|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 29 post(s) |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
29
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 21:02:00 -
[1] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:I see we've reached physically threatening CCP employees. This thread is coming along nicely. Haven't seen death threats yet. Other games get them for far, FAR, minor nerfs, why not CCP? |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
29
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 21:28:00 -
[2] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:"Risk". As in "possibility of incurring loss". Just because it's a 100% possibility does not mean that the loss isn't there. It doesn't mean the loss doesn't count. And as for this hilarious statement: Digger Pollard wrote: Secondly, ganking is only as EXTREMELY easy as people ARE FORCED to make it for you, because there is no alternative to a freighter and no alternative to what you haul - you haul what you have to. There is no alternative to a route either. Just how much easier could it be?
You are not forced to do anything. There is no game mechanic forcing you to put too much isk into your cargohold, and no game mechanic that forces you to autopilot. And there is certainly no game mechanic forcing you to not use a web escort. Those things are all choices you make. Are you ******* kidding me? I have ganker alt, I know this. There is NO RISK. Ships you fly are cheap/free and you are criminal anyways, so you don't care about stat penalty. With 20 t2 fit gankalysts is what, 300m? If 300m drops, you are neutral. If anything more, you are in profit. What the **** are you talking about? With CODE it's even more fun. You don't care about cargo at all. You gank anyone. |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
29
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 21:29:00 -
[3] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Walter Hart White wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:I see we've reached physically threatening CCP employees. This thread is coming along nicely. Haven't seen death threats yet. Other games get them for far, FAR, minor nerfs, why not CCP? Well CCP has seen them in this thread. "Why not CCP?" Are you suggesting that they should be getting death threats? That's certainly what your post looks like it's saying, but I can't imagine you would be so stupid and immoral to actually mean such a thing. I am not saying anything, just wondering.... As for actual threats, well I am only at page 40 something, dunno maybe some were posted later? Getting slugged ain't a death threat. |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
29
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 21:39:00 -
[4] - Quote
Althalus Stenory wrote:Paz Heiwa wrote:Apparently he did? Well let him speak. Don't feed the trolls :) Just don't want to be called liar. |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
29
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 21:49:00 -
[5] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:fair enough WP. so ill point out where u urself explained where the risk is. Walter Hart White wrote: If 300m drops, you are neutral. If anything more, you are in profit. this is risk. u guys may put in the effort to increase the chances of getting a kill and making money. but its not something u can deliver with 100% certainty. This is widely understood, and why assumed u weren't being truthful. sorry With CODE, there is no risk. Ships are paid off by someone who does not expect any profit. With pirates, well, alright, it didn't drop 300m, it dropped 0. Next one will. In 15m. Costs are 300m, but you do not pay 300m total. Everyone pays 20m. Losing 20m is nothing. Peanuts. |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
29
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 21:54:00 -
[6] - Quote
Azami Nevinyrall wrote:Besides the nerf to cargo size and Capital packaged size.
I do not understand the need for any of this!
Keep the rest as they are now, there's nothing wrong with making it harder to gank freighters.
