can fit for 1 Million EHP in highsec.
Ridiculous, and shows how little thought Fozzie put into this version.
The substance where you ignore the stark reality of how stupid the average Eve player is and what the average fit of mining barges etc is despite groups like Code existing? People are and will fit freighters just as foolishly. As the above posts show, things have not changed in the ganking department, nor will they.
Besides, bulkheads are nothing but a double nerf to ganking the way they are, and what's amazing is that gankers actually wanted this. They wanted cargo reductions to bulkheads despite knowing correctly that A. even with those reductions it still wouldn't be close to the m3 vs value thresholds and B that most eve players are stupid. What I'm trying to say is that you should have hoped that they were kept the same, because even though you could fit bulkheads it would have also allowed you to fit more cargo making the m3/ehp ratios stay the same.
|
Valterra Craven
260
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 17:43:00 -
[114] - Quote
Rowells wrote: thats not what he said. He said he was at similar levels of cargo with 3 cargo expanders, which is nothing but wrong.
He said he gets similar to before fully fit, i show thats wrong, you come and make comments on subjects irrelavent to the specific matter i was referring to.
That's correct he said "similar". Given the changes, a 100k m3 change when talking about roughly 900k m3 is similar.
This was your correction:
Rowells wrote: if your cargo is the same as before, you're doing something wrong.
New max is 1.2mil/m3
Note that same !=similar. You corrected something incorrectly. Also, note that max doesn't enter into the equation at any end of the spectrum of his post. |
Valterra Craven
260
|
Posted - 2014.06.07 06:20:00 -
[115] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Valterra Craven wrote: What I'm trying to say is that you should have hoped that they were kept the same, because even though you could fit bulkheads it would have also allowed you to fit more cargo making the m3/ehp ratios stay the same.
Did you fail to understand my post? Or are you intentionally being obtuse?
I understood your post completely. What I'm saying is that if the bulkheads penalties aren't a real penalty, ie I can't hit max m3 with them fitted before I hit the gank threshold, then gankers shouldn't have petitioned for this change to the penalty.
Think of it this way: The change allowed afkers to have more EHP without speed loss and if they aren't hitting max m3 then that was a win for them and a loss for you since they can now carry more value afk. If the penalty was kept the same, they still aren't hitting max m3 before the gank threshold, but now they move through space slower.
On the flip side, if the target isn't afk and they are willing to risk higher thresholds the new penalty limits them since they could have carried more cargo and thus had a better or higher potential value/ehp ratio.
As far as the jf's HP, given the fact that the cost to reach those HP values is pretty steep (at least 330mil for the high end ANP mods and another potential couple bil in implants) and the cost of the initial ship itself your argument doesn't seem to meet the balance threshold. Aka if a player is going to spend 10+bil on a ship to get its hp values high then requiring you to get more cats make sense (even though that's already not an efficient way to do things since the best way would be a mix of destroyers and bc's, but thats besides the point). Personally I think you are skewing the numbers a bit in your favor. I'm willing to bet if done correctly it would take less than 40 actual players. |
Valterra Craven
261
|
Posted - 2014.06.07 16:45:00 -
[116] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:
As far as EHP goes, again, ISK cost of ships are not a balancing factor. Small ships kill big ships all the time. Small numbers of gankers have always been able to blow up individual large valuable targets. But requiring gankers to go from mustering fleets of 75 pilots (up from 30-35 or so) to kill a single JF is ridiculous. Especially considering these numbers are for 0.5 - the most forgiving systems in highsec.
Especially when you consider that Jump Freighters can escape at any time with the press of a single button.
Well if cost of ships is not a balancing factor then neither is number of players to kill a ship. Especially since the numbers you quote would mean that that group is bad at it. |
Valterra Craven
261
|
Posted - 2014.06.07 16:47:00 -
[117] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:
Considering that, A) Jump Freighters were already 100% safe.
If they were 100% safe before patch and are 100% safe after, then these changes are irrelevant and you have nothing to complain about. |
Valterra Craven
262
|
Posted - 2014.06.07 20:25:00 -
[118] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote:
Considering that, A) Jump Freighters were already 100% safe.
If they were 100% safe before patch and are 100% safe after, then these changes are irrelevant and you have nothing to complain about. Nope. Don't be stupid.
I'm not the one claiming anything is 100% safe anywhere. |
Valterra Craven
262
|
Posted - 2014.06.08 05:44:00 -
[119] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:
Deal with the substance of what I wrote - and not with the fact that qualifying the exact percentage of 'safety' JF freighters have in post after post gets tiresome.
Being pedantic is the easy way out.
Well if you had had substance in your post I would have responded to it.
You still have yet to counter the simple argument that if "balance" is not isk vs isk (aka how much did I pour into my JF, vs how much do cats cost) then "balance" is also not how many player its takes to kill something. If that were the case then we'd run into the EHP scope getting insane.
I'll give you a really good example. The damnation. Last year when they were rebalancing commands ships, and they also said that at some point commands ships will be on grid, that whole thread was nothing but bitching moaning about how OP the damnation was because of its possible EHP and its better survival ratios in fleets.
Regardless of whether they were right or wrong, CCP told them that they weren't getting into an EHP spiral. My point in all this is to say that CCP doesn't balance on how many ships it takes to kill one, and they also don't balance on the isk totals of all ships involved. Put simply: come up with a better argument.
|
Valterra Craven
262
|
Posted - 2014.06.09 02:25:00 -
[120] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:
You still have yet to counter the simple argument that if "balance" is not isk vs isk (aka how much did I pour into my JF, vs how much do cats cost) then "balance" is also not how many player its takes to kill something. If that were the case then we'd run into the EHP scope getting insane.
You just seem to put an awful lot of stock into "I paid 8 Billion for this ship, no fair it can be killed by less than 70 gankers. I 700K+ EHP = balance."
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that my arguments are advocating any sort of change to making ganking harder. I'm not. I don't care about the HP of jfs (Don't own one and likely never well) nor do I care about the HP of any other changes. You were whining about the changes that effected you negatively and my posts were merely to point this out to you. If balance can't be about isk vs isk then it similarly can't be about number of players on a target. CCP has stated that's not how they balance, so regardless of whatever your feelings are on the matter, your posts aren't going to change that. If you have data and reasonable arguments, then please by all means state them, but as it stands your posts are no different than others complaining about the nerfs that freighters just got.
|
|
|
|
|