Bunch of other stuff


We don't need another 'mining barge'-style balance round.
Time to dial back the stats.

You can produce almost eveythign in 0.0 As long as peopel do exaclty what they want. MOVE RESOURSE aquisition and industry core to 0.0. Their actiosn are perfeclty in line with their stated desires.

(For Jump Freighters) Capacitor Power Relays

really? mining barge changes were great - and guess what - they still blow up

I suspect that MANY will not take advantage of the opportunity to add tank - and will make their giant space winnebago's even more squishy with 3x t2 cargo holds

Or blow a few bills on officer fits :)

These changes are win win - those who fit and fly smartly benefit - those who prey on the fitting challenge benefit so you have to get another catalyst or two to gank one.....big deal

@CCP Fozzie: I've just realized that you're sort of painted in a corner by having 3 slots (or previously, 3 rigs) to work with.


First, I'm assuming that your goal was to make these ships more customizable, without significantly boosting their power - ie you didn't want to see a 500K ehp freighter or one with 3 million cubic metres of cargo. This seems reasonable. So a nerf accorss the board was needed to reduced the post-rigged stats. But what stats? A freighter has 3 important stats:

- Cargo space

- Tank

- Align time

(There is also warp speed but let's ignore that one for now as I believe the above 3 are more important. You'll see my argument is still valid with those.)

So in theory, if you had one cargo rig, one tank rig and one agility (ie align time) rig, you would have about the same results as before... but that can't work! If that was the case, having (using cargo as an example) a ship with 2 cargo rigs would have had a fair bit more of cargo, and 3 cargo rigs would have massive cargo. So the only way to make this work was to have the nerf serious enough that only by putting 3 rigs in one stat would you exceed previous capacity, at a significant cost to the other 2.

This design space of "3 stats, 3 slots, don't buff too much" leads to an almost inescapable nerf. You may find that having *less* slots may make balancing these ships easier?

Lastly, I'll note t hat I haven't had time to fully digest the switch from rigs to low-slots, but I think the point remains.

@CCP Fozzie, you're missing a very clever thing. You've addressed the idea that freighters will use CPRs:






However, you forgot to factor in capacitor FLUX COILS. Yes, these provide less recharge. But they do a very interesting thing: They reduce overall capacitor. This means a JF can be "capped up" from a partner, buddy, logi chain etc much more quickly. Because capitals rely on % of total capacitor, NOT a flat cost in Joules to jump. I am not saying this is a negative thing. I would like to see JF capacitor recharge nerfed, actually, providing a niche for this sort of gameplay where players have to work together. And perhaps, be trusted to work together...



e: I ran some numbers and JFs will not have the sufficient fitting for an appreciable number of CPRs/flux coils. I think these modules are due for some lowered fitting requirements. They're pretty niche (not because of fitting) and should thus not have any impact on balance, though I'm sure some theorycrafting is in order to ensure that.

Do any of the flux coils even fit?

theship only has a few CPU and I think flux coils are like 8-15 cpu each aren't they?

You are frightened of the maths involved and the permentations in allowing a Damage Control to be fitted aren't you?

you want nerfs?

because this is how you get nerfs.

Yup. In fact, by having PG and (esp) CPU so limited, Fozzie may have found himself a way out of the "three slots" dilemma I mentioned earlier.

Sometimes, less *is* more.

My alts fly Charons and Rheas and generally I think this is a good step in the right direction. However, this mish mash with the low CPU and role bonus towards Bulkheads is really a poor design decision, motivated by laziness. You are frightened of the maths involved and the permentations in allowing a Damage Control to be fitted aren't you?

Grasp the nettle and do it. Just give a decent CPU upgrade and forget the role bonus. Eve is meant to be a sandbox, let people fit what they want to fit in the lows. Don't be frightened of the whiners. Sure the suicide gankers are going to whine that it is another carebear buff. While the carebears are going to whine that they can't AFK haul. Nerf the hull HP some more if you want, but give people some real variety options.

Yeah I'd have just done this. The great thing about the DC is its active nature. If you balance around HP with a DC active, then anyone APing around will have theirs off and hence be very vulnerable.

Which is fine. If they're empty, this is no big deal, as they're not going to get ganked - although they may get assassinated, meaning that they've been specifically targeted as a pilot. If they're APing with valuable cargo with DC off, then they deserve everything they get.

CCP may have thought that the difference in EHP between DC on and off was just too great though. Or is the risk of scripts to auto-activate the DC too great?

CCP may have thought that the difference in EHP between DC on and off was just too great though. Or is the risk of scripts to auto-activate the DC too great?

Yeah I'd have just done this. The great thing about the DC is its active nature. If you balance around HP with a DC active, then anyone APing around will have theirs off and hence be very vulnerable.

Which is fine. If they're empty, this is no big deal, as they're not going to get ganked - although they may get assassinated, meaning that they've been specifically targeted as a pilot. If they're APing with valuable cargo with DC off, then they deserve everything they get.

CCP may have thought that the difference in EHP between DC on and off was just too great though. Or is the risk of scripts to auto-activate the DC too great?

Ytterbium hinted at DC possibly becoming passive.

Interestingly is it (just barely) not possible to fit a civilian damage control on a JF. Even if you use 2 estamel's co procs, genolution set, and 6% CPU hardwiring. Very, very close though.

Although I still want the shield and armor buffs scaled back a fair bit.

I think they took into account that these ships are flown the way they are precisely because the pilot does not want to be paying continuous attention to it. Those people would be dying in droves.

Nevermind that, for the people who are paying attention, it would render functional invicibility. Those people would never die.

Neither of those two outcomes is desirable.

Yeah, I guess the difference between DC and no DC is just too much. Oh well.

Even a conservative nerf of about 35% to all hitpoints would make it capable to take down a freighter with 2 Taloses.

I'm not really sure about that? They'd have to come down to 50-70k ehp range for that to be feasible.

Waiting for CCP Fozzie comment on if he wants stupid-EHP'd freighter/JFs in highsec.

look at passive vs active hardeners for both armour and shield.

do you really think the DCII would retain its stats if it were made passive?

and that's before we point out how insanely powerful the DCII is, regardless of comparisons to other modules.

The though of using officer fitting mods to enable to use of a single civilian module is interesting.