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) |
Cameron Hages
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 13:53:00 -
[2431] - Quote
So is it just me or do Caldari freighters get the **** end of this deal. All races are capable of good armor tanking, except Caldari, and giving everyone else the ability to close their gaps, while a emp round will tear us a new one seems unfair. I think balance should be made around DCU2 not armor mods. |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1094
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 13:56:00 -
[2432] - Quote
Cameron Hages wrote:So is it just me or do Caldari freighters get the **** end of this deal. All races are capable of good armor tanking, except Caldari, and giving everyone else the ability to close their gaps, while a emp round will tear us a new one seems unfair. I think balance should be made around DCU2 not armor mods.
You could always hull tank with bulkheads... |
Hiryu Jin
Enterprise Estonia Northern Coalition.
36
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 14:11:00 -
[2433] - Quote
I don't understand how everyone is so excited for these changes. It's like a politician comes out and says we're raising taxes 50%. Then a week later he says ok, we've heard your complaints, so we'll only raise the taxes 25%. So everyone starts sucking his **** about what a benevolent being he is... HOORAY! -,- |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
659
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 14:26:00 -
[2434] - Quote
Hiryu Jin wrote:I don't understand how everyone is so excited for these changes. It's like a politician comes out and says we're raising taxes 50%. Then a week later he says ok, we've heard your complaints, so we'll only raise the taxes 25%. So everyone starts sucking his **** about what a benevolent being he is... HOORAY! -,- That is an opinion. While the rig idea was awful the customization idea is good. you no longer have to buy a whole new freighter to fill a certain role. You can just refit and choose your ship based on the most important attribute to you. |
Jakar Th'al
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 14:40:00 -
[2435] - Quote
The one thing I like about the new ships is the chance to vary fits for the go/return legs of the trip.
The grating part is that I can fit an adaptive nano plating on lowslots (3x Coreli for example) and increase the hitpoints considerably on the 'armour flavoured' freighters.
This is way less effective on the shield flavour ones of course ... and we all know its ganking that colours the issue. The more HP/resists the better chance you have of surviving. The Amarr and Gallente get a lot in this context, sadly the others get nothing.
|
Vhelnik Cojoin
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
54
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 14:55:00 -
[2436] - Quote
Executive summary for CCP Devs regarding the T1 freighter changes as currently proposed: Excellent, yes please.
I have now had time to tinker on SiSi with CCP Fozzie's latest iteration of freighter changes, and this edition actually seems to work well. It would seem like Tippia was right (wait, isn't that supposed to be Garth?!) in which case these numbers and changes makes a lot of sense to me.
Please note I do not have a qualified opinion on the JF changes, but the T1 freighters now allow for proper - and sensible - customization. I mostly have 3 freighter use cases, all of which are now properly taken into consideration:
- Travel fit, empty or mostly so: Combination of I-stabs, ODs (flying AFK, surely not?! ) and Hypers. New and improved option we don't currently have, sounds good.
- Expensive yet small(ish) cargo: Bulkheads, providing higher EHP than today.
- Bulky stuff, where every m3 counts: This mostly means hauling uncompressed ore during mining ops. Expanders all the way, or maybe an I-stab in there for good measure, depending on distance to travel. Even at 1.2M m3 of cargo space you cannot really squeeze enough uncompressed HiSec ore into a freighter to make ganking it economically viable. On the other hand, then the reduction in EHP from fitting Expanders still doesn't make the freighter a target for a handful of bored pilots. And if people can be bothered to assemble a fleet large enough to gank the freighter 'for the lulz', then the reduction in EHP won't matter anyway. The freighter would die both today as well as in the future.
Well done Mr. Fuzzy, one 'like' extended. Have you Communicated with your fellow capsuleers today? It is good for the EVE-oconomy and o-kay for you. |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
819
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 14:55:00 -
[2437] - Quote
Jakar Th'al wrote:The one thing I like about the new ships is the chance to vary fits for the go/return legs of the trip.
The grating part is that I can fit an adaptive nano plating on lowslots (3x Coreli for example) and increase the hitpoints considerably on the 'armour flavoured' freighters.
This is way less effective on the shield flavour ones of course ... and we all know its ganking that colours the issue. The more HP/resists the better chance you have of surviving. The Amarr and Gallente get a lot in this context, sadly the others get nothing.
mm... perhaps the caldari and minnie one could get swap 1 lowslot for a midslot ... they could use a shield amplifier ... although there isn't an omni version yet unfortunately .... Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Annette Nolen
Red Frog Freight Red-Frog
18
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 16:10:00 -
[2438] - Quote
This came up in random conversation today so I wanted to throw it out there. I suppose It's pretty late in the thread to expect anyone to see this but, well, I tried :)
Give a different freighter (Providence IMO) a higher top-speed than the Fenrir. Basically, swap the Provi and Fenrir max velocity stat. However, leave the Fenrir as the most agile.
