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) |
Dave Stark
5715
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 07:05:00 -
[571] - Quote
Mag's wrote: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. i think we're getting some t-shirts made up. |
Gumpy Bitterhawk
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 07:09:00 -
[572] - Quote
Give me 1 good reason why a 6.5 billion isk ship (7.5 soon), wich needs a second account to be able to work (cynos) is in need of nerfing? Literally, 1 good reason? It costs half a ******* super as it is already.
You know, im not sure what i like more, the old ccp that didnt lissen to their members and changed stuff around slowly but fairly, or the new ccp that wants constant input from their members and then drasticly changes **** without there being any need for it... |
Abulurd Boniface
The Scope Gallente Federation
127
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 07:10:00 -
[573] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Abulurd Boniface wrote:
I was enthusiastic when CCP Fozzie announced rigs for freighters at Fanfest. The way these are going to be implemented, if that really is the final word, makes it seem like there's no real gain for the freighter pilot.
because u thought u were getting a straight buff to a ship that didnt need a buff. No real gain other than choice was due.
No. I was excited for the freighter pilots, hoping it would give them better options. Over the course of my now many years of being an EVE pilot this was the first time I saw something announced for freighter pilots. I have not followed threads here where people, very astutely it turns out, warned about 'getting what you wish for'.
It's no skin off my nose though. I can fly a freighter but I don't have one. My Orcas have proven to be adequate for my purpose. A freighter has never seemed like a worthwhile investment. Now even less so.
I joined this conversation because I was surprised about these changes. I appreciate, wholeheartedly agree with and welcome the risk/reward equation in EVE. In my previous posts I have asked what the reward here is for the freighter pilot because I have a hard time seeing one. |
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
292
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 07:12:00 -
[574] - Quote
Yup. HP drop, check. Cargo capacity drop, check. Capital rigs so they won't be cheap to fit, check. All for the sake of all the "I want it" threads. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1340
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 07:12:00 -
[575] - Quote
This is about the worst possible implementation of giving freighters 'customisation' and simply serves to perpetuate the idea that industry characters are second class citizens there to be used as punching bags by people that like to shoot things. And has significant follow on effects to POS's with regards to changing capital sizes also.
The much better solution would have been to chop the cargo hold into several smaller holds and get rid of the worry about limiting carrying capitals once & for all. Several special holds that increase by level, say 300k m^3 each. And a similar sized Cargo hold that you can choose to affect with Cargo rigs. Then give them a real amount of fittings and slots, let them fit at least BS sized active tanks tanks, along side current passive EHP, 100MN MWD's, MJD's, the works. If not actual Capital size tanks. At least 10 slots.
Now you have actual choice involved in how you fit them rather than crazy gimped fitting options that will always be an obvious nerf |
Gumpy Bitterhawk
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 07:12:00 -
[576] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Mag's wrote: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. i think we're getting some t-shirts made up.
I think the 'I told you so' guys should start a new thread and start backpadding around in there, because its getting pretty annoying in this one. |
Vigilanta
S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS.
34
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 07:13:00 -
[577] - Quote
Bad changes, leave them as is, screw the rigs and some EHP or agility one of the 2. Frieghtor work is annoying enough as is no need to make it more painful. Suicide ganking freighters is stupid easy, this just makes it easier, or makes logistics take even more god aweful long.
Logistics work is the worst aspect of the game at current, why do a few seem to think its OP/to easy idk. NEWS FLASH, unless dramatic changes are made there will be little to no incentive to mine to the extent needed in null to move industry there and even then it will have to be exported to sell off the excess in order to make money in HS. Half of nulls logistics wizards are about to be on even more extreme suicide watch, there is a reason it exists. If anything proposed changes are creating an atmoshpere to make null less dynamic because of logistics becoming more a PITA. This is not what we want, we want changes that fan the flames of war and encourage the break down of the mega coalitions.
