Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 .. 94 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 29 post(s) |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
690
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 05:34:00 -
[541] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:I can't help but notice that this change to jump freighters isn't any kind of jump drive nerf or removal.
when are jump drives and bridges being nerfed? they're probably the most overpowered thing in game currently, so I'm guessing it's a fairly high priority and will be happening soon. (j/k the council of nullsec wouldn't allow it) Nerfing jump drives wouldn't change anything. It would only make things more un-fun, and increase the number of cyno alts.
actually it wouldn't. logistics is currently immune to pvp, even though this is a pvp game. currently you can't even prevent a JF or capital from travelling if you're in empire space. you certainly can't kill it one at all. by removing the tackle immunity from siege/triage, needing a cyno to be up for a time before it can be jumped to, and making jumping be a proess which takes time and can be cancelled by tackling, removing 100mn prop exploits from caps and web instawarping, probably adding minimum jump range constraints (like on pos) to stations and yeah I guess a nice jump range nerf (did I forget anything), jump drives would be less silly. oh, and bridging and pos titans would need to be horribly ruined in some way as well, but I've not thought about that. I'd also like to see jump freighters lose their jump drives and turn into tanky stabbed freighters or something, and see massively reduced hauling abilities on caps. basically I think forcing people to do freighter runs would be really neat, and add to the game. |
SiKong Ma
House of Nim-Lhach Fraternity.
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 05:39:00 -
[542] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:You know, I can live with having to T2 cargo rig my Anshar. I can live with my freighters having lower tank. But why'd you have to nerf their agility?
Did someone at CCP seriously say something along the lines of "Oh this freighter aligns in less than five minutes, we can't have that!" It just doesn't make any sense IMO.
I fully agree with this. Why nerf align time? It is already too boring flying a freighter and now we have a choice of choosing our hell:
1) Rig for max cargohold but die being ganked. 2) Rig for fastest align time/warp speed but face twice the risk running the freighter from A-B then back to A and A-B all over again to haul the same amount (risking gankers 2 times). 3) Rig for max EHP and face hauling LESS and running the freighter from A-B then back to A and repeat TWICE more (that means risking gankers 3 times) as well as additional risk of dying of old age waiting for align times.
Note: I didn't bother to do the exact maths but that's the gist of it. |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
3624
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 05:40:00 -
[543] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:actually it wouldn't. logistics is currently immune to pvp, even though this is a pvp game. currently you can't even prevent a JF or capital from travelling if you're in empire space. you certainly can't kill it one at all. Huh?
TrouserDeagle wrote:by removing the tackle immunity from siege/triage, needing a cyno to be up for a time before it can be jumped to, and making jumping be a proess which takes time and can be cancelled by tackling, removing 100mn prop exploits from caps and web instawarping, probably adding minimum jump range constraints (like on pos) to stations and yeah I guess a nice jump range nerf (did I forget anything), jump drives would be less silly. oh, and bridging and pos titans would need to be horribly ruined in some way as well, but I've not thought about that. I'd also like to see jump freighters lose their jump drives and turn into tanky stabbed freighters or something, and see massively reduced hauling abilities on caps. basically I think forcing people to do freighter runs would be really neat, and add to the game. None of that would change anything. If an alliance needs to move from X to Y, they will. It will just require more alts, and be a bigger PITA. |
Esur A'saw Ti
Wont To Buy
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 05:42:00 -
[544] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Angelina Duvolle wrote:baltec1 wrote:[quote=Axe Coldon]
We told you they would be nerfed to compensate for the rigs. I didn't ask for rigs. I asked for them to be re balanced thoughtfully, given interesting roles or bonuses, or adding in mechanics, means, roles etc, that make flying them more fun, less boring. You guys are nearly as unoriginal and lacking in creativity as fozzy. I spent the last two years telling people adding rigs would result in these nerfs and got nothing but abuse. You will forgive me if I take this time to smug it out while these same people rage about what they have brought upon themselves. Not their fault, there is really a problem with hs freighters ganks, it's absolutely stupid that you can kill one with what 10 cata? It should be at least 50+ and give a tanking malus to autopilot ships that's how I would balance the game. |
Goat Cannon
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 05:43:00 -
[545] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Tippia wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:T1 rigs are easily enough to bring normal freighters above their current cargo values. Yes, but I fly a JF. I picked it because of its nippy align speed, good tank, and descent-enough cargo hold. I can restore one of those at a massive cost. Actually the tank on your JF is about the same as before, thanks to the extra resists. So you get one of the three for free! But yes, the fact that this is a small reduction in Jump Freighter power is completely intended.