Why? There are two styles of hauling, AFK and ATK. There are benefits and drawbacks to each, but in either case, provided you stay under safe cargo values, the Fenrir wins at BOTH styles. Velocity is important to AFK hauling while agility is important to both. Since Fenrir has the best of both stats, there's no comparison. Moving top speed to a different freighter would turn this into an actual potential trade off. Charon already gets max cargo and Obelisk already gets max tank, but there's very little to differentiate Provi and Fenrir (especially now that their cargo capacity is the same). This change this would give them a relevant distinction.
|
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
130
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 16:14:00 -
[2439] - Quote
Annette Nolen wrote:This came up in random conversation today so I wanted to throw it out there. I suppose It's pretty late in the thread to expect anyone to see this but, well, I tried :)
Give a different freighter (Providence IMO) a higher top-speed than the Fenrir. Basically, swap the Provi and Fenrir max velocity stat. However, leave the Fenrir as the most agile.
Why? There are two styles of hauling, AFK and ATK. There are benefits and drawbacks to each, but in either case, provided you stay under safe cargo values, the Fenrir wins at BOTH styles. Velocity is important to AFK hauling while agility is important to both. Since Fenrir has the best of both stats, there's no comparison. Moving top speed to a different freighter would turn this into an actual potential trade off. Charon already gets max cargo and Obelisk already gets max tank, but there's very little to differentiate Provi and Fenrir (especially now that their cargo capacity is the same). This change this would give them a relevant distinction.
The Provi makes up for this by being one sexy beast. While the Fenrir is a Sandcrawler. |
Hoshi Sorano
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
46
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 18:04:00 -
[2440] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Hoshi Sorano wrote:
How is it any more silly than having all slot types on T1 industrials? The silly part to me is flying giant loot targets around space that (unlike every other ship in this galaxy) can't be properly fit for defense.
You should not be able to fit a huge tank on a freighter (seriously, do the math on a freighter with both low and mid slots and able to fit a DCU II in the lows as well...you'd have a huge ass tank...unless CCP nerfed the base tank to practically nothing...so maybe you should STFU....), ewar and a cyno, IMO. That is just silly. With the proposed changes you can fit for tank, cargo...and well not exactly speed but something a bit faster than current. And we aren't talking about a T1 industrial, but a freighter which already comes with a substantial amount of EHP right out of the box. With 3 low slots and some module options you can boost that EHP quite a bit too.
You seem to be under the impression that I was implying that freighters should have mid slots without adjusting the base stats to compensate; I said no such thing. I just feel that shifting the freighters as a whole to rely more on armor and shields, but then only giving them low slots is leaving the job half done.
Jakar Th'al wrote:The grating part is that I can fit an adaptive nano plating on lowslots (3x Coreli for example) and increase the hitpoints considerably on the 'armour flavoured' freighters.
This is way less effective on the shield flavour ones of course ... and we all know its ganking that colours the issue. The more HP/resists the better chance you have of surviving. The Amarr and Gallente get a lot in this context, sadly the others get nothing.
This, exactly. |
|
Kaius Fero
47
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 18:20:00 -
[2441] - Quote
I totally love how come the ganker rednecks dictate hot to use a freighter in a sandbox. This is better than any monthy python sketch. |
Hoshi Sorano
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
46
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 18:38:00 -
[2442] - Quote
Kaius Fero wrote:I totally love how come the ganker rednecks dictate hot to use a freighter in a sandbox. This is better than any monthy python sketch.
Well, better than the ex-parrot perhaps, but I don't know if I'd say better than the Spanish Inquisition; that one is pretty hard to top. |
Lara Divinity
Seles Deep Space Industries Order of the Exalted
16
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 18:40:00 -
[2443] - Quote
6 days and 2401 posts later still no decent solution altough i like the idea of gettin lowslots better then rig slots ,are we heading in the right direction at least anyways... the armoured freighters seem to be favored in this issue tho like many others said they get plating and so on but shield freighters dont get anything still not there yet why dont u just make all freighters equal after all they r just to transport stuff . ore industrial freighters or somthing without the racial bonusses just cargohold agility ehp bam done out of the box freighter with or without lows but all equal or just dont change anything at all saves a whole lotta messing up |
Captain Finklestein
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 18:43:00 -
[2444] - Quote
This is a bit stupid now.