I'd love to hear the reasoning behind these changes! Actually there is nothing wrong with this. Freighters getting buff would be awesome. Ganking them will feel more like something wroth doing and fun unlike now. There will be plenty of pinatas that will antitank and carry huge cargo, so they will neft themselves. Keep them the same they are now and add rig slots. Everything is fixed. People who fit hull upgrades, lose cargo. People who fit cargo, lose hull. People who fit agility, lose hull. People who do not fit anything (and that should be a god damn option too), lose nothing but gain nothing. |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
29
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 22:02:00 -
[7] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:fair enough WP. so ill point out where u urself explained where the risk is. Walter Hart White wrote: If 300m drops, you are neutral. If anything more, you are in profit. this is risk. u guys may put in the effort to increase the chances of getting a kill and making money. but its not something u can deliver with 100% certainty. This is widely understood, and why assumed u weren't being truthful. sorry This is not a risk. Who cares about the drop when you gank? You are ISK-efficient regardless on the killboards. The drop is only icing on top of the already delicious cake. even the kill itself is not a certainty. what if the freighter pilot uses webs as this guy pointed out. If ur measuring the chances of a successful gank from after the point a freighters been bumped, ill admit, the chances of escape are almost 0 (which is why i say dnt get bumped). but even the turrets catalysts and talos's use work on a random number generator. fingers crossed... As far as I know, even webber can be foiled. Of course chancesare stacked for the webber, but one bad spawn you are screwed :) |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
29
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 00:15:00 -
[8] - Quote
Sweet Times wrote:so ccp you say you listen to your player base and their opinion matters
so you have heard what the players think what are you going to do about it
i say fire Fozzie and get in a dev who doesnt cause players to cancel subs I wouldnt want someone lose job over internet spacepixels. Maybe move him to different department, maybe working on Legion? |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
29
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 00:22:00 -
[9] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Sweet Times wrote:so ccp you say you listen to your player base and their opinion matters
so you have heard what the players think what are you going to do about it
i say fire Fozzie and get in a dev who doesnt cause players to cancel subs I can't actually think of a dev who could reasonably be said to have not caused people to quit. So that's a tall order. Oh, and can I have your stuff? That is false assumption there. Most of the lost subs would be alts, thus main would get their stuff. |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
30
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 06:25:00 -
[10] - Quote
I would really like if they switch from capital to large rigs. The prices are insane, for Capital Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer II x 2 you need 0.5b with cheapest order right now, who knows how much it will be after the change... and who knows how much Capital Transverese Bulkheads II will cost... |
|
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
31
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 10:54:00 -
[11] - Quote
I hide all posts from tippia, Kaarous, Dave Start and likes of those, and voila, thread is nice again! Recommend everyone doing that. |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
31
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 11:01:00 -
[12] - Quote
Ranamar wrote:Walter Hart White wrote:I would really like if they switch from capital to large rigs. The prices are insane, for Capital Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer II x 2 you need 0.5b with cheapest order right now, who knows how much it will be after the change... and who knows how much Capital Transverese Bulkheads II will cost... Capital Hyperspatial Velocity rigs don't cost that much to build. (It's about on par with CCCCs for T1; T2 is much cheaper than a T2 CCCC.) The thing is, though, nobody actually builds them, because nobody actually buys them... so currently the cheapest T1 one in Jita is 100M ISK for some insane profit if you ever manage to sell however many you build. Edit for clarity: There's currently no market, so people price them at whatever the **** they want. If there was actually demand, someone would force the price down to sell theirs faster than the next guy's. Eve central reports 250m for cheapest t2 one. |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
31
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 11:03:00 -
[13] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Walter Hart White wrote:I hide all posts from tippia, Kaarous, Dave Start and likes of those, and voila, thread is nice again! Recommend everyone doing that. So, you are hiding the post from the people who predicted this would happen if rigs were added in a thread on deciding the future of freighters? Wouldn't it be a better idea to listen to them, given how they know what changes would mean. If they were saying anything useful, maybe. All they say is the same thing all over the thread. I don't need to read "told you so" * number_of_posts(tippia, any_thread) + number_of_posts(kaarous, any_thread) + number_of_posts(dave_start, any_thread);
All they do, in every single thread, if there is someone unhappy with CCP changes, they troll the **** out of them. That is all they do. They have zero usefulness in community and should be removed from it. |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
31
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 11:20:00 -
[14] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:King Fu Hostile wrote:It might be more sensible to keep the stats as they are, and add the rig slots. I can't see any negative effects of faster, bigger, or tankier freighters tbh.
Freighters dnt need a buff. Power creep is bad. CCP Fozzie wrote: I do want to clarify that although it's very possible that a lot of these numbers can change, we're not going to simply give JFs a gigantic buff to their cargoholds and call it a day. The fast movement of goods across the galaxy has its advantages and also its disadvantages, and we are not going to simply let power creep get out of control in this area.