Wait...what? So a 6.5b jf, wich will be slower, shittier, and consume more fuel after this 'fix', wich will then also need another ~1billion in t2 rigs to make the hold on par with what it now is, and this is called a SMALL reduction? I really really hope you are kidding. If anything, these stupidly expensive haulers need a boost, not a stupid nerf.
Welcome back shotgunning freighters, i guess. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
46
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 05:44:00 -
[546] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dealin'lak wrote:Gotta appreciate the irony....
1- Use Fanfest to announce the "Awesome addition of rigs to Freighters and Jump Freighters".
2- Get everybody hyped up and expecting a nice addition for their ships.
3- Eventually come out saying that those "awesome additions" to Freighters and Jump Freighters hide what is actually an "intended" (to quote CCP Fozzie) nerf....
It's a REAL sad day when you realize politicians could learn a trick or two from CCP :( Cant blaim CCP for people thinking they would add rigs without nerfing the freighters to keep them balanced. They were warned this would happen.
baltec - seriously does it matter if some players were warned by a handful of other players? Can we just stipulate for the record that a few people knew the outcome and were proven right. Yes, you were right. Dave was right, Trip was right. I completely agree some of you were involved in previous threads combating the idiots. You should get a medal from everyone else.
Now that you were right and the mongs who thought they could get something for nothing were proved wrong, the rest of us now need to deal with the fallout. This change shouldn't happen on either side of the equation as proposed. Too big of a hit for the "flexibility" of rigs, which are inherently inflexible at the capital ship level. Mods would probably result in an even worse hit, but at least then we could claim some level of real flexibility. I don't propose those either. I propose the status quo. Freighters were fine. |
Sierra Mackenzie
Black Widow Logistics
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 05:47:00 -
[547] - Quote
Why? This is supposed to be an industry expansion?
Suicide ganking is already making freighter usage pretty much impossible between the major hubs. Why make things worse? The isotope consumption thing is already going to cripple small alliance logistics and nothing else, and this just make things worse. Requiring expensive rigs to hit the old values does nothing but inflate killmail values for the no brain, no skill required suicide ganks that are ruining the ability for freighters to serve their purpose within the game. If anything, freighters should be getting an overall EHP buff to counter the fact that they're hilariously easy to kill, and this will make it even worse.
Disclaimer: I suicide gank freighters with CODE on a consistent basis. You dock up, you get a free Talos, you go blob a freighter, wait 15 minutes, and repeat. There is absolutely no skill or risk involved whatsoever. Part of what we do is to show the devs how stupidly obsolete freighters have become, and this just puts the nail in the coffin. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11576
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 05:48:00 -
[548] - Quote
Esur A'saw Ti wrote:baltec1 wrote:Angelina Duvolle wrote:baltec1 wrote:[quote=Axe Coldon]
We told you they would be nerfed to compensate for the rigs. I didn't ask for rigs. I asked for them to be re balanced thoughtfully, given interesting roles or bonuses, or adding in mechanics, means, roles etc, that make flying them more fun, less boring. You guys are nearly as unoriginal and lacking in creativity as fozzy. I spent the last two years telling people adding rigs would result in these nerfs and got nothing but abuse. You will forgive me if I take this time to smug it out while these same people rage about what they have brought upon themselves. Not their fault, there is really a problem with hs freighters ganks, it's absolutely stupid that you can kill one with what 10 cata? It should be at least 50+ and give a tanking malus to autopilot ships that's how I would balance the game.
Whats daft is people think 30 freighters getting ganked a month constitutes "out of control ganking".
