Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
10815
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 17:59:00 -
[1] - Quote
Hello everyone. As we mentioned a while back, I've been working on a set of low-slot modules that decrease the fuel requirements of capital jump drives.
The primary goal here is to provide an interesting set of choices to capital pilots (especially Jump Freighter pilots) in how to fill up their low slots for any given activity.
These modules will require 1 PG and 0 CPU, there will be no limit in how many you can fit to one ship but they are stacking penalized with each other.
Like the Hyperspatial Accelerators, we are starting with three versions of this module. Also like the Accelerators the blueprints for these modules will be found exclusively in Besieged Ghost Sites in low security space.
The fuel reduction per module is: Limited Jump Drive Economizer - 4% Experimental Jump Drive Economizer - 7% Prototype Jump Drive Economizer - 10%
I'll let you guys know when these babies hit SISI for your testing pleasure. Feel free to post your feedback in the thread below. Thanks! Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Aquila Sagitta
Blue-Fire
408
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 18:03:00 -
[2] - Quote
Holy **** first!
Now to actually read the post Blue-Fire Best Fire |
Capqu
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
613
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 18:05:00 -
[3] - Quote
do they work on bridges https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNpMiT5qpyI |
Catherine Laartii
Providence Guard Templis CALSF
247
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 18:07:00 -
[4] - Quote
I suppose this is supposed to counterbalance the increased fuel requirements; fair enough.
To be quite honest, I think it would be impressive if you added something to increase jump RANGE. That would have a lot more potential to shake things up. |
Francisco Vazquez Garcia
Push Industries Push Interstellar Network
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 18:14:00 -
[5] - Quote
Very nice thing. I didn't know how much fuel really costs until I got my own Jump Drive ship.
The spread between versions: 4-7-10 seems very big. Will the price / skill requirement reflect that, or will it be "Get the 10% one or none". |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
854
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 18:16:00 -
[6] - Quote
yes.. make capital cheaper too use .. hmm.. so what was the point of the isotope change then??? power projection needs nerfing .. not buffing 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. |
Akrasjel Lanate
Naquatech Conglomerate Naquatech Syndicate
1542
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 18:16:00 -
[7] - Quote
Catherine Laartii wrote:To be quite honest, I think it would be impressive if you added something to increase jump RANGE. That would have a lot more potential to shake things up.
|
Sugar Kyle
Eleventh Hour.
634
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 18:18:00 -
[8] - Quote
It is a module that comes from a BPC that drops in a spawning site in low sec. I guess we should encourage more people to do besieged sites to keep the prices down, mmm? Low Sec Lifestyle - A Blog |
Thanatos Marathon
Black Fox Marauders Repeat 0ffenders
261
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 18:20:00 -
[9] - Quote
Please make them capital sized modules. BLFOX is currently recruiting |
Marcel Devereux
Aideron Robotics
352
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 18:20:00 -
[10] - Quote
Can you make these modules be 4000m3 like the other capital modules? |
|
Vicar2008
Mindstar Technology Get Off My Lawn
100
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 18:20:00 -
[11] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hello everyone. As we mentioned a while back, I've been working on a set of low-slot modules that decrease the fuel requirements of capital jump drives.
The primary goal here is to provide an interesting set of choices to capital pilots (especially Jump Freighter pilots) in how to fill up their low slots for any given activity.
These modules will require 1 PG and 0 CPU, there will be no limit in how many you can fit to one ship but they are stacking penalized with each other.
Like the Hyperspatial Accelerators, we are starting with three versions of this module. Also like the Accelerators the blueprints for these modules will be found exclusively in Besieged Ghost Sites in low security space. The rarity will increase with the power between the three modules, and all of them will have a skill requirement of Jump Fuel Conservation 1.
The fuel reduction per module is: Limited Jump Drive Economizer - 4% Experimental Jump Drive Economizer - 7% Prototype Jump Drive Economizer - 10%
I'll let you guys know when these babies hit SISI for your testing pleasure. Feel free to post your feedback in the thread below. Thanks!