Using rig slots allowed us to customize nearly any quality of the ship. The Charon for instance could be shield tanked further, allowing for remote rep shield support. Using low slots there is no way to buff shields beyond Power Diagnostics, which don't do much.
Please make all freighters armor tanked. If not, please design new modules that can only be fit to freighters/jump freighters which allow you to tank shield through the use of low slots.
In it's current state the freighters are honestly stuck in certain roles: Charon - The ship you use when you want max cargo Obelisk - The ship you use when you want max EHP Providence - The ship you use when you have RR support Fenrir - The ship you never use because you know how to insta-webwarp the other 3 freighters.
By allowing us to properly buff shields, the Charon/Fenrir both gain new roles as potential RR candidates for shield repping.
|
Kaius Fero
47
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 18:48:00 -
[2445] - Quote
Hoshi Sorano wrote:Kaius Fero wrote:I totally love how come the ganker rednecks dictate hot to use a freighter in a sandbox. This is better than any monthy python sketch. Well, better than the ex-parrot perhaps, but I don't know if I'd say better than the Spanish Inquisition; that one is pretty hard to top. Spanish Inquisition is pretty close. |
Hoshi Sorano
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
46
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 18:50:00 -
[2446] - Quote
Kaius Fero wrote:Hoshi Sorano wrote:Kaius Fero wrote:I totally love how come the ganker rednecks dictate hot to use a freighter in a sandbox. This is better than any monthy python sketch. Well, better than the ex-parrot perhaps, but I don't know if I'd say better than the Spanish Inquisition; that one is pretty hard to top. Spanish Inquisition is pretty close.
"All right; we'll call it a draw." |
Dukt Tapir
ManyTargetsMuchAmmo Brothers of Tangra
2
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 22:57:00 -
[2447] - Quote
It seems that Jump frieghters are really being penalized when the opposite should be true.
!st, these take a huge investment to train for, pay for and fly. Certainly the agility is one of the features that are important to these beasts staying alive.
2nd, We hear that CCP is trying to encourage more 0,0 usage, but it is really only possible if you can trade between high and low sec. Cutting the abilit yof these ships to haul people to 0,0 and profitable goods back to high sec take away much of the motive to be in 0,0.
3rd, making the operation even more expensive for the given amount of freight makes using these ships only viable for really valuable cargo, which now is at risk even more than before.
I understand the need to make changes to freighters and am quite happy to make trade-offs in a ship designed for high sec operations mostly. But ships that enable me to move to and operate in 0,0 have gotten so expensive i have to ask why am I out here? The mining is good, but the ore is too big to be moved unless your using a much cheaper Rorqual and take the time to compress. I can build all but the SC and Titan in high sec and buy the little bit of high end ore on the market. And everything I need to do this is in high sec...... Seems like high sec is no longer a higher level of security (which attracted me to this game in the first place) and 0.0 is no longer as dangerous, just more painful to move around.
I think the changes to JF is counter productive to your stated goals. The ability to change the fit at the expense of carrying ability is useless. The only reason to use the JF is its carrying ability. This is simply a nerf without a good reason that is counter to your stated goals.
|
Eija-Riitta Veitonen
Unicorn Enterprise
203
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 02:47:00 -
[2448] - Quote
I applaud the new much more sensible solution to freighter upgradeability. Now if only i could fit Warp Core Stabs in there, too... |
Cagali Yoll
Infinity Engine Sleeping Dragons
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 05:53:00 -
[2449] - Quote
I have an issue with the 100% bonus to Reinforced Bulkheads.
This may have been answered already but can someone explain the reasoning behind Bulkheads having CPU requirements at all?
It's metal stuck to the inside of the cargo bay to increase structure. What reasonable situation would one use Bulkhead(s) and still be limited in CPU. What unreasonable nich situation would one use Bulkheads?
(Edit: After a google search a hull tanked Tarranis is a viable possibility.)
What would be the consequences of simply re-balancing the module to have 0 CPU? |
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
135
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 06:08:00 -
[2450] - Quote
Cagali Yoll wrote:I have an issue with the 100% bonus to Reinforced Bulkheads.
This may have been answered already but can someone explain the reasoning behind Bulkheads having CPU requirements at all?
It's metal stuck to the inside of the cargo bay to increase structure. What reasonable situation would one use Bulkhead(s) and still be limited in CPU. What unreasonable nich situation would one use Bulkheads?
(Edit: After a google search a hull tanked Tarranis is a viable possibility.)
What would be the consequences of simply re-balancing the module to have 0 CPU? You'd have to re-balance the Orca, and Rorq which are viable hull tanking ships. And that's not happening yet..