This is entirely the fault of highsec bears, you nerfed yourselves. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11576
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 05:52:00 -
[549] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:baltec1 wrote:Dealin'lak wrote:Gotta appreciate the irony....
1- Use Fanfest to announce the "Awesome addition of rigs to Freighters and Jump Freighters".
2- Get everybody hyped up and expecting a nice addition for their ships.
3- Eventually come out saying that those "awesome additions" to Freighters and Jump Freighters hide what is actually an "intended" (to quote CCP Fozzie) nerf....
It's a REAL sad day when you realize politicians could learn a trick or two from CCP :( Cant blaim CCP for people thinking they would add rigs without nerfing the freighters to keep them balanced. They were warned this would happen. baltec - seriously does it matter if some players were warned by a handful of other players? Can we just stipulate for the record that a few people knew the outcome and were proven right. Yes, you were right. Dave was right, Trip was right. I completely agree some of you were involved in previous threads combating the idiots. You should get a medal from everyone else. Now that you were right and the mongs who thought they could get something for nothing were proved wrong, the rest of us now need to deal with the fallout. This change shouldn't happen on either side of the equation as proposed. Too big of a hit for the "flexibility" of rigs, which are inherently inflexible at the capital ship level. Mods would probably result in an even worse hit, but at least then we could claim some level of real flexibility. I don't propose those either. I propose the status quo. Freighters were fine.
I agree entirely.
Alas, I would plan for this going through, I will be fitting warp speed rigs to mine and just lumping the hit to my cargo. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Brutherlegs
Mercurialis Inc. RAZOR Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 05:54:00 -
[550] - Quote
This better be one big late 1 april joke. |
|
Xequecal
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
216
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 05:56:00 -
[551] - Quote
Sierra Mackenzie wrote:Why? This is supposed to be an industry expansion?
Suicide ganking is already making freighter usage pretty much impossible between the major hubs. Why make things worse? The isotope consumption thing is already going to cripple small alliance logistics and nothing else, and this just make things worse. Requiring expensive rigs to hit the old values does nothing but inflate killmail values for the no brain, no skill required suicide ganks that are ruining the ability for freighters to serve their purpose within the game. If anything, freighters should be getting an overall EHP buff to counter the fact that they're hilariously easy to kill, and this will make it even worse.
Disclaimer: I suicide gank freighters with CODE on a consistent basis. You dock up, you get a free Talos, you go blob a freighter, wait 15 minutes, and repeat. There is absolutely no skill or risk involved whatsoever. Part of what we do is to show the devs how stupidly obsolete freighters have become, and this just puts the nail in the coffin.
Honestly, they should just remove the attack battlecruisers from the game entirely. It solves this problem (it'll now cost you 3x as much to suicide gank a freighter) alongside a host of other ones. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
46
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 05:59:00 -
[552] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dirk MacGirk wrote:baltec1 wrote:Dealin'lak wrote:Gotta appreciate the irony....
1- Use Fanfest to announce the "Awesome addition of rigs to Freighters and Jump Freighters".
2- Get everybody hyped up and expecting a nice addition for their ships.
3- Eventually come out saying that those "awesome additions" to Freighters and Jump Freighters hide what is actually an "intended" (to quote CCP Fozzie) nerf....
It's a REAL sad day when you realize politicians could learn a trick or two from CCP :( Cant blaim CCP for people thinking they would add rigs without nerfing the freighters to keep them balanced. They were warned this would happen. baltec - seriously does it matter if some players were warned by a handful of other players? Can we just stipulate for the record that a few people knew the outcome and were proven right. Yes, you were right. Dave was right, Trip was right. I completely agree some of you were involved in previous threads combating the idiots. You should get a medal from everyone else. Now that you were right and the mongs who thought they could get something for nothing were proved wrong, the rest of us now need to deal with the fallout. This change shouldn't happen on either side of the equation as proposed. Too big of a hit for the "flexibility" of rigs, which are inherently inflexible at the capital ship level. Mods would probably result in an even worse hit, but at least then we could claim some level of real flexibility. I don't propose those either. I propose the status quo. Freighters were fine. I agree entirely. Alas, I would plan for this going through, I will be fitting warp speed rigs to mine and just lumping the hit to my cargo.