Is there any thoughts about modules that would do this for BLOPS as well?
|
Tho'mas
Justified Chaos
249
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 18:29:00 -
[12] - Quote
Catherine Laartii wrote:I suppose this is supposed to counterbalance the increased fuel requirements; fair enough. To be quite honest, I think it would be impressive if you added something to increase jump RANGE. That would have a lot more potential to shake things up.
I believe force projection is already bad enough in the current state of the game. I would not like to see jump range increased. |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
745
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 18:31:00 -
[13] - Quote
Vicar2008 wrote:Is there any thoughts about modules that would do this for BLOPS as well?
Why would they not? Blops have a jump drive. Or did you mean for bridging? GÇ£I personally refuse to help AAA take space from itself so it can become an even shittier version of itselfGÇ¥ -Grath Telkin, 2014.
Free PASTA! |
TheMercenaryKing
StarFleet Enterprises Intrepid Crossing
252
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 18:33:00 -
[14] - Quote
I think that there should be large and X-large rigs of these and make these lows available only to jump freighters.
Why?
Refitting capitals. Almost every capital fleet has to refit or holds multiple fittings. I think putting these as rigs would make people look more into what they are doing with the capital fleets. |
Justin Cody
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
235
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 18:38:00 -
[15] - Quote
Catherine Laartii wrote:I suppose this is supposed to counterbalance the increased fuel requirements; fair enough. To be quite honest, I think it would be impressive if you added something to increase jump RANGE. That would have a lot more potential to shake things up.
You're psychotic. jump range is already ridiculous. force projection is one of the many flaws that need to be corrected at the moment and the fuel increase doesn't actually do anything but nerf small organizations. It in no way affects whether or not a PL fishing fleet goes out...or whether or not supers are committed to a fight. It makes it more expensive...but with an actual blue donut in place and agreements not to attack eachtoher's sov or renter sov its kinda pointless.
Aside from B-R the entire war was a joke. A series of feints if you will. Any time someone committed serious resources they had massive counter and counter counter drops waiting. Aside from station camps...the reason that the B-R engagement went off is the same reason for Uemon and other battles like it...oh and similar to how tri lost two titans...it was all by mistake. No one imagined actually getting caught.
capitals don't need more range...if anything the entire new eden star cluster needs to be rescaled so that there is more distance between systems...more between constellations and a lot more between regions. We need more jump points but choke points need to be obvious in order to have fights.
Before cynos and bridges sub capitals HAD to use gates. Now gates are for peasants. Gates were natural chokes and made fights happen. Now? Pfft.
force projection needs a complete nerf...no wait not nerf. It needs to be rethought. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
4054
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 18:42:00 -
[16] - Quote
Will these suffer from stacking penalties?
If not, imagine the fuel economy you can get moving ships about via Carriers (aka Archon's with 7x modules).
|
Jason Dunham
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Fatal Ascension
10
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 18:45:00 -
[17] - Quote
I have two large questions:
1. Does it affect bridging fuel requirements?
2. Do you intend on making these applicable to Blops as well?
Otherwise the modules look good.
I'm concerned about power projection, but I believe we'll see more for your ideas on that in other capital / sov re-balancing. |
Thanatos Marathon
Black Fox Marauders Repeat 0ffenders
261
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 18:46:00 -
[18] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Will these suffer from stacking penalties?
If not, imagine the fuel economy you can get moving ships about via Carriers (aka Archon's with 7x modules).
"These modules will require 1 PG and 0 CPU, there will be no limit in how many you can fit to one ship but they are stacking penalized with each other." BLFOX is currently recruiting |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
589
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 18:49:00 -
[19] - Quote
Ground floor.
Glad these are coming out, fuel prices are ridiculous in light of the fuel consumption changes. So much for "gradual changes". How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Altirius Saldiaro
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
60
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 18:50:00 -
[20] - Quote
I like it.
