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) |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
654
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 01:21:00 -
[2251] - Quote
TigerXtrm wrote:Ben Hatton wrote:Rowells wrote:Has anyone run the numbers on the total value a fully tanked a anshar can hold now? 121,167 m3 with Bulkhead IIs giving it 662,692 EHP http://xyjax.com/optimizer_kronos/ With max skills it's giving me 712,327 EHP Flying fortress trucking its way to Jita! Sorry, meant to know what value the ship can hold in isk before it's profitable to gank. |
Chandaris
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
579
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 01:23:00 -
[2252] - Quote
Heard about the recent update, sounds great.
Honestly I think they should give these ships rigs and lowslots.. outside of a jump drive, these ships are utterly defenseless.. with any combination of rigs and lowslots, they're still pretty much defeneless.. |
Delhaven
Vicis Inter Astrum I'd Rather Be Roaming
45
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 01:34:00 -
[2253] - Quote
Rowells wrote:TigerXtrm wrote:Ben Hatton wrote:Rowells wrote:Has anyone run the numbers on the total value a fully tanked a anshar can hold now? 121,167 m3 with Bulkhead IIs giving it 662,692 EHP http://xyjax.com/optimizer_kronos/ With max skills it's giving me 712,327 EHP Flying fortress trucking its way to Jita! Sorry, meant to know what value the ship can hold in isk before it's profitable to gank. Plug it into the site. The values are at the bottom. |
Catherine Laartii
State Protectorate Caldari State
186
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 02:40:00 -
[2254] - Quote
What's the reasoning for not allowing BOTH rigs and lows? Or making them, you know...normal with mids and highs and such too? |
Station Sitter
Heavy Star Industries
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 02:56:00 -
[2255] - Quote
Love the new changes a hell of a lot more. Thanks for listening to the community! |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
5
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 03:00:00 -
[2256] - Quote
Catherine Laartii wrote:What's the reasoning for not allowing BOTH rigs and lows? Or making them, you know...normal with mids and highs and such too?
why not just give it 8H 8M 8L 8 rig slots with 800 calibration 500cpu 500 powergrid and 6k shield armor and hull with a cargo size of 6000
any slots it gets will come out of its hull to compensate for the flexibility of fitting. And as its job is moving things from one location to another I'm not sure wtf you would use high slots or mid slots for as it has 2 important things hull tank and cargo space both are low slots and there's nothing in the mids or highs that would help with that. |
Iam Widdershins
project nemesis
859
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 03:26:00 -
[2257] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Lena Lazair wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:The numbers are now corrected in the OP. Can you confirm in contrast that the agility nerf to JFs is intentional? (from 0.05 to 0.0625)? It's intentional, although I have been seeing a few good arguments for reconsidering it in the thread so far. I love how so many people are so buttmad that Jump Freighters are getting nerfed, yet nobody can possibly wrap their heads around the idea that a ship that THEY FLY might be getting nerfed intentionally. Lobbying for your right to delete your signature |
PaulsAvatar
IXCO
4
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 03:31:00 -
[2258] - Quote
Delhaven wrote:Rowells wrote:TigerXtrm wrote:Ben Hatton wrote:Rowells wrote:Has anyone run the numbers on the total value a fully tanked a anshar can hold now? 121,167 m3 with Bulkhead IIs giving it 662,692 EHP http://xyjax.com/optimizer_kronos/ With max skills it's giving me 712,327 EHP Flying fortress trucking its way to Jita! Sorry, meant to know what value the ship can hold in isk before it's profitable to gank. Plug it into the site. The values are at the bottom.
Site looks very handy but I don't know if I trust the numbers. Right now it's saying that a freighter can only carry about a quarter million in goods before it starts becoming profitable to gank. Goes contrary to the idea of a billion being the max collateral that seems fairly standard to hauling corps.
I like the new changes. It doesn't cost me billions to get similar to what I have now, and actually gives me a fair amount of choice in setting it up and tuning it to my style, and I can cheaply and quickly change it if I want to.
+1 for new proposal. |
Ben Hatton
The Fifth Dimension
9
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 03:37:00 -
[2259] - Quote
PaulsAvatar wrote:
Site looks very handy but I don't know if I trust the numbers. Right now it's saying that a freighter can only carry about a quarter million in goods before it starts becoming profitable to gank. Goes contrary to the idea of a billion being the max collateral that seems fairly standard to hauling corps.