I would expect it too. Mainly because once they propose something, the likelihood of a complete reversal to the status quo goes right out the window.
|
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS type X
156
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 06:03:00 -
[553] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote:
You're a special case in that you're asking for more modules. Great! I'm not going to try to argue you out of it anymore; ask CCP for, say, 2 low slots. They will probably give you two low slots, and a 40% nerf to cargo, and hull HP, and some off the armour too. Then you can whine "but to get back to old cargo values I need to fit modules ... and they have drawbacks!"
And then we can do "told you so" all over again.
I know speaking for both sides of an argument makes winning said argument pretty easy. But how about we do this you state your side of the argument and you let me handle my side (so stop putting words into my mouth I never said).
I knew that and spoke of the need to nerf freighters in order to be able to fit them with rigs and mods. My arguments always centered around nerfing freighters in such a way that when all was said and done you would be able to rig/mod your ship to have exactly the same stats as it has now. I even went so far as to suggest that freighter exclusive rigs and mods be added to the game to make balancing easy.
My argument is simple. When 99.9% of all ships in a game are balanced around rigs and mods the same shouldn't be such an elusive concept that CCP devs couldn't accomplish it ( except perhaps for Fozzie who apparently completely missed the point of our request for change since what we sought was flexibility and what he plans on giving us is the very antithesis of flexibility, namely a rig only solution. Rigs are a ships backbone not something you swap out to head to jita. Mods are where flexibility comes in and we are apparently getting none of that.
The Orca can have many adjustments made using mods. I want freighters to be able to change between tank and carrying capacity, simple.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really. |
Nex Killer
Drunk3n Industry
63
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 06:08:00 -
[554] - Quote
Nex Killer wrote:I have a question about this change the Charon is losing about 30% of its base cargo correct? So does that mean in the BPO is it going to use 30% less capital Cargo Bays? So from needing 105 to only needing 74? Because I think that is only fair with this change and it makes sense.
In hopes of Fozzie seeing this. |
Alexander McKeon
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
59
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 06:11:00 -
[555] - Quote
Fozzie, for the love of Bob, please undo those mass increases! Keep them under 1M mass so that they can still fit through an M555 or D792 wormhole between high class w-space and hisec. You have not presented ANY compelling balance reason whatsoever for preventing wormhole residents from using freighters. Mass is not just a component in the align time calculation, it is of vital concern for it's ability to access certain regions of space.
If this change goes through as proposed we're going to see a lot of freighters stuck in wormholes until they get a lowsec connection adjacent to high, making wormhole logistics even more painful than it already is, which is not needed at all. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
46
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 06:12:00 -
[556] - Quote
Nex Killer wrote:Nex Killer wrote:I have a question about this change the Charon is losing about 30% of its base cargo correct? So does that mean in the BPO is it going to use 30% less capital Cargo Bays? So from needing 105 to only needing 74? Because I think that is only fair with this change and it makes sense. In hopes of Fozzie seeing this.
LOL are you serious? Like, seriously serious. Build requirements don't go down. Not for supers or titans or anything |
Brutherlegs
Mercurialis Inc. RAZOR Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 06:13:00 -
[557] - Quote
Nex Killer wrote:Nex Killer wrote:I have a question about this change the Charon is losing about 30% of its base cargo correct? So does that mean in the BPO is it going to use 30% less capital Cargo Bays? So from needing 105 to only needing 74? Because I think that is only fair with this change and it makes sense. In hopes of Fozzie seeing this.
hes probably too busy coming up with some damagecontrol over these **** poor changes
|
Sato Page
BLOORDOGY Dead Space Syndicate
112
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 06:22:00 -
[558] - Quote
YES! A logistic nerf is just what we need right now! Tears of joy! :') |
Cardano Firesnake
Les chevaliers de l'ordre Goonswarm Federation
155
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 06:26:00 -
[559] - Quote
Freighters are really too slow. Why? Is there a reason for that? If they were two times faster that will not change the capacity to gank them, that would not change the need of transport. Why should we spend 3hours to move something. As if 1h30 was not ebough boring. |
Ben Hatton
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 06:26:00 -
[560] - Quote
Too bad freighters don't have a high slot so we can bash the Jita monument in our freighters over this
Please, please reconsider this change guys, or just leave things as they are now.