More options is good. |
|
SuperSpy00bob
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
26
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 18:54:00 -
[21] - Quote
Do these also change the fuel requirements for bridging via Titan or Blops? |
Funless Saisima
Strange Energy The Bastion
56
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 18:56:00 -
[22] - Quote
Catherine Laartii wrote:To be quite honest, I think it would be impressive if you added something to increase jump RANGE. That would have a lot more potential to shake things up.
Fill lows with range mods, refit at desto.
|
Suzuka A1
Multiplex Gaming The Bastion
23
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 18:58:00 -
[23] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Like the Accelerators the blueprints for these modules will be found exclusively in Besieged Ghost Sites in low security space.
What will be the max number of runs of these BPCs? Will they come in 1, 2, and 4 run variants?
Thanatos Marathon wrote:Please make them capital sized modules. I would say not full size cap mod size (4000 m^3) but maybe 100-1000 m^3 Never forget the battle of Z9PP-H-á What actually happened: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgcUwTmHY74 Battle Report: http://www.kugutsumen.com/showthread.php?42836-They-Might-Be-Giants-The-Southwest&p=497626&viewfull=1#post497626 |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
4054
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 18:59:00 -
[24] - Quote
Funless Saisima wrote:Catherine Laartii wrote:To be quite honest, I think it would be impressive if you added something to increase jump RANGE. That would have a lot more potential to shake things up. Fill lows with range mods, refit at desto.
The drawback of the +5% range would have to be +20% fuel costs. There would be a point where your fuel bay then limits your range.
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
10818
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 19:07:00 -
[25] - Quote
These modules will only affect their ship's jump drive fuel cost, not bridging cost. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
49
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 19:21:00 -
[26] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:These modules will only affect their ship's jump drive fuel cost, not bridging cost.
any word or time frame set to update the rorqual? I must ask here cause you guys seem to dodge it.. and it uses jump fuel as well.. are these modules able to handle cap sized ships?
thanks. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
10819
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 19:28:00 -
[27] - Quote
Milla Goodpussy wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:These modules will only affect their ship's jump drive fuel cost, not bridging cost. any word or time frame set to update the rorqual? I must ask here cause you guys seem to dodge it.. and it uses jump fuel as well.. are these modules able to handle cap sized ships? thanks.
We don't have a date to announce for Rorqual changes quite yet, partially because some of the changes we want to make for it depend on some back-end code changes first that are in progress.
And these modules can indeed be used and will provide their benefit on Rorquals. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
4054
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 19:29:00 -
[28] - Quote
I can fit 4 of these modules for a 10% net fuel reduction (4% version) to 25% fuel reduction (10% version). Stacking penalties remove any benefits of fitting more. This is nice for pilots that use carriers to move assembled ships, but my experience is most logistics utilizes repackaged ships in JF's these days.
A JF can just as easily fit 3x expanded cargo holds allowing it to double its cargo space. If you need the capacity, this is a much, much better benefit (1 Trip vs 2 trips).
Since there are no drawbacks to using these modules, beyond taking the time to bring & fit them, they seem alright for the logistically oriented pilots to optimize their fuel costs.
Thank you for the new module.
|
XvXTeacherVxV
Dayman Industries
98
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 19:56:00 -
[29] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:These modules will only affect their ship's jump drive fuel cost, not bridging cost.
So.. yes on affecting BLOPS then? Can you see the rapier?: http://imgur.com/aFelCpv,GH6lqDE |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
1101
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 19:56:00 -
[30] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Milla Goodpussy wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:These modules will only affect their ship's jump drive fuel cost, not bridging cost. any word or time frame set to update the rorqual? I must ask here cause you guys seem to dodge it.. and it uses jump fuel as well.. are these modules able to handle cap sized ships? thanks. We don't have a date to announce for Rorqual changes quite yet, partially because some of the changes we want to make for it depend on some back-end code changes first that are in progress. And these modules can indeed be used and will provide their benefit on Rorquals. Just from hearing that I'm getting a little excited.
