If you rig a bit for both, both are less.

The difference is only in who mentioned it first. Being the second still means you mentioned it. You rather have to for your response not to be off topic and nonsensical. Would you prefer that interpretation instead? That you were just spamming irrelevant troll posts?

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.

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.

Rigs are permanent upgrades, and cannot be easily swapped to fit the situation. I'm alright with simply adding rigs to freighters, I'd prefer the ability to fit modules though. Preventing the use of DCU2's shouldn't be that arduous, and would allow a nice balance spot between the modules already in the game.

Harder than you might think.

Eve has no understanding of 'only these modules' or 'but not that class of ship'

Harder than you might think.

Eve has no understanding of 'only these modules' or 'but not that class of ship'

A few issues to clarify that I keep seeing repeated, at least in regard to T1 freighters:

• the slight nerf to *default* cargo size comes with the buff of added flexibility and specialization options

Harder than you might think.

Eve has no understanding of 'only these modules' or 'but not that class of ship'

WellGǪ there is an easy way: give them 0 CPU. That rather ruins the ability to fit a DCU.
I can't think of any modules that increase CPU by a fixed amount the way you can with MAPCs and grid, and any percentage-based ones would just increase 0 by some percentage of 0 (i.e. 0).

Could you gently kick some dev and make them investigate what kind of disaster zero-CPU bulkhead modules would cause?

WellGǪ there is an easy way: give them 0 CPU. That rather ruins the ability to fit a DCU.
I can't think of any modules that increase CPU by a fixed amount the way you can with MAPCs and grid, and any percentage-based ones would just increase 0 by some percentage of 0 (i.e. 0).

Could you gently kick some dev and make them investigate what kind of disaster zero-CPU bulkhead modules would cause?

because the whole point of a change is to depart from the current situation.

not that we should depart from the current situation.

I disagree, as I don't have a choice how I will rig.

I went with a Charon since ever m3 matters to me. My alts trained Caldari Freighter 5 for the same reason. The current proposed changes mean I must fit at least 2x T2 cargo rigs, or all that investment is lost and I'm worse off.

Eve has no understanding of 'only these modules' or 'but not that class of ship'

What eve are you playing?

Bastion mods, siege mods, MWJD mods, strip miners.... all have ship restrictions tied them. Would it be a hack to say that this mod could fit on every ship but a freighter? Yes. Would it be hard to do based on current code? Doesn't seem likely.

Why should bulkheads be the exception?

I disagree, as I don't have a choice how I will rig.

I went with a Charon since ever m3 matters to me. My alts trained Caldari Freighter 5 for the same reason. The current proposed changes mean I must fit at least 2x T2 cargo rigs, or all that investment is lost and I'm worse off.

Erm... you sure?

* Covert cloaking device
* Covert cyno
* Bomb Launcher
* Interdiction sphere launcher
* Warp disruption field generator
* Siege module
* Triage module
* Industrial core
* Clone vat
* Gang link

Erm... you sure?

* Covert cloaking device
* Covert cyno
* Bomb Launcher
* Interdiction sphere launcher
* Warp disruption field generator
* Siege module
* Triage module
* Industrial core
* Clone vat
* Gang link

Because they're hull upgrades. The other hull upgrades don't have any fitting requirements.

Also, because no-one seriously fits hull when armour or shield is an option, and armour and shield is what really separates the races so it doesn't particularly affect most ships. It's not really the fitting restrictions that keep people from fitting hull tanks, but the sheer lunacy of hull tanking. Well, with one exception: Orcas. And post-patch freighters.

And my point is that hull tanking upgrades aren't properly balanced and making them require 0 fitting just to fit the freighter case is horrible and only furthers their imbalance.

I did not find enough out of the box suggestion, here some :


add a med slot
keep the only 1cpu/1PG

role bonus :
Autopilot warp at zero
Can fit Target Spectrum Breaker
-100% requirement to Target Spectrum Breaker

How so?

I disagree, as I don't have a choice how I will rig.

I went with a Charon since ever m3 matters to me. My alts trained Caldari Freighter 5 for the same reason. The current proposed changes mean I must fit at least 2x T2 cargo rigs, or all that investment is lost and I'm worse off.

Well you said so earlier yourself, no one seriously fits hull upgrade tanking mods seriously except in two cases. This is not balanced.