That said, I think I can see the direction over all CCP are going with all their changes recently and coming up over the next 2 years. They want player empires that are entirely self sufficient. This in theory sounds like a good idea, rather than be the PVP focused, indy and logistics when they need to be alliances we will start to see many more different play styles being involved out in the wild wild west (east north and south) that is Null out of necessity. A much more diverse environment is probably a good thing.
And who knows, with the NPC empires loosing their strength in the lore side of things, not only the pirate factions are stepping up to fill the gap but perhaps the player empires over time too. With Hilmar chanting destruction, we may see a reduction in the amount of HS space as player empires move in to conquer it.
Still, personally, I don't have the RL time nor bother to be involved in that stuff, so for me, Id not be a fan of this as mentioned earlier. |
|
Dave Stark
5706
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 06:30:00 -
[561] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:Freighters were fine.
yes they were.
i'm personally hoping for a CCP 180 and say "yeah we'll leave freighters alone, but this is what balance looks like... be careful what you wish for". i doubt it will happen, though. so on a more realistic level; i think they should at least knock it down to large rigs (justification: orca) if they're not going to scrap these changes. |
Jarnis McPieksu
492
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 06:34:00 -
[562] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:basically I think forcing people to do freighter runs would be really neat, and add to the game.
Having played in 2005 when these were a thing, I will respectfully disagree with you.
Turning null logistics into escorted freighter runs would immediately kill what little 0.0 industrial activity there is. Such escort fleets would be hotdropped to bits and the losses would make any 0.0 logistics uneconomical. You underestimate how much goods have to move between 0.0 and Jita so the current gameplay works.
Removing JF jump drives would just make everyone turn into Titan-bridged freighters, upping the barrier of entry for nullsec to "got some titans, yo?". Removing Titan-bridged freighters would cause people to switch to anything that can be Titan-bridged - T2 haulers etc - in large quantities. Only by outright removing Titan bridges you could potentially see actual freight escort ops. Which would then die in a fire and there would be no 0.0 logistics. Everyone would live off a High sec/Low sec border and null would be much less populated in a hurry.
The whole issue boils down to this: Operating margins in EVE are small. They currently cannot price in any kind of losses due to unintended rapid disassembly of cargo ships. Changing this will have far-reaching unintended consequences.
And no, current changes will not change anything substantial. JFs will fit capital T2 cargo rigs (cheap!) and there will be a few more JF ganks due to slower align times and everyone carries on with some extra cargo capacity per run to offset the fuel consumption increases. In high sec freighters will choose between several rig types depending on their needs. Autopiloters will rig for more EHP to try stave off ganks, manual piloters will rig either align or cargo rigs, depending on the type of cargo - many will end up having two freighters in the hangar, one for pricy cargo, one for bulk cargo. Freighter manufacturers everyone will rejoice. Capital rig manufacturers everywhere will rejoice. Life goes on.
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
690
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 06:35:00 -
[563] - Quote
I, too, can kill idiots. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
690
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 06:38:00 -
[564] - Quote
Jarnis McPieksu wrote:stuff
I did include nerfs to hotdropping and bridging. the consequences would be huge but good and intentional. |
M'uva Wa'eva
Black Frog Logistics Red-Frog
26
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 06:48:00 -
[565] - Quote
Co-founder of Black Frog checking in. I probably fly jump freighters as much as nearly anyone in Eve, and I'm not quite sure how I feel yet, despite the pages of comments that have gone before me!
It's possible there will be some self interest in my assesment of the proposed changes but I cetainly don't feel that there will be particularly, as ultimately Frog clients will bear the costs of the changes (either through reduced carrying capacity for the same reward, or an increased reward for the same carrying capacity). That affects our clients more than it affects us.