I like the new changes. It doesn't cost me billions to get similar to what I have now, and actually gives me a fair amount of choice in setting it up and tuning it to my style, and I can cheaply and quickly change it if I want to.
+1 for new proposal.
Unfortunately the 1 bill has been a false hope for a while since catalysts in the right numbers can gank freighters. The 1 bill was often based on using battle cruiser hulls |
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS type X
158
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 03:54:00 -
[2260] - Quote
The only concern that seems to exist is shield ships not having an option like adaptive nano plating. Perhaps a low slot option only available to freighter and JF's that is exactly the same but affects shields?
This would require only one new mod in the game. Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really. |
|
Axe Coldon
41
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 03:54:00 -
[2261] - Quote
CCP Fozzie,
Well the changes are good. Heard that alot. It concerns me there is no way to boost the shields of the shield tank freighters and everyone will be trading in their Caldari Freighters for Amarr.
Can you come up with some way to shield tank without messing up the balance. i.e. a special freighter only mod that does shield resistances instead of armor. Or add 1 midslot with super low power and cpu and then a mid version of adaptive nano.
I get racially the charon should have shield instead of armor but the armor tanked ones will be able to take best advantage of the change.
If you can't that's fine. 3 low slots are better then no slots. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
10027
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 03:59:00 -
[2262] - Quote
Nobody's going to try ganking a freighter that's carrying 250m. I carry that much in untanked T1 industrials at times (on an NPC alt) and I haven't been ganked yet, probably partially due to my use of bookmarks. "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
Ben Hatton
The Fifth Dimension
9
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 04:04:00 -
[2263] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:The only concern that seems to exist is shield ships not having an option like adaptive nano plating. Perhaps a low slot option only available to freighter and JF's that is exactly the same but affects shields?
This would require only one new mod in the game.
Each ship will have its positives and negatives, just as they currently do. Realistically, if you want tank, its gotta be bulkheads, cause real men hull tank haha. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
10027
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 04:05:00 -
[2264] - Quote
Adaptive nano plating is suboptimal even on the freighters that benefit the most from it. There's really no reason to use it almost ever except maybe if you're also using a High-Grade Slave set. "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
BEPOHNKA
Phoenix Company Force Northern Associates.
169
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 04:07:00 -
[2265] - Quote
The changes what have been made will be a,great add on! Thanks for hearing us out ccp! |
Nex Killer
Drunk3n Industry
66
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 04:18:00 -
[2266] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Nex Killer wrote:Fozzie can you still look into lower the amount of Capital Cargo Bays needed to build a freighter because they're losing so much of their base cargo. Traditionally lowering build costs has always, always been a Bad IdeaGäó because of patch speculation, market manip, etc. This may not be the case coming up due to the loss of perfect reprocessing but still I doubt they will do so. I don't see why they should.
The reason why I see they should change the build requirements is because they are losing a big chunk of their base stats. If carriers were to get a big boost in drone bay the build requirement should go up on them, if they lost a lot of drone bay they should loss some of the build requirement.
Here is an example of what I think they should do because of the change the Charon is losing 40% of its old base cargo, gaining 12% more shield, losing 25% armor, and losing 27% structure. The BPO should reflect the changes because a blueprint tells you how to build something and what you need end up with shouldn't have lost 40% of what the BPO said you only needed. Yes waste blah blah blah but waste is built into the BPO. So the BPO to build a Charon should be changed to something like this (prices from my ISK per Hour pull):
Part Name......................................Old......New..........Part Prices................Old Total.........................New Total Capital Cargo Bay........................105..........63.........$8,199,999.95..........$860,999,994.75...........$516,599,996.85 Capital Construction Parts...........51..........51.........$7,238,982.00..........$369,188,082.00...........$369,188,082.00 Capital Armor Plates.....................14..........10.........$8,499,999.99..........$118,999,999.86............$84,999,999.90 Capital Propulsion Engine...........11..........11.........$9,399,999.98..........$103,399,999.78...........$103,399,999.78
Capital Shield Emitter......................0..........33.........$9,499,000.00..........$-..................................... $313,467,000.00
Build Total:...............$1,452,588,076.39........$1,387,655,078.53
Total Change: $64,932,997.86 http://i.imgur.com/JdrLPLS.png - If you can't read it.
As you can see the Charon or any freighter never needed Capital Shield Emitter and with this change it now needs them so it can be built. With this change your only saving about 65M from the old build requirements but now makes sense. How I got the amount needed for the shield emitters is I just took I the new number needed for armor plates divided it by the 10 which is 1,500 HP per plate. So I took the Charon 50k shield and just divided it by 1,500 and got 33.333... so made it 33 Emitters needed for the build. I don't get how freighter never needed Capital Shield Emitters in the BPO they have shield yet in the BPO they only needed armor plates. Personally I think all BPO should go get a revamped and changed like drone BPO should require Robotics in them. |
Sentamon
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
1833
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 04:18:00 -
[2267] - Quote
Haha shield tanking your freighter.. Bad at Eve.
~ Professional Forum Alt -á~ |
Sturmwolke
573
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 04:38:00 -
[2268] - Quote
Pure gold. Thread of the year. |
Warr Akini
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
125
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 04:40:00 -
[2269] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:Eh... hate to say it, but who cares if it's harder to gank a freighter in high-sec anymore? If we're going to be able to build player star gates, then we're probably going to need a huge (and reliable) industrial and *logistics* base with which to do it. The concerns of the builders is going to outweigh the concerns of the anarchists.
To put it simply, suicide ganking freighters is small time banditry. The real goal in attacking freighters is to disrupt another alliance from building their stargate first. That's where the real money/action/impetus will be, IMHO.
My apologies for sounding a bit harsh and dismissive of your concerns, but freighters haven't had any meaningful ways of adapting their freighters to the environment except by CCP Fiat. Now they finally get a buff and some options.
tl;dr - A Commerce Raiding release will happen. No more ganking. It's time for real war.
I'm not sure where to start - the assumption that because ganking is undertaken by relatively less people that it's illegitimate, compounded by trying to denigrate "guerrilla war" (which is basically what suicide ganking is) versus "real war" (Ho Chi Minh is laughing at you now) and placating gankers with promises of a vague commerce raiding release - or the blatantly incorrect statement that freighters have no way of adapting to their environment (webbers/escort, intel/killboards, having any sort of friends, navigational tactics meant to confuse scouts following your freighter, risk management via controlling your cargo, not to mention the bevy of options jump freighters have) - or trying to assume that the stargate-building (the chevrons are locking) will be the one target ever for logistics disruption, which I don't even know why you brought up.
In short, I don't really see your point. |
Aiwha
Trans Secunda Nulli Secunda
747
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 04:46:00 -
[2270] - Quote
On the subject of Jump fuel conservation modules, is this JF only or will we be adding these to dread/carrier fits? We're winning the war if it says so on CAOD! -á
|
|
Amyclas Amatin
Northstar Cabal Tactical Narcotics Team
283
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 04:47:00 -
[2271] - Quote
My survey shows that half of EVE has partaken in the sweet nectar of ganking. For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/ High-Sec has a future, But do You? Buy a Mining Permit to Secure yours today. |
Jessica Danikov
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
342
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 04:48:00 -
[2272] - Quote
I must admit it feels a bit hacky to me. The whole shield vs. armor balance works nicely with 99% of the ships in EVE as they all have varying compliments of medium and low slots which naturally compete with other modules with other functions and the limited room that is available.
What Freighters really need is to be treated like proper, first class ships- Capital industrials that top the end of their ship line. Instead of asking what should we add to Freighters, we could give them a full compliment of highs, mids, lows, rigs, CPU and PG and then think what should we take away? How many slots should we balance on (regular industrials have up to 11)? Is a Cyno freighter really that bad? A cloak? What about smartbombs, webs, ewar, etc. etc.? Is there a good reason not to let some crazy individual try to make those modules work on a >1 billion ISK hull? The results would be hilarious however it turned out, as anyone who's flown a battle badger/itty V/rorqual/venture etc. can attest.
What's really missing from the proposal for me is the end goal- yes, we want to give players more choice when flying a freighter, yes, rigs were too permanent and didn't offer up enough choice. What hasn't been clear is the affect of offering that choice on balance- have the nerfs/buffs to freighters introduced by proposed changes been necessary evils due to how things were implemented, or is there a purposeful desire to reduce freighter effectiveness overall as part of granting the ability to narrowly surpass those abilities with specialization? With any changes, do we expect the 'average' fit to match the current baseline or not? |
Claudine va Tefairevoir
Pangalactic Frontline Supply Agency
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 05:56:00 -
[2273] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Claudine va Tefairevoir wrote:Victoria Sin wrote:vikari wrote:You are still nerfing the hell out of JFs....
over 5 seconds gained in alignment for every JF type, over 6 for most. You know with all 3 low slots being cargo expanders and that giving only 1-2% increase in cargo, you are forcing JFs to fit cargo expanders. It's to expensive to fly them, not too. So exactly how are we going to make up for the loss alignment time? I'm just curious to know why you care about align time at all? If you're jumping to low sec you should be immediately initiating warp to the gate and getting your cyno alt to triple web you so you insta-warp. You should then be docking at the first station you find in the next system and transferring your stuff into a regular freighter and then using that to haul with no more than around 2b worth of stuff in it each trip (gate-to-gate, not autopilot). I do that even if it's 20b, 10 trips. It takes so long to earn that much it's not problem to me if it takes days to move it. The way to keep your JF safe is just to have it in space for the absolute minimum amount of time. There's really no other strategy if CCP aren't going to allow it to have a tank commensurate with its cost. This. Max-Cargo JF and Max-Tank Freighter is the way to go. I never understood why tank on a JF should be important at all. if you are bumped off station or your cyno is killed while in jump, you JF would most likely die even with 2mln EHP. JF can't cyno into highsec, HTH.
? Of course they can not - who said so? But freighters are not going from Null or Low to High and are then magically transferred back. Sometimes they make return trips. |
Claudine va Tefairevoir
Pangalactic Frontline Supply Agency
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 06:00:00 -
[2274] - Quote
TigerXtrm wrote:Ben Hatton wrote:Rowells wrote:Has anyone run the numbers on the total value a fully tanked a anshar can hold now? 121,167 m3 with Bulkhead IIs giving it 662,692 EHP http://xyjax.com/optimizer_kronos/ With max skills it's giving me 712,327 EHP Flying fortress trucking its way to Jita!
840k with HG slaves and supporting hardwires |
Orny
Shipping Corporation Global ANZUS
7
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 06:05:00 -
[2275] - Quote
Any thoughts of a Super Freighter at any stage - Titan size, 25-30 Mill m3 capital components bay, 5 Mill m3 general cargo bay, and the ability to use jump drive without cyno at the other end - solo hauling low / Null only. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
654
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 06:10:00 -
[2276] - Quote
Claudine va Tefairevoir wrote:TigerXtrm wrote:Ben Hatton wrote:Rowells wrote:Has anyone run the numbers on the total value a fully tanked a anshar can hold now? 121,167 m3 with Bulkhead IIs giving it 662,692 EHP http://xyjax.com/optimizer_kronos/ With max skills it's giving me 712,327 EHP Flying fortress trucking its way to Jita! 840k with HG slaves and supporting hardwires plex hauling here I come |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium
5338
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 06:14:00 -
[2277] - Quote
Rowells wrote:plex hauling here I come
Erm GǪ wouldn't you be better off hauling PLEX in a blockade runner, since you have the cloak and an incredibly short align time and high warp speed?
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Dave Stark
5967
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 06:48:00 -
[2278] - Quote
Ramona Quimby wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Ramona Quimby wrote:all you who were saying if freighters were given rigs then everyone would be sorry because it would be a nerf. not sure if you noticed; but they did get a nerf. that's why there were 60 pages of whining, and ccp had to change it for low slots. Not sure if you noticed; but they didn't get a nerf at first. Rigs were a straight buff, with only sub-warp speed drawbacks, then you and all you the other fail easymode gankers whined, Fozzie made the mistake of listening to you, this thread ensued because the bear was poked.
they weren't even close to a straight buff, but you carry on telling yourself it was. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
654
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 06:53:00 -
[2279] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Rowells wrote:plex hauling here I come Erm GǪ wouldn't you be better off hauling PLEX in a blockade runner, since you have the cloak and an incredibly short align time and high warp speed? But then I can't collect tears as my cargo gets scanned by gankers |
Rena'Thras
Military Gamers The Methodical Alliance
12
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 07:27:00 -
[2280] - Quote
Hello.
