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) |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1088
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:27:00 -
[2131] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Walter Hart White wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Alexis Nightwish wrote:Thanks for the tables. I personally think the numbers look great. If gankers complain they can HTFU and equip a ship scanner. The fact that anyone thinks they can say that in this thread, where the freighter pilots literally just cried their way to an EHP buff, is beyond hilarious. People like you don't get to talk about HTFU, you don't even know what it is. This is so precious, HTFU. I reiterate, the people who cried their way out of a nerf don't have a leg to stand on if they try to say that.
What if we were not crying and still think taking a ship scanner with you makes sense since it's what you would use to check the tank of any other ship before you ganked it? |
Ines Tegator
Towels R Us
460
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:28:00 -
[2132] - Quote
I approve of the updated stats (EHP especially). That is all. - Mission Overhaul - Bridging the PVP / PVE Gap - -áIf the game stops teaching people to fear lowsec, maybe people will start going there? |
Angelina Duvolle
Homeworld Technologies
38
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:29:00 -
[2133] - Quote
RE: the adaptive nano thing.
They wouldn't be the best tank at all.
That said, you might be hauling something where you don't want to give up all your cargo, or can't due to it's size. In that case, you might throw on some adaptive nano's.
That's a trade-off, cargo for survivability, and it's not a bad thing. |
Wulfy Johnson
NorCorp Security
43
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:33:00 -
[2134] - Quote
Hauling next generation - Move current JF's over to T1, and give us new T2 freighters and JF's with full out fitting capability, and options into roles. |
Daenika
MMO-Mechanics.com
104
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:40:00 -
[2135] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Ok, new tables: GÇó New alignment times depending on base and a more balanced fit (red = worse than Rubicon, Green = better than rubicon). GÇó The full gamut of Tank vs. Cargo (red = worse than both base and Rubicon stats; yellow = better than Rubicon, worse than base; blue = better than base, worse than Rubicon; green = better than both). I haven't really done any other combos because the other sensible modules (CPR, istab, hacc) either have no effect at all or no effect that freighter pilots care about. tl;dr: the only ones who have anything to complain about anything anymore are gankersGǪ
Erm...
Since when to Bulkheads reduce cargo space? I thought that was just istabs. Bulkheads appear to only have 3 effect: increased hull HP, reduced top speed, (slight) increase to inertia.
Are they changing that? Or did you accidentally include the istab cargo reduction in your numbers? |
Valterra Craven
248
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:40:00 -
[2136] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Adaptive Nano Platings are hardly even worth talking about.
Well in the sense that your correction was incorrect it is worth talking about. (Been there done that, same thread even!) |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1089
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:41:00 -
[2137] - Quote
Wulfy Johnson wrote:Hauling next generation - Move current JF's over to T1, and give us new T2 freighters and JF's with full out fitting capability, and options into roles.
And stats nerfed to **** to make sure they are not unbalanced. |
Valterra Craven
248
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:42:00 -
[2138] - Quote
Daenika wrote:Tippia wrote:Ok, new tables: GÇó New alignment times depending on base and a more balanced fit (red = worse than Rubicon, Green = better than rubicon). GÇó The full gamut of Tank vs. Cargo (red = worse than both base and Rubicon stats; yellow = better than Rubicon, worse than base; blue = better than base, worse than Rubicon; green = better than both). I haven't really done any other combos because the other sensible modules (CPR, istab, hacc) either have no effect at all or no effect that freighter pilots care about. tl;dr: the only ones who have anything to complain about anything anymore are gankersGǪ Erm... Since when to Bulkheads reduce cargo space? I thought that was just istabs. Bulkheads appear to only have 3 effect: increased hull HP, reduced top speed, (slight) increase to inertia. Are they changing that? Or did you accidentally include the istab cargo reduction in your numbers?
