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) |

Gospadin
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
138
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 16:25:00 -
[1291] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:I can see some of these reductions are needed to compensate for the boost from rigs. But even with rigs, a freighter cannot be brought up to the same performance level it has right now. If you rig for cargo, the tank is less. If you rig for tank, the cargo is less. If you rig a bit for both, both are less. There is no combination of rigs that return a freighter to where it is right now.
Please reconsider the degree of the reductions to cargo and tank. it's not meant to be "where it is right now" that's the point of the change. the idea is you pick 1 attribute, and make it better at the cost of the others. if freighters were to be rigged to "where it is right now" it would totally defeat the point of the change.
Why shouldn't we be able to get to the same point we are now?
I don't think it's unreasonable to expect to rig the ship to hit roughly the same attributes. On a charon, there's a few options:
-50% cargo for +35% EHP (what's the point?) -15% cargo for +5% EHP (just makes cargo services more expensive all around) +6% cargo for -7% EHP (even easier to gank) +16% cargo for -7% EHP (super expensive)
Maybe if all of this came with a signficant reduction in the build costs of freighters it'd make more sense, but it feels like a nearly across-the-board nerf to me.
Basically, 600k becomes the new red frog cargo limit instead of 812k, me |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22032
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 16:25:00 -
[1292] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote: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. Tu quoque is a fallacy.
Quote: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 Doesn't matter who brought them up. You're the one who said that their capabilities aren't sufficient for you. He may have overstated the ferocity in your statement, but it's still a statement you made.
Quote:And what I'm saying is that if you change the word "orca" with the word "they" it functionally changes nothing GǪand since GÇ£mentionGÇ¥ also means GÇ£referenceGÇ¥ 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 GÇ£bring upGÇ¥, which means you have dived head first down the true scotsman well. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |

Gospadin
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
138
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 16:26:00 -
[1293] - Quote
meaning hisec just got 33% more expensive to pay others to haul stuff |

Dave Stark
5857
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 16:27:00 -
[1294] - Quote
Gospadin wrote:Why shouldn't we be able to get to the same point we are now? because the whole point of a change is to depart from the current situation.
not that we should depart from the current situation. |

Berluth Luthian
Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION
198
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 16:31:00 -
[1295] - Quote
What about jump drive rigs that increase range or efficiency? |

Ally Poo
Ravens' Nest Easily Excited
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 16:35:00 -
[1296] - Quote
Wow these changes are bad and I can't help but disapprove.
I guess we're all going back to webbing T1 Freighters in low and null... |

Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
3453
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 16:38:00 -
[1297] - Quote
Berluth Luthian wrote:What about jump drive rigs that increase range or efficiency? You do realise that it would be a rig that increases range but decreases efficiency and/or a rig that increases efficiency but decreases range. And you'd get a general nerf to efficiency and range up front. Sovereignty and Population New Mining Mechanics |

Iski Zuki DaSen
Icarus Academy
8
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 16:39:00 -
[1298] - Quote
Pasocon Otaku wrote:Here's a straightforward way to make it a cross between light nerf and small improvement -- instead of whacking stats so hard that you can't get 'back to par' even with T2 rigs ...
Overall Use capital rigs (to set appropriate resource cost)
Freighters: Drop cargo capacity 26.25%, so that it takes two T1 cargo rigs to get back to par Drop EHP such that it takes one T1 hull HP rig to get back to par ... this would mean spending ~10% of the value of your ship to keep it current. Not horrible. If you choose to go T1/T2/T2, you're spending ~100% of ship's value for modest improvement in one or two areas.
Jump Freighters It's obvious they want to nerf them more than a little; so that pilots feel they're getting something out of their beating -- Drop cargo by 15%, agility by 11.7%, and EHP by {T1 Hull HP rig} -- so you can keep two of three at par ... or spend ~15% the value of your ship and have a slight bump in two [but still the nerf in the third].
I totaly agree with you m8 |

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11668
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 16:40:00 -
[1299] - Quote
ArmyOfMe wrote:mynnna wrote:
If you saw the kind of "greater rewards" it'd take to make living in deep nullsec without any of that capability worthwhile, you'd probably be whining about those, too.
The great thing for me is that ive played long enough to remember when ppl were living in those regions. Before jf's, before freighters even. I remember those long lasting trips through 0,0 with a bs fleet as escort. But we did it anyhow. I think you underestimate ppl's desires to live in 0,0 and make themselfs a home.
We have 250 man dreadfleet that we consider disposable. Back then a 100 man BS fleet was considered a painfull loss. Convoys wont work today. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22032
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 16:44:00 -
[1300] - Quote
Abrazzar wrote:Berluth Luthian wrote:What about jump drive rigs that increase range or efficiency? You do realise that it would be a rig that increases range but decreases efficiency and/or a rig that increases efficiency but decreases range. And you'd get a general nerf to efficiency and range up front. It's also debatable how well it would fit into a general mood of trying to reduce capital ship projection.  GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
|