Increased fuel consumption/prices, decreased hauling capacity if you actually want to live are raising the barrier to entry to null and low not lowering ti and lowering it is what we want. The big empires will shoulder these costs bitching and moaning the whole time, but they wont change how they operate just put there massive incomes to work and say "meh"
|
Dave Stark
5727
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 07:13:00 -
[578] - Quote
Gumpy Bitterhawk wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Mag's wrote: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. i think we're getting some t-shirts made up. I think the 'I told you so' guys should start a new thread and start backpadding around in there, because its getting pretty annoying in this one.
duplicate threads get locked, we've got to be smug here i'm afraid. |
Steijn
Quay Industries
496
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 07:15:00 -
[579] - Quote
any chance that you could follow some of the others and leave for Riot? its obvious that you are completely out of touch and out of your depth with this game. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
46
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 07:16:00 -
[580] - Quote
I apologize to those who have probably fought this battle in previous threads related to "fixing freighters". However, now that changes to freighters are being proposed, I need to ask the question:
If the goal is flexibility for a ship, and the result is a major overhaul to base stats, why stop at rigs? Rigs are traditionally a secondary form of augmentation. Mods are where the real flexibility comes in.
I recognize that could mean CCP does even more to the base stats and the end result might be a much bigger change than we are destined to get now. But why not just get it all out of the way now? Absorb a full freighter revamp that puts freighters on the same field as every other ship in the game. That way, we adapt to the big change (tears and all), but future rebalancing efforts would be at the margin and akin to the rebalancing associated with other ship classes.
Again, apologies to those that may have logically answered why this was a bad in the past. I know it's frustrating to have the same argument over and over. But that was when changes to freighters were just pipe dreams from people who wanted something for nothing. We're obviously past that point now and dealing with the reality that some change is probably imminent. The question is: do we want a half measure or should we just progress to putting freighters on the same level as all other ships in the game? |
|
Esur A'saw Ti
Wont To Buy
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 07:17:00 -
[581] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
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.
Are you trolling or just terrible reading comprehsion? Being able to kill a freighter with 10 cata in highsec is stupid, I couldn't care less if you could do it against autopilot freighters tho. It doesn't matter if it's only 30/month, imagine if you could easily kill jfs with 10 inty just camping gates with a "mobile jf interceptor 3000", people would complain because it's a bad design, same here. Risk vs reward, having options that doesn't require alts or corpmates (since moving a freighter is tedious and unfun) all that. |
Barton Breau
University of Caille Gallente Federation
34
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 07:17:00 -
[582] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: This means that Freighters can get significantly higher maximum capacity than before using rigs
Either someone correct my finger math or write up a paper what causes beancounting trump reason, trying to sell a 20% increase as "significantly higher". |
Abulurd Boniface
The Scope Gallente Federation
127
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 07:18:00 -
[583] - Quote
M'uva Wa'eva wrote: 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.
This is a very sensible trade off that would give true flexibility. If it was done like this I think all objections in this thread would simply evaporate.
|
Kosher Jew
5
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 07:20:00 -
[584] - Quote
o rly stop... after great f... idea with RML.. now this |
Akrasjel Lanate
Naquatech Conglomerate Naquatech Syndicate
1525
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 07:21:00 -
[585] - Quote
My Obelisk
You are nerfing JF, yet there is no nerf in there jump range why is that ? |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
690
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 07:21:00 -
[586] - Quote
Gumpy Bitterhawk wrote:Give me 1 good reason why a 6.5 billion isk ship (7.5 soon), wich needs a second account to be able to work (cynos) is in need of nerfing? Literally, 1 good reason? It costs half a ******* super as it is already.
You know, im not sure what i like more, the old ccp that didnt lissen to their members and changed stuff around slowly but fairly, or the new ccp that wants constant input from their members and then drasticly changes **** without there being any need for it...
I found this post pretty funny |
Mag's
the united
17253
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 07:23:00 -
[587] - Quote
Gumpy Bitterhawk wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Mag's wrote: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. i think we're getting some t-shirts made up. I think the 'I told you so' guys should start a new thread and start backpadding around in there, because its getting pretty annoying in this one. We had to put up with some quite distasteful abuse, when we were informing those that asked for this change. In almost each and every thread that came along. So excuse me for laughing at your request and saying the following.