Well thats a good point actually. Bulkheads right now have a -11% speed penality... it was the rigs that were changed to hull penalty... my bet is that now that you just pointed it out it gets changed.
|
Dave Stark
5965
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:43:00 -
[2139] - Quote
Daenika wrote:Tippia wrote:Ok, new tables: GÇó New alignment times depending on base and a more balanced fit (red = worse than Rubicon, Green = better than rubicon). GÇó The full gamut of Tank vs. Cargo (red = worse than both base and Rubicon stats; yellow = better than Rubicon, worse than base; blue = better than base, worse than Rubicon; green = better than both). I haven't really done any other combos because the other sensible modules (CPR, istab, hacc) either have no effect at all or no effect that freighter pilots care about. tl;dr: the only ones who have anything to complain about anything anymore are gankersGǪ Erm... Since when to Bulkheads reduce cargo space? I thought that was just istabs. Bulkheads appear to only have 3 effect: increased hull HP, reduced top speed, (slight) increase to inertia. Are they changing that? Or did you accidentally include the istab cargo reduction in your numbers?
since kronos, see the hp rig thread for details on bulkheads being changed. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22121
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:43:00 -
[2140] - Quote
Daenika wrote:Erm...
Since when to Bulkheads reduce cargo space? I thought that was just istabs. Bulkheads appear to only have 3 effect: increased hull HP, reduced top speed, (slight) increase to inertia.
Are they changing that? Or did you accidentally include the istab cargo reduction in your numbers? They're changing it:
GÇ£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.GÇ¥ 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. |
|
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1089
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:44:00 -
[2141] - Quote
Daenika wrote:Tippia wrote:Ok, new tables: GÇó New alignment times depending on base and a more balanced fit (red = worse than Rubicon, Green = better than rubicon). GÇó The full gamut of Tank vs. Cargo (red = worse than both base and Rubicon stats; yellow = better than Rubicon, worse than base; blue = better than base, worse than Rubicon; green = better than both). I haven't really done any other combos because the other sensible modules (CPR, istab, hacc) either have no effect at all or no effect that freighter pilots care about. tl;dr: the only ones who have anything to complain about anything anymore are gankersGǪ Erm... Since when to Bulkheads reduce cargo space? I thought that was just istabs. Bulkheads appear to only have 3 effect: increased hull HP, reduced top speed, (slight) increase to inertia. Are they changing that? Or did you accidentally include the istab cargo reduction in your numbers?
They are changing that. I'm pretty sure it was in the original OP but got removed with the new version. |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
33
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:45:00 -
[2142] - Quote
Daenika wrote:Tippia wrote:Ok, new tables: GÇó New alignment times depending on base and a more balanced fit (red = worse than Rubicon, Green = better than rubicon). GÇó The full gamut of Tank vs. Cargo (red = worse than both base and Rubicon stats; yellow = better than Rubicon, worse than base; blue = better than base, worse than Rubicon; green = better than both). I haven't really done any other combos because the other sensible modules (CPR, istab, hacc) either have no effect at all or no effect that freighter pilots care about. tl;dr: the only ones who have anything to complain about anything anymore are gankersGǪ Erm... Since when to Bulkheads reduce cargo space? I thought that was just istabs. Bulkheads appear to only have 3 effect: increased hull HP, reduced top speed, (slight) increase to inertia. Are they changing that? Or did you accidentally include the istab cargo reduction in your numbers? Changed that weeks ago. Gankers cried about that, so they changed it. :) |
Ines Tegator
Towels R Us
461
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:46:00 -
[2143] - Quote
Tippia wrote:They're changing it: GÇ£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.GÇ¥
For the record, I'm completely OK with this change. The limiting factor on cargo in highsec is the Cost/Profit threshold for gankers, not actual cargo space. Raising EHP lets me carry more / more valuable cargo then raw space would. - Mission Overhaul - Bridging the PVP / PVE Gap - -áIf the game stops teaching people to fear lowsec, maybe people will start going there? |
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS type X
158
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:46:00 -
[2144] - Quote
deleted Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6445
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:49:00 -
[2145] - Quote
Walter Hart White wrote: Changed that weeks ago. Gankers cried about that, so they changed it. :)
That, or the CSM pointed out that it needed to be done thanks to the Orca. Which is what Fozzie referenced in the post before the edit. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Vincintius Agrippa
F L O O D
45
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:50:00 -
[2146] - Quote
Shizuken wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
The base cargo capacity of Freighters is being decreased so that a set of three Tech Two Expanded Cargoholds adds 21-25% cargo above the previous maximum values. For Jump Freighters, three T2 Expanders will increase cargo capacity by 1-2%. This means that Freighters can get significantly higher maximum capacity than before using modules, and we're increasing the volume of packaged capital ships (to 1.3 million m3) and unpackaged station containers (to 2 million m3) to compensate.
I am still not sure why CCP is so afraid of caps in highsec, especially even unassembled ones. It would make trading them easier.
Is the cap ban before they changed the old aoe doommsdays? if so then i understand. Cant have titans doing supernovas' on the jita undock.
But now, doomsdays are "aimed" weapons.I dont see why not now.
Ofcourse If they did naturally, using doomsdays in hisec would be a criminal offence and youd get alpha'd by concord. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22121
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:51:00 -
[2147] - Quote
Oh, and for those thinking that armour-tanking is a good ideaGǪ
Providence: gives up 17.9% tank for 160k m-¦. Charon: gives up 6.3% tank for 171k m-¦. Obelisk: gives up 15.1% tank for 162k m-¦. Fenrir: gives up 9.8% tank for 160k m-¦. Ark: gives up 23.2% tank for 50k m-¦. Rhea: gives up 4.7% tank for 53k m-¦. Anshar: gives up 16.7% tank for 51k m-¦. Nomad: gives up 7.7% tank for 49k m-¦.
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
45
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:52:00 -
[2148] - Quote
Celly S wrote:Dersen Lowery wrote: They're already used to taking measures to avoid getting caught ^^This^^ as well as what the other poster said about freighters and fleets. I almost never tell anyone when I'm flying my JF until after I'm where I need to be... like my hairdresser, "only my cyno alt knows for sure" o/ Celly Smunt
Oh, I get your name now lol. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
15622
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:53:00 -
[2149] - Quote
Vincintius Agrippa wrote:Shizuken wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
The base cargo capacity of Freighters is being decreased so that a set of three Tech Two Expanded Cargoholds adds 21-25% cargo above the previous maximum values. For Jump Freighters, three T2 Expanders will increase cargo capacity by 1-2%. This means that Freighters can get significantly higher maximum capacity than before using modules, and we're increasing the volume of packaged capital ships (to 1.3 million m3) and unpackaged station containers (to 2 million m3) to compensate.
I am still not sure why CCP is so afraid of caps in highsec, especially even unassembled ones. It would make trading them easier. Is the cap ban before they changed the old aoe doommsdays? if so then i understand. Cant have titans doing supernovas' on the jita undock. But now, doomsdays are "aimed" weapons.I dont see why not now. Ofcourse If they did naturally, using doomsdays in hisec would be a criminal offence and youd get alpha'd by concord.
The capital ban is to stop large powerblocs trivially dominating high sec.
If the ban was removed, then the face of hi-sec would change overnight. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!" |
Ines Tegator
Towels R Us
461
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:58:00 -
[2150] - Quote
Vincintius Agrippa wrote:
Ofcourse If they did naturally, using doomsdays in hisec would be a criminal offence and youd get alpha'd by concord.
It would almost be worth the pain of nullsec alliances wardeccing and extorting everyone in sight just to see a few CONCORD / Titan killmails :P
Almost. - Mission Overhaul - Bridging the PVP / PVE Gap - -áIf the game stops teaching people to fear lowsec, maybe people will start going there? |
|
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
33
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:00:00 -
[2151] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Vincintius Agrippa wrote:Shizuken wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
The base cargo capacity of Freighters is being decreased so that a set of three Tech Two Expanded Cargoholds adds 21-25% cargo above the previous maximum values. For Jump Freighters, three T2 Expanders will increase cargo capacity by 1-2%. This means that Freighters can get significantly higher maximum capacity than before using modules, and we're increasing the volume of packaged capital ships (to 1.3 million m3) and unpackaged station containers (to 2 million m3) to compensate.
I am still not sure why CCP is so afraid of caps in highsec, especially even unassembled ones. It would make trading them easier. Is the cap ban before they changed the old aoe doommsdays? if so then i understand. Cant have titans doing supernovas' on the jita undock. But now, doomsdays are "aimed" weapons.I dont see why not now. Ofcourse If they did naturally, using doomsdays in hisec would be a criminal offence and youd get alpha'd by concord. The capital ban is to stop large powerblocs trivially dominating high sec. If the ban was removed, then the face of hi-sec would change overnight. Well make it so you can't assemble capital in hi sec. Done, fixed. That way people can trade ones in stations/hi sec but not fly ones. |
Wulfy Johnson
NorCorp Security
43
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:00:00 -
[2152] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Wulfy Johnson wrote:Hauling next generation - Move current JF's over to T1, and give us new T2 freighters and JF's with full out fitting capability, and options into roles. And stats nerfed to **** to make sure they are not unbalanced.
Of course, but moving into specialization and roles, and options to gimp your probably very expensive ship at your own pleasure. Also gives that line of gameplay more than 2 months of skilltraining.. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1346
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:04:00 -
[2153] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
The fact that anyone thinks they can say that in this thread, where the freighter pilots literally just cried their way to an EHP buff, is beyond hilarious.
People like you don't get to talk about HTFU, you don't even know what it is.
Sorry Kaarous, but you are plain out wrong here. The only way you don't see an EHP Nerf you see a Cargo Nerf compared to current instead. So it's not an 'EHP Buff'. It's a choice between the 'same' cargo as current (Actually a bit more), and lower EHP, or lower cargo than current but more EHP. That's not 'crying your way to a buff'. That's a balanced situation where the player actually gets some choice over where their ship strengths lie. |
Gevlon Goblin
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
212
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:04:00 -
[2154] - Quote
Many people mentioned that Armor freighters will be ahead of shield ones, but the situation is worse than what a raw EHP calculation would say. Shields have a 0% EM resist hole. In the OP resists were mentioned, but only Nomad gets EM resist. On the other hand the armor has no such resist hole. Any reasonable ganker would open with a few tornadoes with faction EMP L to eat the shield and then the Taloses finish the armor and hull.
My point is that it takes about half as many ships to remove the shield of a Charon than to remove the armor of a Providence.
My blog: greedygoblin.blogspot.com |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6446
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:08:00 -
[2155] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
The fact that anyone thinks they can say that in this thread, where the freighter pilots literally just cried their way to an EHP buff, is beyond hilarious.
People like you don't get to talk about HTFU, you don't even know what it is.
Sorry Kaarous, but you are plain out wrong here. The only way you don't see an EHP Nerf you see a Cargo Nerf compared to current instead. So it's not an 'EHP Buff'. It's a choice between the 'same' cargo as current (Actually a bit more), and lower EHP, or lower cargo than current but more EHP. That's not 'crying your way to a buff'. That's a balanced situation where the player actually gets some choice over where their ship strengths lie.
Yeah, that's not how it turned out.
It was originally an overall nerf to freighter capabilities.
Much crying ensued.
Now it's not really, and easily circumvented with a few million isk worth of modules.
Granted, I still get what I want, and I was always going to since cargo extenders of any variety take away hitpoints. But the enormous increase to shield and armor hitpoints makes that not anywhere near as painful as they should be, by rights.
IMO, if you can achieve more than one million m3 of cargo, 150k EHP should be your cap under such a circumstance. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Valterra Craven
248
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:08:00 -
[2156] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Oh, and for those thinking that armour-tanking is a good ideaGǪ
Providence: gives up 33.1pp tank for 160k m-¦. Charon: gives up 35.6pp tank for 171k m-¦. Obelisk: gives up 38.8pp tank for 162k m-¦. Fenrir: gives up 26.0pp tank for 160k m-¦. Ark: gives up 18.4pp tank for 50k m-¦. Rhea: gives up 36.7pp tank for 53k m-¦. Anshar: gives up 36.6pp tank for 51k m-¦. Nomad: gives up 27.9pp tank for 49k m-¦.
To clarify: if the providence armour tanks, it gets a 33.1 percentage points lower tank increase (18.2% rather than 51.3%) than if it had chosen to hull tank, but doesn't lose the 30% cargo space that a full hull tank costs.
Based on this it would appear that EHP should likely be adjusted some... It dosn't make sense that the fenrir would get 10pp more tank than a Charon for only losing 9km3, Course the Obelisk looks really bad for some strange reason. Couldn't this be balanced to all of them be around 30% even? |
Yumiko Shaku
Trigger's Broom PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
5
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:09:00 -
[2157] - Quote
Only issue I see is CPU you said yourself in the post that you can see JF's fitting cap power relays, but each CPR is 6cpu with perfect fitting and your giving it a base 5 CPU so even with skills your only gonna be able to fit 1 |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22122
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:09:00 -
[2158] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote:Many people mentioned that Armor freighters will be ahead of shield ones, but the situation is worse than what a raw EHP calculation would say. Shields have a 0% EM resist hole. In the OP resists were mentioned, but only Nomad gets EM resist. On the other hand the armor has no such resist hole. Any reasonable ganker would open with a few tornadoes with Faction EMP L to eat the shield and then the Taloses finish the armor and hull. And for any ship that is trying to armour tank, they'll just open up with Fusion M and hit the armour resist hole. And since the poor sod decided to fit a horrible tank rather than one that protects him, he'll explode very quickly.
Valterra Craven wrote:Based on this it would appear that EHP should likely be adjusted some... It dosn't make sense that the fenrir would get 10pp more tank than a Charon for only losing 9km3, Course the Obelisk looks really bad for some strange reason. Couldn't this be balanced to all of them be around 30% even? Nah. The lesson is simply that, just because you can fit something doesn't mean it's a good idea. The Obelisk looks really bad because it's a particularly bad idea to try to tank it with armour. Conclusion: don't try to armour tank. 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. |
Gaijin Lanis
Astral Silence Surely You're Joking
16
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:13:00 -
[2159] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Vincintius Agrippa wrote:Shizuken wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
The base cargo capacity of Freighters is being decreased so that a set of three Tech Two Expanded Cargoholds adds 21-25% cargo above the previous maximum values. For Jump Freighters, three T2 Expanders will increase cargo capacity by 1-2%. This means that Freighters can get significantly higher maximum capacity than before using modules, and we're increasing the volume of packaged capital ships (to 1.3 million m3) and unpackaged station containers (to 2 million m3) to compensate.
I am still not sure why CCP is so afraid of caps in highsec, especially even unassembled ones. It would make trading them easier. Is the cap ban before they changed the old aoe doommsdays? if so then i understand. Cant have titans doing supernovas' on the jita undock. But now, doomsdays are "aimed" weapons.I dont see why not now. Ofcourse If they did naturally, using doomsdays in hisec would be a criminal offence and youd get alpha'd by concord. The capital ban is to stop large powerblocs trivially dominating high sec. If the ban was removed, then the face of hi-sec would change overnight. mmm, no. The only thing caps would be able to shoot at are war targets (as concord would blap them for shooting anything else). Meaning all that would happen is the powerblocs would be able to have a (very public) pissing contest over who can use the trade hubs. Which, if anything, would make jita more interesting, as its the only system/node with a backbone capable of handling a powerbloc fight without 99.9% time dilation.
Not to mention, if you're concerned about powerblocs taking control of the trade hubs, declaring war on anyone not in a NPC corporation, then demanding regular tribute in order to release said war declaration, Marmite collective already does that without capitals. So the only difference is, possibly, marmite collective might have some actual competition. |
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
14
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:14:00 -
[2160] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Oh, and for those thinking that armour-tanking is a good ideaGǪ
Providence: gives up 33.1pp tank for 160k m-¦. Charon: gives up 35.6pp tank for 171k m-¦. Obelisk: gives up 38.8pp tank for 162k m-¦. Fenrir: gives up 26.0pp tank for 160k m-¦. Ark: gives up 18.4pp tank for 50k m-¦. Rhea: gives up 36.7pp tank for 53k m-¦. Anshar: gives up 36.6pp tank for 51k m-¦. Nomad: gives up 27.9pp tank for 49k m-¦.
To clarify: if the providence armour tanks, it gets a 33.1 percentage points lower tank increase (18.2% rather than 51.3%) than if it had chosen to hull tank, but doesn't lose the 30% cargo space that a full hull tank costs.
So have you corrected the chart now for the calculations we talked earlier about? or are they still off? |
|
|
|
|
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 |