I'm one of those people that isn't a forum junkie, so maybe what I say doesn't really matter. Alternatively, take me as one of those "normally happy players that only goes to the forums when something really weird is happening."
I want to start by asking a question:
What is the intended design goal of this change?
.
Why am I asking?
Suppose the intended design goal is to encourage industrialists to localize in areas - harvest, produce, and sell - then reduced cargo holds makes sense. However, what would also make sense is buffed ship health and faster align times. After all, the ship has less cargo hold, meaning in a "if EVE was real life" sense, there's more room for armor plating or lighter frames or bigger engines.
More specifically, it means the ships would be used more for local travel in Low and Null, keeping those markets hale and hearty.
.
Suppose, instead, the intended design is to give pilots more customization options - do they want faster align, bigger cargo hold, etc. Now they can have that choice. For that to happen, though, the levels have to be dropped. After all, the Freighters/JFs are balanced around the levels they're at now, right?
Well, in THAT case, they should be nerfed, but where T1 (Tier ONE) rigs will bring them back up to normal. If you look at the calculations that I found on another site (TheMitinni, I think it was?), it shows that if you fully load a Freighter out with T1 cargo rigs, it still has LESS CARGO CAPACITY than the Freighters do on live, and ALSO has the negative bonus of having longer align times and less overall health.
Why does this make sense to anyone? At the very least, with 3x T1 cargo rigs, it should have EQUAL cargo capacity to live right now. Then if a person were to invest in T2 rigs, they should go above the current levels, with the caveat that in the other two areas (align and HP in the case of going all out on cargo), they would be weaker than live.
The reason this doesn't make sense is because even if you kit out for one of the areas, unless you bring T2 rigs, you're still weaker in that area than on live AND you're also considerably weaker in the other two areas. Only if you go balls to the wall in T2 rigs for only ONE area can you get an improvement over live, but in that case, you're still weaker in two other areas.
So you're not getting more customization, you're getting less - your ship is weaker unless you specialize with expensive T2 rigs, but even then, your ship will be weaker in the other areas.
Were I to set this up for customization, I would make it where a T2 rig of each type would JUST make the ship exactly what it is on live (a "balanced", but high tech setup.) Using 3 T1s in one area would put it at slightly ahead (in that one area) of what it is today but weaker in the others (2 T1s would put it somewhat behind what it is on live.) Keep in mind, 3 T1s means you're sacrificing the other two areas.
So this design intent seems clearly NOT intended to increase customization, since you're penalized doing anything. ANYTHING - there's no setup that will bring you to the live numbers. Any set up will either have you weaker in two or all three areas, and only the expensive AND specialized setups for one area will have you out ahead...but only in that one area, you're still behind in the other two.
.
I guess what I'm saying is, why aren't the changes calculated where all T1 rigs produces, at LEAST, at a MINIMUM, the same capacity in that system as before the nerf? Why is there no setup (say T2 rigs in all three systems) that brings you back to the standard baseline we have today?
This is all nerf and little gain. I don't understand what design intent says that ships should get weaker no matter how you kit out, with no option of getting the baseline of today. And this isn't like the Tiericide thing which simply brought hulls more in line with each other - the Freighter/JF line doesn't really have competition like that. It's not like we're balancing a Jump Freighter against a Carrier or a Freighter against a Dreadnaught. Thoraxes and Vexors are a different animal than Freighters and Jump Frigates, which are more like balancing the T1 Industrials against the T2 Blockade Runners - it just doesn't work with a Tiericide approach, since Freighters/JFs aren't in "tiers".
And so I ask again:
What is the intended design goal of this change?
CCP, help me understand why this makes no sense. Maybe you're looking at it from some weird angle that I don't see.
But if the intent is to encourage local markets, then you should just slash cargo holds but boost armor and agility (make the ships more attractive for Low and Null). If the intent is customizability for pilots, then the baseline should be such that T1 rigs will get it to at least equal what it is today, and that there be some "balanced" setup which comes close to the baseline of today.
This change seems to meet neither of these objectives, so what IS it meeting? |
|
|
|
|
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 |