Also you'll find that ships with a lot of hull, like a Moros, will sometimes switch to a hulltank while they are going down, in order to delay the opposing force even longer.. (Most often seen in WH's where time, ships, and people are limited) |
|
Cagali Yoll
Infinity Engine Sleeping Dragons
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 06:17:00 -
[2451] - Quote
Sniper Smith wrote:Cagali Yoll wrote:I have an issue with the 100% bonus to Reinforced Bulkheads.
What would be the consequences of simply re-balancing the module to have 0 CPU? You'd have to re-balance the Orca, and Rorq which are viable hull tanking ships. And that's not happening yet.. Also you'll find that ships with a lot of hull, like a Moros, will sometimes switch to a hulltank while they are going down, in order to delay the opposing force even longer.. (Most often seen in WH's where time, ships, and people are limited)
Yes I'm aware capital ships use bulkheads. They also have plenty of CPU to spare. My question was would changing the CPU requirement of a Reinforced Bulkhead II from 40 to 0 have any real impact. I personally don't use an Orca. Are common fittings tight on CPU? |
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
135
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 06:34:00 -
[2452] - Quote
Cagali Yoll wrote:Yes I'm aware capital ships use bulkheads. They also have plenty of CPU to spare. My question was would changing the CPU requirement of a Reinforced Bulkhead II from 40 to 0 have any real impact. I personally don't use an Orca. Are common fittings tight on CPU? There are many Orca fits that are very tight on CPU and PG. Especially if it's travel/transport fit. |
Oxide Ammar
130
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 06:49:00 -
[2453] - Quote
Why there is no mention to Layered plating modules in the OP ? their fitting requirements works with freighters. |
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
6453
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 06:50:00 -
[2454] - Quote
Sniper Smith wrote:Cagali Yoll wrote:Yes I'm aware capital ships use bulkheads. They also have plenty of CPU to spare. My question was would changing the CPU requirement of a Reinforced Bulkhead II from 40 to 0 have any real impact. I personally don't use an Orca. Are common fittings tight on CPU? There are many Orca fits that are very tight on CPU and PG. Especially if it's travel/transport fit. What fit is tight on CPU? PG I can see being tight, but you can fit extremely heavy CPU fits with zero skills, so I'd like to know what fit is so demanding on the CPU? |
Quesa
D00M. Northern Coalition.
27
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 14:33:00 -
[2455] - Quote
Quote:Jump Freighters Bonus per level: +10% to armor and hull hitpoints -10% jump fuel requirements What's the point of a bonus to armor/hp on a JF? |
Dalilus
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
65
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 15:51:00 -
[2456] - Quote
For once I wish the devs would gird their loins and NOT design something by committee. They could come out and say, we will increase cargo capacity, speed and tanking on freighetres and jump freighters. Thank you for your attention.
Instead of, we will increase cargo capacity but nerf it as well, we will increase tanking but nerf it as well, we will increase speed but nerf it as well and just in case there is a misunderstanding, after increasing cargo capacity by a little bit we will increase the size of things so you can carry less of them. Carry on.
I sometimes wonder if they designed the platypus waaaaaay back..... |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
822
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 16:32:00 -
[2457] - Quote
Quesa wrote:Quote:Jump Freighters Bonus per level: +10% to armor and hull hitpoints -10% jump fuel requirements What's the point of a bonus to armor/hp on a JF?
you do have a good point here .... Perhaps Fozzie could help answer this ... what is the role/specialisation of this ship and does the HP bonuses actually meet this purpose? Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
137
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 17:01:00 -
[2458] - Quote
Destination SkillQueue wrote:What fit is tight on CPU? PG I can see being tight, but you can fit extremely heavy CPU fits with zero skills, so I'd like to know what fit is so demanding on the CPU? There are items like Warpspeed Rigs that eat up the CPU.. Know some that use ASB's, etc. Obviously if you are using it as a booster links eat up a chunk of CPU.. Can't say I have a fit handy that is tight on CPU anymore, but I have hit the CPU wall before. Not saying it's commonplace though :) |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3321
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 17:39:00 -
[2459] - Quote
Oxide Ammar wrote:Why there is no mention to Layered plating modules in the OP ? their fitting requirements works with freighters.
They fit, but they're pretty much not worth it.
The T2 version is only +6% to armour. If your goal is tank, a bulkhead wins every time. Or a resist mod. Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3321
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 17:40:00 -
[2460] - Quote
Quesa wrote:Quote:Jump Freighters Bonus per level: +10% to armor and hull hitpoints -10% jump fuel requirements What's the point of a bonus to armor/hp on a JF?
They're kind of important while travelling through the riskiest space for them.
Namely highsec. Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
|
|
|
|
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 |