What power creep? 1.3m cargo hold? What, so more gankers can fit their wallet? Usually, the cargo >800m3 is rare and only useful for minerals if you want to keep collateral low. If you don't, well, more power to you. Please, haul 1.3m m3 of plexers for all I care. This would hardly imbalance anything at all. For 1.4b for rigs, you get 1.3m m3 space. And? You pay two times for freighter, so you should get some bonus out of it...
That is what CCP should get. Rigs are not buff. Rigs are balanced on their own. They buff and nerf at same time. No need to nerf further.... |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
31
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 11:38:00 -
[15] - Quote
Sobaan Tali wrote:Walter Hart White wrote:baltec1 wrote:Walter Hart White wrote:I hide all posts from tippia, Kaarous, Dave Start and likes of those, and voila, thread is nice again! Recommend everyone doing that. So, you are hiding the post from the people who predicted this would happen if rigs were added in a thread on deciding the future of freighters? Wouldn't it be a better idea to listen to them, given how they know what changes would mean. If they were saying anything useful, maybe. All they say is the same thing all over the thread. I don't need to read "told you so" * number_of_posts(tippia, any_thread) + number_of_posts(kaarous, any_thread) + number_of_posts(dave_start, any_thread); All they do, in every single thread, if there is someone unhappy with CCP changes, they troll the **** out of them. That is all they do. They have zero usefulness in community and should be removed from it. Except they called it and were right all along. I don't see how that makes them "have zero usefulness". It is useless right now, to post "told you so" except for masturbating your own ego. |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
31
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 11:40:00 -
[16] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Perfect solution. This is how you do nerf. You nerf base ship with expectation of people fitting it. No one flies unfit ships, thus base stats mean nothing. Unlike with rigs, which you have to sadly fit in, forever, for huge amount of ISK. |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
32
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 15:42:00 -
[17] - Quote
Kaerakh wrote:I'd just like to take this moment to say to all those carebears that wanted Freighter customization congratulations, and now I'd like to tell them I TOLD YOU SO about the massive cargo nerf for customization. Just gtfo. |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
32
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 19:23:00 -
[18] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:M0ND II wrote:racist carebaer tears that will probs get deleted racist carebear tears. de-lish Americans is not a race. |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
33
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 09:48:00 -
[19] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:TheGunslinger42 wrote:Carebear industrialists have been demanding more tank and speed in their big spacetrucks for god knows how long - now that they're giving the option of that (but with a tradeoff, of course) they poop their spacepants and rage and rage and rage.
Good changes, and delicious tears. Great job Fozzie, more of this sort of thing. The weird thing is that they're too blind to see that the things they always want - safer, quicker hauling of greater volumes - are directly damaging to their own profession. The main result of highsec freighters is to allow people to congregate together in fewer, bigger hubs, bringing more and more industrialists into competition with each other, damaging their own profit margins. Ban freighters from highsec entirely. Let Jita die. Let new minor hubs based on local industry spring up. Let reduced competition increase profit margins and open niches for new industrialists. How about we ban you from the game, hm? |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
33
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 11:27:00 -
[20] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Darkblad wrote:Use thisAnd keep in mind that this is not limited to suicide Ganks alone. The total number of (Jump) Freighter kills in Highsec from 23.04.2013 to 24.04.2014 (therefore excluding Burn Jita) is 2,385. A daily average of 6,5. But this one doesn't count. Thank you and what the hell is that kill? -10 sec status pilot? Either or under criminal timer. |
|
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
33
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:42:00 -
[21] - Quote
My main issue now is that you can't shield tank freighter but you can armor tank... |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
33
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:51:00 -
[22] - Quote
Kalnoch wrote:Captain StringfellowHawk wrote:Cool... so I can push the armor tank on a Freighter... But the shield tankers get Shafted.... :P More Power to gallente ships! Did you even bother looking at the fitting? You can't fit any sort of tank module on any of them. Can't even fit a DC 2. Read Fozzies OP again. Read it aloud. Tank example is written right there. |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
33
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:53:00 -
[23] - 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? Because DCU2 is ******. |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
33
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:18:00 -
[24] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Alexis Nightwish wrote:Thanks for the tables. I personally think the numbers look great. If gankers complain they can HTFU and equip a ship scanner. The fact that anyone thinks they can say that in this thread, where the freighter pilots literally just cried their way to an EHP buff, is beyond hilarious. People like you don't get to talk about HTFU, you don't even know what it is. This is so precious, HTFU. |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
33
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:19:00 -
[25] - 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.
CCP Fozzie wrote:
(For certain armor tanking fits) Adaptive Nano Platings |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
33
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:21:00 -
[26] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Walter Hart White wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Alexis Nightwish wrote:Thanks for the tables. I personally think the numbers look great. If gankers complain they can HTFU and equip a ship scanner. The fact that anyone thinks they can say that in this thread, where the freighter pilots literally just cried their way to an EHP buff, is beyond hilarious. People like you don't get to talk about HTFU, you don't even know what it is. This is so precious, HTFU. I reiterate, the people who cried their way out of a nerf don't have a leg to stand on if they try to say that. Keep crying. Please. My tear jar is not full yet! |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
33
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:45:00 -
[27] - 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? Changed that weeks ago. Gankers cried about that, so they changed it. :) |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
33
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:00:00 -
[28] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Vincintius Agrippa wrote:Shizuken wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
The base cargo capacity of Freighters is being decreased so that a set of three Tech Two Expanded Cargoholds adds 21-25% cargo above the previous maximum values. For Jump Freighters, three T2 Expanders will increase cargo capacity by 1-2%. This means that Freighters can get significantly higher maximum capacity than before using modules, and we're increasing the volume of packaged capital ships (to 1.3 million m3) and unpackaged station containers (to 2 million m3) to compensate.
I am still not sure why CCP is so afraid of caps in highsec, especially even unassembled ones. It would make trading them easier. Is the cap ban before they changed the old aoe doommsdays? if so then i understand. Cant have titans doing supernovas' on the jita undock. But now, doomsdays are "aimed" weapons.I dont see why not now. Ofcourse If they did naturally, using doomsdays in hisec would be a criminal offence and youd get alpha'd by concord. The capital ban is to stop large powerblocs trivially dominating high sec. If the ban was removed, then the face of hi-sec would change overnight. Well make it so you can't assemble capital in hi sec. Done, fixed. That way people can trade ones in stations/hi sec but not fly ones. |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
33
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:35:00 -
[29] - Quote
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? More than current, for sure. 2.5b I would reckon, practically. Probably around 500m minimum. |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
33
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 21:08:00 -
[30] - Quote
Lyra Gerie wrote:The base cargo capacity of Freighters is being decreased so that a set of three Tech Two Expanded Cargoholds adds 21-25% cargo above the previous maximum values. For Jump Freighters, three T2 Expanders will increase cargo capacity by 1-2%.
That change still confuses me. I don't use either frighters or JF but it seems stupid to nerf the T2 version in this way. The way this reads regular freighters get up to 21-25% boost while JFs get next to nothing over what they were before this change. Yes they have more choice now, but it gives little reason for cargo capacity to be one of those choices as it doesn't boost it all that much beyond what it used to have.
That means either all cargo expanders or a severely gimped cargo hold. You might as well out right mention that you are nerfing JF rather then trying to disguise it in this manner. JFs are getting huge ehp boost though. Way more than freighters, so I think it's balanced. |
|
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
34
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 21:29:00 -
[31] - Quote
vikari wrote:You are still nerfing the hell out of JFs....
over 5 seconds gained in alignment for every JF type, over 6 for most. You know with all 3 low slots being cargo expanders and that giving only 1-2% increase in cargo, you are forcing JFs to fit cargo expanders. It's to expensive to fly them, not too. So exactly how are we going to make up for the loss alignment time? Huge EHP buff. |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
34
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 21:31:00 -
[32] - Quote
Tippia wrote:vikari wrote:You are still nerfing the hell out of JFs....