Told you so.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Mag's
the united
17253
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 07:24:00 -
[588] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Mag's wrote: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. i think we're getting some t-shirts made up. Put me down for one.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
corbexx
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
380
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 07:29:00 -
[589] - Quote
Alexander McKeon wrote: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.
Edit: After a few minutes thought, these changes seem aimed at preventing Titan-bridged freighters from becoming a more economical method of transport than JFs, but that's no reason to screw over wormhole folks. Increasing max jump mass on those holes isn't possible either, or caps would enter HS through them. You can either forbid freighters from using direct C5/C6 --> HS connections, or permit titans to bridge freighters cheaply; I urge you to pick the latter.
Thanks for this, I missed it as well but have raised the issue now.
Corbexx for CSM 9 - Wormholes deserve better |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
690
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 07:30:00 -
[590] - Quote
here's a compelling balance reason: wormholes are dumb |
|
Ghazbaran
Hyper Compu-Global MegaCorp
7
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 07:33:00 -
[591] - Quote
M'uva Wa'eva wrote: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!...
...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.
I feel comfortable with this. Rigs feel too permanent. I agree with this. The balance would not feel so bad if we could choose what we fit before we undock and refit on the go depending on daily events. |
Zloco Crendraven
BALKAN EXPRESS Triumvirate.
582
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 07:39:00 -
[592] - Quote
JF are ruinng EVE. They should be nerfed eve more by not allowing them to jump drive in or out of lowsec. Nullsec alliances should rely on gathering resources in nullsec instead import everything from jita. BALEX is recruiting -----> tinyurl.com/oscmmlv |
Sipphakta en Gravonere
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
603
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 07:41:00 -
[593] - Quote
Esur A'saw Ti wrote: Are you trolling or just terrible reading comprehsion? Being able to kill a freighter with 10 cata in highsec is stupid, I couldn't care less if you could do it against autopilot freighters tho.
It's impossible to kill any freighter in high-sec with only 10 catalysts, assuming no war-dec or suspect flagging is involved.
Quote:It doesn't matter if it's only 30/month, imagine if you could easily kill jfs with 10 inty just camping gates with a "mobile jf interceptor 3000", people would complain because it's a bad design, same here. Risk vs reward, having options that doesn't require alts or corpmates (since moving a freighter is tedious and unfun) all that.
If freighter ganking was as easy and profitable as most carebears think it is, there would be a lot more people doing it. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11599
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 07:44:00 -
[594] - Quote
Esur A'saw Ti wrote:baltec1 wrote:
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.
Are you trolling or just terrible reading comprehsion? Being able to kill a freighter with 10 cata in highsec is stupid, I couldn't care less if you could do it against autopilot freighters tho. It doesn't matter if it's only 30/month, imagine if you could easily kill jfs with 10 inty just camping gates with a "mobile jf interceptor 3000", people would complain because it's a bad design, same here. Risk vs reward, having options that doesn't require alts or corpmates (since moving a freighter is tedious and unfun) all that.
You numbers are out on how many cats are needed to kill a freighter.
Its funny how you go on about how you shouldn't need alts or corpmates to fly a freighter yet rage about a fleet being needed to kill said freighter. You arnt getting your perfect safety and your quest to get it has just backfired in everyones face. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Kumiko Kawasumi
Helios Alliance Tactical Narcotics Team
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 07:49:00 -
[595] - Quote
Alter was ist das denn f++r ein schwules Update. Fuc king ccp noobs. 1bil. rigs for nix ..............lol. Wer sitzt da eigendlich und denkt sich sowas aus. Sind die alles bei CCP besoffen ?.
Die save and slow......................................
MFG |
Alexander McKeon
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
61
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 07:50:00 -
[596] - Quote
My suggestion would be to not put rigs on freighters, but to instead give them one or more subsystem slots. This accomplishes the goal of giving freighters limited customization while vastly simplifying the balance possibilities as compared to letting them equip traditional modules. Keep the base stats of freighters as they are, or slightly nerfed in the case of JFs if their power is being intentionally checked, then provide a series of freighter-specific subsystems each with associated trade-offs (+warp speed/ -cargo capacity or +capacity/-align time, etc) This would accomplish your goal of adding meaningful choices for freighter pilots to make, NOT require high investments in expensive capital rigs which cannot be cheaply swapped around, and avoid the requirement of an across-the-board freighter nerf so as to prevent them from excelling too much in any one area after rigs have been applied. |
Gumpy Bitterhawk
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 07:55:00 -
[597] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Gumpy Bitterhawk wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Mag's wrote: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. i think we're getting some t-shirts made up. I think the 'I told you so' guys should start a new thread and start backpadding around in there, because its getting pretty annoying in this one. We had to put up with some quite distasteful abuse, when we were informing those that asked for this change. In almost each and every thread that came along. So excuse me for laughing at your request and saying the following. Told you so.
So, what you are trying to say is, you got trolled, and thats a good excuse to **** up the thread with 'i told you so' **** every 2 or so posts? Get out.
|
Kumiko Kawasumi
Helios Alliance Tactical Narcotics Team
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 07:56:00 -
[598] - Quote
Nerv Fighter and JF super ccp, gz deppen.
Die save and slow..................
MFG |
Mag's
the united
17254
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 07:58:00 -
[599] - Quote
Gumpy Bitterhawk wrote:Mag's wrote:We had to put up with some quite distasteful abuse, when we were informing those that asked for this change. In almost each and every thread that came along. So excuse me for laughing at your request and saying the following.
Told you so. So, what you are trying to say is, you got trolled, and thats a good excuse to **** up the thread with 'i told you so' **** every 2 or so posts? Get out. You may wish to label the ones asking for this change, trolls. Seeing the reaction to the changes we predicted, you may indeed be correct. Which only goes to make this change even funnier.
But, we told you so.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Nex Killer
Drunk3n Industry
63
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 08:01:00 -
[600] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:Nex Killer wrote:Nex Killer wrote:I have a question about this change the Charon is losing about 30% of its base cargo correct? So does that mean in the BPO is it going to use 30% less capital Cargo Bays? So from needing 105 to only needing 74? Because I think that is only fair with this change and it makes sense. In hopes of Fozzie seeing this. LOL are you serious? Like, seriously serious. Build requirements don't go down. Not for supers or titans or anything
Yes I'm serious. Why is that crazy? Build requirements have changed in the past with other ships I don't see why they can't change for capital when is such a dramatic change like this. If freighters were only losing like 5% base cargo fine you wouldn't have to change anything, but they are losing 27-30% of their old base. That is a crazy amount seeing how half of the build requirement for a freighters is capital cargo bays. If supercarriers were to lose 30% of their drone bay I would expect to see a reduction in their build requirements of drone cargo bays.
If they were to lower the capital cargo bays required to build a freighter you'll save about ~260M in build costs and hopefully lowering the sell price a little for people. With that saved isk they can go buy some rigs, but at the moment there isn't a reason to even put rigs on fighters because the rigs themselves cost to much. Tau Cabalander explains it very well:
Tau Cabalander wrote:I was looking forward to the ADDED CHOICE these changes would bring, but instead they REMOVE CHOICEPre-Kronos Charon: 785,000 Post-Kronos Charon: 550,000 Post-Kronos Rigs: Rig 1: No choice GåÆ Capital Cargohold Optimization II (20% for 660,000), -150 Calibration Rig 2: No choice GåÆ Capital Cargohold Optimization II (20% for 792,000), -150 Calibration Rig 3: Limited Choice GåÆ 100 Calibration Cost: 1.45 billion ISK at current market prices [likely higher post-Kronos], more than the Charon itself!, Can't fit a structure rig in the optional slot, as it will reduce cargohold /facepalm I told you that was a bad idea for a drawback.The only logical possibility is a Capital Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer I or II.
Now hopefully the price of rigs will go down a few with more people building them. But as of right now there isn't a real reason for people to buy 1.45B in rigs when they could buy a new freighter if they got ganked. Lowering the build price for a freighter and the lowering price of rigs will hopefully get people using rigs on their freighters. |
|
|
|
|
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 |