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3940
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 16:47:00 -
[1301] - Quote
I love the idea of lowslot fitting on freighters, but I firmly believe the DCU is too potent to balance a ship with such insane amounts of structure. Remove the ability to fit a DCU on a freighter if you give it a low slot.
|

Dave Stark
5863
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 16:49:00 -
[1302] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: I love the idea of lowslot fitting on freighters, but I firmly believe the DCU is too potent to balance a ship with such insane amounts of structure. Remove the ability to fit a DCU on a freighter if you give it a low slot.
then you're forcing all freighters to armour tank. |

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11668
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 16:52:00 -
[1303] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: I love the idea of lowslot fitting on freighters, but I firmly believe the DCU is too potent to balance a ship with such insane amounts of structure. Remove the ability to fit a DCU on a freighter if you give it a low slot.
Best answer is the leave them as they are. No matter what fitting options they get they will never be as good as they currently are. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22033
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 16:53:00 -
[1304] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: I love the idea of lowslot fitting on freighters, but I firmly believe the DCU is too potent to balance a ship with such insane amounts of structure. Remove the ability to fit a DCU on a freighter if you give it a low slot.
then you're forcing all freighters to armour tank. They could still hull tank with bulkheads, but I still think that the best method of doing that would be to alter bulkhead fitting requirements and just make sure a DC would be out of reach for what you can get onto a freigther.
So I really wonder what the effects would be if bulkheads became free to fit. Are any ships that could currently benefit from fitting them barred from doing so? Are there any ships where it's currently impossible to do so and where making it possible to fit bulkheads would massively alter their balance? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |

Dave Stark
5868
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 16:56:00 -
[1305] - Quote
Tippia wrote:They could still hull tank with bulkheads, slight revision; then you're excluding freighters the option of shield tanking without that strange pseudo fitting low slot module. |

Valterra Craven
244
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 16:59:00 -
[1306] - 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. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22033
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 17:02:00 -
[1307] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Tippia wrote:They could still hull tank with bulkheads, slight revision; then you're excluding freighters the option of shield tanking without that strange pseudo fitting low slot module. To be fair, I'm excluding a lot more than that. The idea of having a ship that can only fit fitting-free modules intrigues me. The main problem, as noted above, is that some modules would have to be made free to fit to make that part of the equation work. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |

Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1552
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 17:03:00 -
[1308] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: I love the idea of lowslot fitting on freighters, but I firmly believe the DCU is too potent to balance a ship with such insane amounts of structure. Remove the ability to fit a DCU on a freighter if you give it a low slot.
then you're forcing all freighters to armour tank. They could still hull tank with bulkheads, but I still think that the best method of doing that would be to alter bulkhead fitting requirements and just make sure a DC would be out of reach for what you can get onto a freigther. So I really wonder what the effects would be if bulkheads became free to fit. Are any ships that could currently benefit from fitting them barred from doing so? Are there any ships where it's currently impossible to do so and where making it possible to fit bulkheads would massively alter their balance?
i dnt actually know if they have a CPU problem but hull tanked battleships with new hull rigs might be quite powerful. Provided they dnt need cargo EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY?No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided""So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time" |

Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
3641
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 17:03:00 -
[1309] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: I love the idea of lowslot fitting on freighters, but I firmly believe the DCU is too potent to balance a ship with such insane amounts of structure. Remove the ability to fit a DCU on a freighter if you give it a low slot.
then you're forcing all freighters to armour tank. They could still hull tank with bulkheads, but I still think that the best method of doing that would be to alter bulkhead fitting requirements and just make sure a DC would be out of reach for what you can get onto a freigther. So I really wonder what the effects would be if bulkheads became free to fit. Are any ships that could currently benefit from fitting them barred from doing so? Are there any ships where it's currently impossible to do so and where making it possible to fit bulkheads would massively alter their balance? You are aware that bulkheads will reduce cargo, right?
Cargo capacity is the raison d'+¬tre for freighters / jump freighters.
CCP Fozzie wrote:We are also going to swap the speed penalty on all reinforced bulkhead modules to an equal percentage cargo capacity penalty. The agility penalty will remain intact at this time. |

Valterra Craven
244
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 17:05:00 -
[1310] - 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 -
[1311] - Quote
double post |

Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1552
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 17:09:00 -
[1312] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:Tippia wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: I love the idea of lowslot fitting on freighters, but I firmly believe the DCU is too potent to balance a ship with such insane amounts of structure. Remove the ability to fit a DCU on a freighter if you give it a low slot.
then you're forcing all freighters to armour tank. They could still hull tank with bulkheads, but I still think that the best method of doing that would be to alter bulkhead fitting requirements and just make sure a DC would be out of reach for what you can get onto a freigther. So I really wonder what the effects would be if bulkheads became free to fit. Are any ships that could currently benefit from fitting them barred from doing so? Are there any ships where it's currently impossible to do so and where making it possible to fit bulkheads would massively alter their balance? You are aware that bulkheads will reduce cargo, right? Cargo capacity is the raison d'+¬tre for freighters / jump freighters. CCP Fozzie wrote:We are also going to swap the speed penalty on all reinforced bulkhead modules to an equal percentage cargo capacity penalty. The agility penalty will remain intact at this time.
that only makes it even more appropriate EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY?No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided""So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time" |

Dave Stark
5870
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 17:11:00 -
[1313] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:being wrong still stop it
Tippia wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Tippia wrote:They could still hull tank with bulkheads, slight revision; then you're excluding freighters the option of shield tanking without that strange pseudo fitting low slot module. To be fair, I'm excluding a lot more than that. The idea of having a ship that can only fit fitting-free modules intrigues me. The main problem, as noted above, is that some modules would have to be made free to fit to make that part of the equation work. yes, a ship with fitting slots but no cpu/pg would be a unique niche. still, even if we gave that to freighters we'd have to take it out back and beat it a bit. |

TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
699
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 17:11:00 -
[1314] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Tippia wrote:They could still hull tank with bulkheads, slight revision; then you're excluding freighters the option of shield tanking without that strange pseudo fitting low slot module.
nobody cared when they did it with barges and haulers. |

Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 17:12:00 -
[1315] - 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.
|

Dave Stark
5870
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 17:13:00 -
[1316] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:Tippia wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: I love the idea of lowslot fitting on freighters, but I firmly believe the DCU is too potent to balance a ship with such insane amounts of structure. Remove the ability to fit a DCU on a freighter if you give it a low slot.
then you're forcing all freighters to armour tank. They could still hull tank with bulkheads, but I still think that the best method of doing that would be to alter bulkhead fitting requirements and just make sure a DC would be out of reach for what you can get onto a freigther. So I really wonder what the effects would be if bulkheads became free to fit. Are any ships that could currently benefit from fitting them barred from doing so? Are there any ships where it's currently impossible to do so and where making it possible to fit bulkheads would massively alter their balance? You are aware that bulkheads will reduce cargo, right? Cargo capacity is the raison d'+¬tre for freighters / jump freighters. CCP Fozzie wrote:We are also going to swap the speed penalty on all reinforced bulkhead modules to an equal percentage cargo capacity penalty. The agility penalty will remain intact at this time.
actually, moving cargo is the raison d'etre. having lots of space for it, is just a bonus.
carrying lots of stuff is useful if you can't get to your destination like some of the poor folk who don't quite make it through udema. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22035
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 17:13:00 -
[1317] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:You are aware that bulkheads will reduce cargo, right?
Cargo capacity is the raison d'+¬tre for freighters / jump freighters. Yes. That's a balance you have to strike in your fitting. I just got the idea from Mynnna's post earlier about what it would look like in numerical terms. The big problem is the DCII and what it does at both ends of the spectrum: on the one hand, how much hull would have to go down to allow them; on the other hand how much stronger that one module makes the ship.
So the idea then becomes: what if we skip over both that massive nerf and the massive swing in results by simply disallowing the module. Afaik, bulkheads and expanders don't cancel each other out completely, so fitting both means you end up with something that's better than baseline, but not with a more moderated variance and you can tailor the end result with a bit more granularity.
The crucial modules for a 0 CPU/0 grid freighter would be: cargo expanders, istabs, concevably nanos (but why fit them over istabs?), and conceivably the warp speed mod mynnna also proposed (in which case it needs class restrictions rather than massive fitting space requirements). Bulkheads need to be on that list too as the only module that offers any kind of tanking without favouring shields or armour and without creating the huge swing in stats that a suitcase does. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3940
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 17:14:00 -
[1318] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: I love the idea of lowslot fitting on freighters, but I firmly believe the DCU is too potent to balance a ship with such insane amounts of structure. Remove the ability to fit a DCU on a freighter if you give it a low slot.
then you're forcing all freighters to armour tank.
As it is, a DCU is a single slot, pragmatically no drawback module that would DOUBLE the tank of a freighter. I'm sorry, but it is insane to balance agility, speed, capacity, and tank around such a powerful module.
Next, I disagree with you on the "forcing all freighters to armor tank".
Have you looked at the stats of a Charon? Shields: 7500 Armor: 25000 Structure: 130000+
A bulkhead will still add more raw EHP than an EANM. If you could et 80% resists with 4 modules, you'd still add less EHP than 4 bulkheads to that ship! The difference though, is that RR works MUCH, MUCH better on the ship with resists. So, while I agree you are forced to "armor tank" if you have logi along, that has as everything to do with the distribution of HP, and nothing to do with a DCU2.
The main issue is with DCU's, is that one DCU2 adds more EHP than 4x Bulkheads, which makes balancing the "tanking" vs capacity / agility / speed way out of whack. It basically forces balancing to assume the dcu is fit, which is another phrase for making that module mandatory. I think a more interesting balance would be achieved by taking the DCU out of the picture, and balancing along the lines of bulkheads, cargo expanders, etc.
|

Dave Stark
5871
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 17:17:00 -
[1319] - Quote
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. |

Punctator
Billionaires Club Aureus Alae
18
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 17:17:00 -
[1320] - Quote
stupid as always CCP... it is just sad, notheing more to say |
|
|
|
|
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 |