over 5 seconds gained in alignment for every JF type, over 6 for most. You know with all 3 low slots being cargo expanders and that giving only 1-2% increase in cargo, you are forcing JFs to fit cargo expanders. It's to expensive to fly them, not too. So exactly how are we going to make up for the loss alignment time? Reduce the alignment time; reduce warp time; reduce fuel costs. Make up for lost cargo by making more runs faster and at much lower costs. Holy..... ****? Tippia actually siding with JF pilots? Now I can die happily, I have seen it all... |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
34
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 21:34:00 -
[33] - Quote
Craven More wrote:Grenn Putubi wrote: I was fine with them getting rig slots because it would allow all the freighters to still compete on an even field, but giving low slots and no mids really changes the balance. If you're going to start giving the freighters module slots then you need to actually give them all slots they can use effectively.
Shield tank freighters should get at least 1 mid slot and 1 less low slot, then adjust their cargo holds so that they have greater base cargo space and end up competitive with the armor freighters using 3 cargo expanders while using only 2.
I understand your idea behind wanting to give shield tankers a mid slot, but lets be honest, it would not really achieve anything & I'd be curious to see, how many people would fore go using it for invul field & instead use it for micro warp drive instead ?. Easily fixed. All those modules require powergrid and cpu. Make freighters have 100% CPU & powergrid costs of adv. invul. field (and it's derivatives). |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
34
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 08:27:00 -
[34] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Tippia wrote:SeeGǪ there was a reason why I was against rigs on freighters from the very startGǪ T2 capital rigs and a significant reduction in survivability requried and/or speed to get them back to where they were. Gee thanks. T1 rigs are easily enough to bring normal freighters above their current cargo values. Quote: All Freighters and Jump Freighters will receive 3 low slots, and not receive any rig slots. Sorry but I am a little confused. In your reply to Tippia, you say T1 rigs, yet the description states (twice) that freighters and Jump Freighters will not receive Rig Slots. Could someone clarify which statement is true, as both statements are from the same Dev and one contradicts the other.. Are they getting rigs or not?
What is there to clarify? Originally, freighters were supposed to get rigs. Now they get low slots instead.
|
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
34
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 09:55:00 -
[35] - Quote
Pensador wrote:Thank God. For years all of we were expecting that. Maybe this is the end of Ganking freighters in high sec That will never end. But it will raise the safe for transport value of goods. And that is a good thing. |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
34
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 14:54:00 -
[36] - Quote
Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:
Spies. If you are paying or plexing a spy account ejecting the plex from your cargo and him picking it up is the only way that you can plex him without a record of the transfer.
Or buy GTC on forums? |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
34
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 15:04:00 -
[37] - Quote
Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:Walter Hart White wrote:Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:
Spies. If you are paying or plexing a spy account ejecting the plex from your cargo and him picking it up is the only way that you can plex him without a record of the transfer.
Or buy GTC on forums? You pay money for eve?! No silly. You buy GTC for isk there for your spai alt. |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
34
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 15:24:00 -
[38] - Quote
Angelique Duchemin wrote:And a big "screw you" to the people who spent isk hoarding capital cargo rigs. All according to keikaku. |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
34
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 16:21:00 -
[39] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:Angelique Duchemin wrote:And a big "screw you" to the people who spent isk hoarding capital cargo rigs. You deserve it for trying to profit on the misery of others. Shed your tears into my bucket, maybe I can use them for some useful stuff. Actually, the ones who profited were the ones that quietly bought up the rigs and rig components weeks before the changes were announced, and dumped them within hours of the first fozzie posts. Well that was risky too. Freighters could get only large rigs not capital. |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
36
|
Posted - 2014.05.26 21:54:00 -
[40] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:
A) In the original post, with the rig implementation, T2 rigs were needed to get to the same level of cargo as your charon can get prior to change. If you went for the charon because it had the max cargo, I assume you still want at least that capacity.
B) The change is slated to be to provide flexibility, why should we go with the implementation that grant less fo it?
C) That does not justify doubling the effective cost of some ship.
D) Lossmails would only look sexyer for a small time until everybody got used to freighter lossmail starting around 3 bill instead of 1,5 because of the added rig cost always being there.
A) I wasn't proposing going back to the first iteration, just saying that if rigs are the device used to give freighters more flexibility, there is more latitude to give them higher stats (due to the inherent inflexibility of rigs) Its simple: If Low slots used = easy, cheap modification - freighter stats should be objectively weaker. If Rigs used = expensive, less flexible modifcation - freighter stats could be bumped up relative to the lowslot iteration. Still, no matter what 'means' is used, the current abilities need to be dialed back, as the 2nd iteration is clearly a very large buff to freighters and highsec logistics in general. As I said, the highsec 'Break-Even Cargohold ISK value' number is going to easily triple, from 2-3 Billion up to 6-8 Billion, and this is not good for the game. Hauling that kind of loot should not be an 'set autopilot, AFK haul' affair. B) explained above. C) its a side benefit that helps fix the ridiculously low salvage price issue. D) Are you saying gankers would prefer smaller lossmails? HTFU?
|
|
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
36
|
Posted - 2014.05.26 22:40:00 -
[41] - Quote
Vhelnik Cojoin wrote:Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:A freighter receiving remote-reps or supported by dedicated ECM boats is already capable of fending off a large group of attackers. I remember a jump freighter during jita which survived the coordinated attack of ~120 people due to receiving remote reps. Hilarious statement. Do we even play the same game? Freighter and JFs currently have most of their EHP as hull, which has zero resistances. Additionally remote hull reppers are extremely inefficient. I wonder if we were at the same event with the 'repped' JF. There was one, which survived two coordinated ganking waves and yet died to the third, but it didn't survive the first two rounds due to either RR or ECM during the actual attack. What happened was the CFC was using fleets of catalysts, yet during this attack at the perimeter gate, there were around a few hundred 'defenders'. As soon as the CFC fleet turned flashy at the beginning of the attack, then the whole blob was *massively* counter-ganked by the defenders. Despite this the JF survived with something like just 3% hull remaining, after which people reshipped to logistics ships and began repping it back up. It was only just barely repped up when the CFC timers of 15 minutes had expired and they had had time to reship, so it took around *20 minutes* or so for the combined 'defender' fleet to do so. So yeah, RR during the actual attack, which lasted mere seconds, did zilch. The exact same thing happened a second time, as catalysts evaporated left and right before they had time to do their full complement of damage prior to CONCORD stepping in. The third time the CFC reshipped to a fleet of Tornadoes and alpha'ed the JF down. That is how and why it died. RR and ECM did nothing. There were hardly any ECM ships on the defender's side. Just brutal, brutal amounts of fast locking DPS able to counter-gank. So yes, you can currently defend a JF against ~120 catalysts if you bring a huge number of defenders. Happy logistics, everyone. I was there. Was brutal. Got popped the moment I left my warp. Never got podded though. I guess i can say I survived burn jita. Lost only 10m catalyst.
At any rate, this is totally unrelated. Higher tank is good. More kudos when you successfully gank pinata and maybe some logistic could be done safer than now.
|
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
36
|
Posted - 2014.05.26 23:39:00 -
[42] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:some crap So you asked for examples and got example which you then disregard? GG, no RE. |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
36
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 17:14:00 -
[43] - Quote
Ganking tears, best tears. |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
38
|
Posted - 2014.05.29 10:20:00 -
[44] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Try this - sit in Uedama, Niarja, or Balle. Sit there scanning freighters until a 6-8 Billion ISK freighter comes along. How long do you think you can keep 20-25 or so Talos pilots sitting still waiting for that kind of target to come by? Because that is what it will take to threaten Kronos Jump Freighters. "
And you don't have to do none of that. You need one person. Bumper. He can bump the ship until all of your mates assemble, which can be hours and hours. Then you can gank it. |
|
|
|