I'm not particularly upset by the cargo nerf, as a full set of t1 capital rigs brings that back to close to where it was before. T1 capital rigs cost only a fraction of the cost of a jump freighter, so that doesn't bother me particularly.
The agility nerf came out of the blue. Given how boring it is waiting for freighters of all descriptions to align before entering warp, I can't see it adding to game enjoyment, but you could always bring a webber along with you to speed things along. Personally, I spend as little time as possible in hisec these days - jump freighters primary drive is their jump drive, not their warp drive.
The biggest issue with rigging is the permanence of the decision, when freighters and jump freighters are used for multiple and different purposes at different times. Nobody is going to buy a set of personalised freighters or jump freighters for these different purposes.
I do heartily approve of the concept of tradeoffs between cargo/agility/EHP. That's smart game design. No issues there.
What would make the choices more meaningful, rather than set and forget choices like rigging, would be if they could be achieved via regular slots and modules like almost every other ship in Eve. Then I could choose to fly through hisec with increased cargo (but at the risk of reduced EHP), or choose to reduce my cargo (but increase my tank), or buff my agility when I plan to do lots of inter-station hauling (at the cost of reduced cargo and EHP). That would lead to a variety of choices I'd have to make every time I undock my freighter, which would, to be honest, make one of the boringest professions in eve slightly more interesting and thoughtful than the brain numbering state of logistics today for many people. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
46
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 06:50:00 -
[566] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Dirk MacGirk wrote:Freighters were fine. yes they were. i'm personally hoping for a CCP 180 and say "yeah we'll leave freighters alone, but this is what balance looks like... be careful what you wish for". i doubt it will happen, though. so on a more realistic level; i think they should at least knock it down to large rigs (justification: orca) if they're not going to scrap these changes.
Large rigs would be logical. Would probably make it all a bit more palatable.
I think the biggest thing CCP should be asking themselves is: what is it we want from freighters, why are we making this change at all and then lay out the case. Maybe they can make the case. Could be as simple as: these ships have been different (no risg and mods) for so long that you've all just gotten used to them being different from every other ship. We have to bite the bullet and bring them onto the same field as all other ships. As with any other change in the game, how they sell it goes a long way to player understanding and acceptance. Nobody likes nerfs, but they do happen and we adapt. But changes really should happen because of a vision, not just because a few people want something for nothing.
|
Hunt Smacker
TunDraGon Drunk 'n' Disorderly
6
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 06:50:00 -
[567] - Quote
EVE is supposed to be a game, not a job Fozzie. It's already tedious enough flying around in these freighters, a small buff would have hardly caused the game to break. Now your just requiring more time and money to get SOME of the same results back - And in turn making EVE (especially hauling) more of a second job than a bloody game. And as an avid wormhole fan, I think this is just yet another low blow to wormhole residents. |
Dave Stark
5715
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 07:00:00 -
[568] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:Nobody likes nerfs, but they do happen and we adapt. But changes really should happen because of a vision, not just because a few people want something for nothing.
you're right, nobody likes nerfs. however this isn't just "we're nerfing freighters". you can get more cargo, or ehp, or speed out of your freighter with rigs. except people seem to dislike the "or" part.
the vision is for people to pick 1 thing they want their freighter to excel at, and then rig it to do so.
people also remember these nerfs could have been harsher; fozzie didn't have to up the packaged capital m3 to 1.3m, he could have just taken more cargo from freighters and said "**** you all" hence a few people saying they "expected worse".
I'm just glad i outsource the vast majority of my hauling, and that which i don't outsource is done in my trusty orca. |
Mag's
the united
17252
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 07:05:00 -
[569] - Quote
Ahh so I was also correct and did in fact say this would happen. I shall now join the 'Told you so' group.
Always, always be careful what you wish for.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Barton Breau
University of Caille Gallente Federation
34
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 07:05:00 -
[570] - Quote
Jarnis McPieksu wrote: ... with some extra cargo capacity per run to offset the fuel consumption increases.
Im not particularly good at math, but a 4% increase in cargo capacity to offset more risk due to align and 50% more jump fuel cost does not seem to add up. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 .. 94 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |