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) |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22080
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 19:34:00 -
[1651] - Quote
Vincintius Agrippa wrote:As for fuel rigs: That like saying "This rig reduces the capacitor need need of entering warp, but decreases warp speed". I'd understand some loss of cargo space with THIS rig, but does it not defeat the purpose with reduced fuel capacity? WeeellGǪ it means you have to have a better infrastructure along the way or that you can operate from farther away if you have a few-jump route. If you can fill up between jumps, you can get more distance from the fuel.
Also, it depends on what the fuel reduction is. The capacity penalty looks to be the same -10% (i.e. -5GÇô6% after skills) as on most rigs. If the savings is larger than the capacity loss, you can travel farther on a single tank too.
Quote:New medium grade Pirate implants? Interesting. Again, the medium-grades aren't that interesting. They're the old low-grades renamed, but with a higher attribute bonus. The really new implants are the new low-grades. 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. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5666
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 19:34:00 -
[1652] - Quote
Vincintius Agrippa wrote:Dave Stark wrote:sisi changes http://pastebin.com/5NdjVCGU sourcethere's mention of fuel rigs. "his ship modification is designed to decrease the fuel requirements of jump drive travel at the expense of fuel bay capacity. Penalty: Using more than one type of this module or similar modules that affect the same attribute on the ship will be penalized." enjoy. Oh yeah, who scans down sites uncloaked lol? Hi-sec maybe? Low-sec, null, and wormhole space is suicide. As for fuel rigs: That like saying "This rig reduces the capacitor need need of entering warp, but decreases warp speed". I'd understand some loss of cargo space with THIS rig, but does it not defeat the purpose with reduced fuel capacity? New medium grade Pirate implants? Interesting. It's saying that you can make the trip require less fuel, but you will not be able to use it to increase your jump range... so the same trip will be less expensive. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Retar Aveymone
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
378
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 19:40:00 -
[1653] - Quote
Tippia wrote:More accurately, regular implants become high-grade, with +1 to their attribute bonus; low-grade implants become mid-grade, also with +1 to their attribute bonus; and completely new low-grade implants are introduced that are only the same as the current ones in that they provide a total attribute bonus of +2. So you're still gimped by 1 point. yes but the filthy rich flying around in pirate implants will no longer be third-class citizens when it comes to sp accumulation, merely second-class citizens
a magnificant improvement, now please make ultra-high grade tia |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
3644
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 19:41:00 -
[1654] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:It's saying that you can make the trip require less fuel, but you will not be able to use it to increase your jump range... so the same trip will be less expensive. Of course you can put fuel in your cargohold too. The fuel bay doesn't limit a JF. Still there is a cost. |
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 19:45:00 -
[1655] - Quote
Tippia wrote:If you still don't understand the answer, you can (sitll) ask. Don't worry, I won't bite. I did ask, but you donGÇÖt answer point blank questions, so there really isnGÇÖt much point in asking again.
Tippia wrote:Yes, in this case. A low-slot is far more valuable than 40tf CPU, especially on a Phoenix, since the other, far more useful modules you want to put in that slot cost more CPU.
Oh? LetGÇÖs look at the example of 1 dcu and 1 bulkhead on the phoenix. IGÇÖve seen people put maybe one other mod in the bulkheadGÇÖs spot besides a PDU and that would be a 4th BCU (since really the first three are nearly mandatory given its roll) So what would be more important than a PDU or a BCU?
Tippia wrote: one problem: it does. It has the most effective support module of them all, as it happens. So that's not really a possibility at all, nor is it a fallacy unless what you said was all wrongGǪ which, I'll grant you, is highly probable.
Oh really, because cap ships have a local cap sized hull repair mod? Oh rightGǪ it doesnGÇÖt exist. One module a tank does not make.
Tippia wrote: it's the only way for your claim to be true.
Then why is it that all other HP mods are fixed amounts and not percentage based? I mean if percentage based boosts werenGÇÖt OP and easily balanced then how come all the other buffer mods are broken into separate sub classes? |
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
13
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 19:50:00 -
[1656] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:They're not giving freighters lows are they? If they are i missed that. That would change a lot. My point was just that with the rigs which are incredibly expensive do not make the ship very versatile. I would be all for that cause then you are right you could simply fit expanders, plating etc. whatever was necessary for the given task but i'm not going to be destroying rigs left and right for the various tasks. No, they're not, but Mynnna had a proposal for that idea that spun out into some other small changes that could be made to avoid the bigger pitfalls (such as the massive argument above about how supposedly overpowered bulkheads are ).
bulk heads OP?? waaah?? OK just caught up your earlier convo. don't want to get too much into it except if they were so OP why is it that ships which have their greatest amount of hp in the hull(orca's) still will shield tank the majority of the time....... The only purpose bulkheads even serve atm is to just be a giant buffer. This brings me to the suggestion i made on the hull rigs forum about creating an ORE logi ship that gives a bonus to remote hull reps since their is NO TIME REASONABLE way to repair hulls outside of stations.
Tippia wrote:Yes, that is kind of the point of the whole change. It's not meant to be a buff; it's just meant to give freighters options. The price of those options is an overall worse ship. That's why I always argued against fitting options: I wanted to keep my excellent-at-everything (jump) freighter.
So can we all agree just to tell CCP don't push this update and leave the freighters alone?
Tippia wrote:As for the indies, some of them had their cargo increased, some did not GÇö it all depended on how bad they were compared to each other before. The top performers came down a bit; the bottom performer came up a lot. I'm guessing that your perception there is somewhat born out of your ship being in a fairly good spot to begin with.
Not necessarily. the only one to receive a cargo boost was the tyra or badger II. the rest had a cargo reduction or didn't move while all lost a mid slot
Tippia wrote: It got an agility increase. Remember, agility is better the lower it is GÇö for the Mammoth, they changed it from 1.0 to 0.91. Since agility translates directly into align time, that's 9% faster aligning right there. Sure, and istab gives you twice as much, but stillGǪ it's half a slot that can be used for something else.
I understand that but it still doesn't change the fact a velocity bonus is pointless on this ship if it's supposed to be the gtfo ship. Maybe burning back to gate in low? IDK. |
Retar Aveymone
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
378
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 19:51:00 -
[1657] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Then why is it that all other HP mods are fixed amounts and not percentage based? I mean if percentage based boosts werenGÇÖt OP and easily balanced then how come all the other buffer mods are broken into separate sub classes? http://games.chruker.dk/eve_online/item.php?type_id=11239
because resistances >>> percent hp, this module is unused yet it does exist
your argument is wrong |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22083
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 19:55:00 -
[1658] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:I did ask, but you donGÇÖt answer point blank questions Incorrect. Again, just ask. I won't bite.
Quote:Oh? LetGÇÖs look at the example of 1 dcu and 1 bulkhead on the phoenix. IGÇÖve seen people put maybe one other mod in the bulkheadGÇÖs spot besides a PDU and that would be a 4th BCU (since really the first three are nearly mandatory given its roll) So what would be more important than a PDU or a BCU? Fair enough. I thought for a moment that they cost 44, not 40. The point is still the same: the bulkhead is a waste of a slot, and it's not skipped over for a lack of CPU GÇö it's skipped over because there are far better things to put in that slot. Pretty much anything, in fact, is a better use of the slot.
Quote:Oh really, because cap ships have a local cap sized hull repair mod? They have the same superior hull-tanking support module as every other ship in the game.
Quote:Then why is it that all other HP mods are fixed amounts and not percentage based? Because they are meant for specific ship sizes. Hull-tanking, not being a proper tanking mode to begin with, doesn't get that because it would just be pointless clutter. Instead, it just becomes a percentage mod like hardeners and DCUs. 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. |
Vincintius Agrippa
F L O O D
41
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 19:56:00 -
[1659] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Vincintius Agrippa wrote:As for fuel rigs: That like saying "This rig reduces the capacitor need need of entering warp, but decreases warp speed". it's not like saying that at all
No, but it is a good approximation of most people attitudes toward it.
Perhaps this is a better one: Starting June, car manufacturers are doubling the mpg of their new vehicles, but they are cutting the size of all current gas tanks by half. ------- You see, it defeats the f******g purpose.
|
Derath Ellecon
Washburne Holdings Situation: Normal
2248
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 19:56:00 -
[1660] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Tippia wrote:Derath Ellecon wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Derath Ellecon wrote:with 3 T1 trimarks I can only get an obelisk slightly higher on EHP than before. The only reason I find this to be an issue is that it seems in many other areas of rebalance, ships have been balanced to account for some of the power creep in recent years, while one ship most susceptible (a freighter with no offensive capabilities) is seeing too much of a reduction. try using hull rigs, since they provide more EHP. They aren't on the market yet on SiSi it seems. Nor could I find the new jump fuel rigs. Are the BPOs in? It would be a round-about way, but stillGǪ nope. only thing we know about them are what's in that pastebin link.
I guess my main beef is that unless they were planning on actually nerfing freighters, it would seem that I should be able to get back to where I was with some combination of rigs.
For example, I should be able to use some combination of rigs to basically get back to where my Obelisk was pre-rigs. Then If I chose to, I could get an even better tank, at the expense of cargo (which helps counteract the power creep of gankers in recent years) OR larger cargo at the expense of EHP.
Right now at least I cannot find a combination of rigs that gets me back to a balanced state of where my freighter is now.
Now if the goal was an actual nerf (who knows the freighter balance pass may have chopped out cargo even without the rig idea) then so be it. It just seems like this was pitched as a buff to freighters when it really doesn't seem to be.
Granted it is hard to know without a working EFT or all available rigs at least available on SiSi. |
|
Retar Aveymone
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
378
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 19:57:00 -
[1661] - Quote
Vincintius Agrippa wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Vincintius Agrippa wrote:As for fuel rigs: That like saying "This rig reduces the capacitor need need of entering warp, but decreases warp speed". it's not like saying that at all No, but it is a good approximation of most people attitudes toward it. Perhaps this is a better one: Starting June, car manufacturers are doubling the mpg of their new vehicles, but they are cutting the size of all current gas tanks by half. ------- You see, it defeats the f******g purpose. gas isn't free |
Vincintius Agrippa
F L O O D
41
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 19:57:00 -
[1662] - Quote
I suppose, some large alliances with good enough logistics could make it work, but for everyone else not so much. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5666
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 19:59:00 -
[1663] - Quote
Retar Aveymone wrote:Vincintius Agrippa wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Vincintius Agrippa wrote:As for fuel rigs: That like saying "This rig reduces the capacitor need need of entering warp, but decreases warp speed". it's not like saying that at all No, but it is a good approximation of most people attitudes toward it. Perhaps this is a better one: Starting June, car manufacturers are doubling the mpg of their new vehicles, but they are cutting the size of all current gas tanks by half. ------- You see, it defeats the f******g purpose. gas isn't free Exactly, the same trip is costing you half as much... which in this case is exactly the point, not increasing your range. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
15615
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 20:00:00 -
[1664] - Quote
maths can be pretty hard "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!" |
Derath Ellecon
Washburne Holdings Situation: Normal
2248
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 20:02:00 -
[1665] - Quote
Vincintius Agrippa wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Vincintius Agrippa wrote:As for fuel rigs: That like saying "This rig reduces the capacitor need need of entering warp, but decreases warp speed". it's not like saying that at all No, but it is a good approximation of most people attitudes toward it. Perhaps this is a better one: Starting June, car manufacturers are doubling the mpg of their new vehicles, but they are cutting the size of all current gas tanks by half. ------- You see, it defeats the f******g purpose.
Except that it doesn't. You still spend less on fuel.
And to use the car analogy, in general car manufacturers seem to size a tank to go a certain distance. Regardless of MPG most vehicles seem to have around a 400-600mile range per tank.
JF will be about the same. They will be able to jump the same number of LY per tank. But it will cost less since it is burning less fuel. I don't see a problem with that. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
64
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 20:02:00 -
[1666] - Quote
Retar Aveymone wrote:Vincintius Agrippa wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Vincintius Agrippa wrote:As for fuel rigs: That like saying "This rig reduces the capacitor need need of entering warp, but decreases warp speed". it's not like saying that at all No, but it is a good approximation of most people attitudes toward it. Perhaps this is a better one: Starting June, car manufacturers are doubling the mpg of their new vehicles, but they are cutting the size of all current gas tanks by half. ------- You see, it defeats the f******g purpose. gas isn't free
gas, grass or a$$. nobody rides for free
And yes, the could cut the size of the tank even if they increased the MPG. They aren't saying you can go further on one tank of gas, just that the car is more efficient at going the same distance as before. MPG is different than Distance to Empty |
Vincintius Agrippa
F L O O D
41
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 20:04:00 -
[1667] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Retar Aveymone wrote:Vincintius Agrippa wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Vincintius Agrippa wrote:As for fuel rigs: That like saying "This rig reduces the capacitor need need of entering warp, but decreases warp speed". it's not like saying that at all No, but it is a good approximation of most people attitudes toward it. Perhaps this is a better one: Starting June, car manufacturers are doubling the mpg of their new vehicles, but they are cutting the size of all current gas tanks by half. ------- You see, it defeats the f******g purpose. gas isn't free Exactly, the same trip is costing you half as much... which in this case is exactly the point, not increasing your range.
I'd rather have a large gas tank and better gas mileage :) |
Dave Stark
5940
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 20:04:00 -
[1668] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:maths can be pretty hard i liked maths better when it involved numbers.
it became the devil when writing an equation was like writing an essay in greek. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22083
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 20:05:00 -
[1669] - Quote
Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:bulk heads OP?? waaah?? OK just caught up your earlier convo. don't want to get too much into it except if they were so OP why is it that ships which have their greatest amount of hp in the hull(orca's) still will shield tank the majority of the time....... The only purpose bulkheads even serve atm is to just be a giant buffer. This brings me to the suggestion i made on the hull rigs forum about creating an ORE logi ship that gives a bonus to remote hull reps since their is NO TIME REASONABLE way to repair hulls outside of stations. Well, yes. His argument is basically GÇ£onoz, look at this large bonus! If we don't compare it to anything relevant it looks really big on its own! OMGZ OP!GÇ¥ Never mind that it's a pretty tiny bonus and that anything even remotely overpowered instantly shows up everywhere. Reality can be such a drag when you're making baseless assumptions after all.
Quote:So can we all agree just to tell CCP don't push this update and leave the freighters alone? Yes. Although I'm warming up to the lowslot ideaGǪ
Quote:Not necessarily. the only one to receive a cargo boost was the tyra or badger II. the rest had a cargo reduction or didn't move while all lost a mid slot Fair enough, but then, it was a rebalance and a reshuffling of roles, and not just an indy buff. Granted, I might be a bit over-neutral since I can fly anything and don't care which is better at what, but I felt there was more room for fitting for purpose after the change.
Quote:I understand that but it still doesn't change the fact a velocity bonus is pointless on this ship if it's supposed to be the gtfo ship. Maybe burning back to gate in low? IDK. It's a minmatar ship. If it doesn't go fast, the tape will peel off before it gets there. It's speed bonus or sucking vacuum! 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
5940
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 20:06:00 -
[1670] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Quote:So can we all agree just to tell CCP don't push this update and leave the freighters alone? Yes. Although I'm warming up to the lowslot ideaGǪ bad tippia. no. no low slots. |
|
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
64
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 20:13:00 -
[1671] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Tippia wrote:Quote:So can we all agree just to tell CCP don't push this update and leave the freighters alone? Yes. Although I'm warming up to the lowslot ideaGǪ bad tippia. no. no low slots.
Don't fear the lowslots Dave. They too will come at a cost and we'll get another hundred pages of tears from people who can't do the math. Probably a pretty severe nerf to base stats. But the level of real flexibility should vastly outweigh changes to the base stats. Far more so than all this BS related to a discussion about rigs alone.
At some point these ships have to come into the same realm as all other ships in the game. Either leave them alone (change is bad) or rebalance them from the ground up. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22083
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 20:14:00 -
[1672] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Tippia wrote:Quote:So can we all agree just to tell CCP don't push this update and leave the freighters alone? Yes. Although I'm warming up to the lowslot ideaGǪ bad tippia. no. no low slots. WeeellGǪ it all hinges on the idea that they'll stay at 0+0 CPU and grid, and that the modules that can be used will be restricted that way. This creates a much smaller pool of modifications that can happen and much smaller counter-balancing nerfs. It might even be possible to almost retain a sensible middle-ground while still allowing for specific (non-excessive) boosts. 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. |
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
116
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 20:15:00 -
[1673] - Quote
I like the lowslot idea.
Other than the fact that it's cheaper, it's also more versatile, and allows you to change your freighter for the task.. re-rigging really isn't an option with Capital Rigs :p
I mean I need to move a LOT of crap.. Cargo.. On the way back I'm not moving much, but it's worth a fair bit.. Tank.. Gotta get it done faster ? Agility..
I won't miss the loss of warpspeed rigs as an option.. though I think adding a warpspeed low-slot item, would open up a lot of gameplay options.. if the penalty was right.. |
Dave Stark
5940
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 20:18:00 -
[1674] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Tippia wrote:Quote:So can we all agree just to tell CCP don't push this update and leave the freighters alone? Yes. Although I'm warming up to the lowslot ideaGǪ bad tippia. no. no low slots. Don't fear the lowslots Dave. They too will come at a cost and we'll get another hundred pages of tears from people who can't do the math. Probably a pretty severe nerf to base stats. But the level of real flexibility should vastly outweigh changes to the base stats. Far more so than all this BS related to a discussion about rigs alone. At some point these ships have to come into the same realm as all other ships in the game. Either leave them alone (change is bad) or rebalance them from the ground up.
i honestly don't think freighters need touching. they do what they were intended to do fine, the variation between races is good. there's no need to give them fittings, of any kind.
they're probably the most well balanced ship class we have in eve in their current state. they don't need flexibility, they have one job; they move junk from A to B. a job that they do remarkably well. |
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
116
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 20:19:00 -
[1675] - Quote
Tippia wrote: WeeellGǪ it all hinges on the idea that they'll stay at 0+0 CPU and grid, and that the modules that can be used will be restricted that way. This creates a much smaller pool of modifications that can happen and much smaller counter-balancing nerfs. It might even be possible to almost retain a sensible middle-ground while still allowing for specific (non-excessive) boosts.
I'll be honest.. they can nerf my Freighter HP into the ground if they let me fit a DCUII to gain it back.. Here's why..
I'm actually awake when I move my freighter, so I can turn it on.. others aren't, so not my problem. Also, it lets me fit the ship for the need.. I don't need huge tank if I'm just moving a lot of m3 of crap.. On the other hand I might move something of value, and want 2x Bulkhead and a DCUII..
In any case the true tank REQUIRES you to be there. Awake and alert. Making afk hauling still viable, but at much more diminished returns or higher risk. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1564
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 20:25:00 -
[1676] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Dirk MacGirk wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Tippia wrote:Quote:So can we all agree just to tell CCP don't push this update and leave the freighters alone? Yes. Although I'm warming up to the lowslot ideaGǪ bad tippia. no. no low slots. Don't fear the lowslots Dave. They too will come at a cost and we'll get another hundred pages of tears from people who can't do the math. Probably a pretty severe nerf to base stats. But the level of real flexibility should vastly outweigh changes to the base stats. Far more so than all this BS related to a discussion about rigs alone. At some point these ships have to come into the same realm as all other ships in the game. Either leave them alone (change is bad) or rebalance them from the ground up. i honestly don't think freighters need touching. they do what they were intended to do fine, the variation between races is good. there's no need to give them fittings, of any kind. they're probably the most well balanced ship class we have in eve in their current state. they don't need flexibility, they have one job; they move junk from A to B. a job that they do remarkably well.
u could remove racial freighters and make one ORE freighter. wouldnt change much. same with all haulers. 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
5940
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 20:27:00 -
[1677] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:u could remove racial freighters and make one ORE freighter. wouldnt change much. same with all haulers.
too much hassle.
besides, the variation between races gives freighters "choice" as it is. especially since cross training for freighters is trivial now. |
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
116
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 20:31:00 -
[1678] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:u could remove racial freighters and make one ORE freighter. wouldnt change much. same with all haulers. too much hassle. besides, the variation between races gives freighters "choice" as it is. especially since cross training for freighters is trivial now. Also the Provi/Ark is Sexy. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1565
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 20:32:00 -
[1679] - Quote
Sniper Smith wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:u could remove racial freighters and make one ORE freighter. wouldnt change much. same with all haulers. too much hassle. besides, the variation between races gives freighters "choice" as it is. especially since cross training for freighters is trivial now. Also the Provi/Ark is Sexy.
so sexy...and the only one i dnt have :( 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" |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22086
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 20:46:00 -
[1680] - Quote
Sniper Smith wrote:I'll be honest.. they can nerf my Freighter HP into the ground if they let me fit a DCUII to gain it back.. Here's why..
I'm actually awake when I move my freighter, so I can turn it on.. others aren't, so not my problem. Also, it lets me fit the ship for the need.. I don't need huge tank if I'm just moving a lot of m3 of crap.. On the other hand I might move something of value, and want 2x Bulkhead and a DCUII..
In any case the true tank REQUIRES you to be there. Awake and alert. Making afk hauling still viable, but at much more diminished returns or higher risk. Good point. I suppose the baseline would then be something along the lines of DCUII, Expander II, Bulkhead II. HmmGǪ the problem is that we get this:
GÇó Replacing expander (losing 22% cargo from baseline) with a bulkhead means you get 50% more hull EHP at max tank. GÇó Replacing it with an istab gives 20% faster align, only 25% more hull EHP GÇó Replacing it with a WCS gives 25% more hull EHP and you're now safe from a single long point. Yay. GÇó Ditching the bulkhead (-17% hull EHP and +12% cargo from baseline) for another expander gives you 44% more cargo. GÇó Ditching both the bulkhead and DCU for full cargo gives you 80% less hull EHP and 84% more cargo than baseline.
It's a bit swingy and the variance comes at a very low cost. We have a 130 percentage point difference between maximum and minimum tank and 106pp between max and min cargo. And we still have an absolute upper bound for cargo capacity of 1.3M m-¦, so the maximum baseline for cargo has to be 700k m-¦ (which in practice means that everyone + dog will fly around with just over 1MGǪ). If we go by the results of the OP, the maximum CCP wants to see is much less GÇö somewhere around 1.1M GÇö which would put the baseline at 590k (i.e. 848k with one extra expander). 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. |
|
|
|
|
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 |