New modules look great. Can't to get a rack for my caps. |
|
Masao Kurata
Be Vewy Vewy Quiet
71
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 20:18:00 -
[31] - Quote
Is it me or are these modules frankly really dumb? There's no reason not to fit these whenever you're jumping and refit after. Maybe if you gave them a long period (say 20m) period after every jump where they can't be unfitted they would be interesting, but as this stands you might as well just revert the jump cost increases because everyone will fit these, jump, remove them. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
738
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 20:18:00 -
[32] - Quote
when are capitals and jump drives being fixed? |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
10821
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 20:22:00 -
[33] - Quote
XvXTeacherVxV wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:These modules will only affect their ship's jump drive fuel cost, not bridging cost. So.. yes on affecting BLOPS then?
Yes. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Pheusia
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
144
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 20:27:00 -
[34] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hello everyone. As we mentioned a while back, I've been working on a set of low-slot modules that decrease the fuel requirements of jump drives.
The primary goal here is to provide an interesting set of choices to capital pilots (especially Jump Freighter pilots) in how to fill up their low slots for any given activity.
These modules will require 1 PG and 0 CPU, there will be no limit in how many you can fit to one ship but they are stacking penalized with each other.
Like the Hyperspatial Accelerators, we are starting with three versions of this module. Also like the Accelerators the blueprints for these modules will be found exclusively in Besieged Ghost Sites in low security space. The rarity will increase with the power between the three modules, and all of them will have a skill requirement of Jump Fuel Conservation 1.
The fuel reduction per module is: Limited Jump Drive Economizer - 4% Experimental Jump Drive Economizer - 7% Prototype Jump Drive Economizer - 10%
I'll let you guys know when these babies hit SISI for your testing pleasure. Feel free to post your feedback in the thread below. Thanks!
Thanks for responding so quickly the widespread and urgent requests for a boost to power projection. Capitals that can move around further on a single fuelbay of isotopes is exactly what EVE needs. These modules will make it cheaper and easier to move capitals long distances.
If anything I'd suggest making these mods even stronger. Why cap them at 10%? If the thing is worth doing, it's worth doing well.
(You're aware that the "interesting choice" that capital pilots are presented with boils down to doing a quick refit on the nearest carrier, right?) |
Napoleon Aldent
Blueprint Haus Get Off My Lawn
23
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 20:28:00 -
[35] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hello everyone. As we mentioned a while back, I've been working on a set of low-slot modules that decrease the fuel requirements of jump drives.
The primary goal here is to provide an interesting set of choices to capital pilots (especially Jump Freighter pilots) in how to fill up their low slots for any given activity.
These modules will require 1 PG and 0 CPU, there will be no limit in how many you can fit to one ship but they are stacking penalized with each other.
Like the Hyperspatial Accelerators, we are starting with three versions of this module. Also like the Accelerators the blueprints for these modules will be found exclusively in Besieged Ghost Sites in low security space. The rarity will increase with the power between the three modules, and all of them will have a skill requirement of Jump Fuel Conservation 1.
The fuel reduction per module is: Limited Jump Drive Economizer - 4% Experimental Jump Drive Economizer - 7% Prototype Jump Drive Economizer - 10%
I'll let you guys know when these babies hit SISI for your testing pleasure. Feel free to post your feedback in the thread below. Thanks!
There is nothing interesting in the choices when a capital fleet can move with enough carriers to refit after jumping. This will just make one more item combat pilots have to tote around with them at all times without introducing any negative trade-off or risk. It also goes directly against the stated goal of reducing force projection with the fuel consumption changes just introduced. If you wanted to make them rigs or apply to a JF/Rorqual only, then that makes a bit more sense. But, this will be abused by already powerful capital fleets. Our angle is that we care about objective game balance, regardless of who it benefits or hurts.-á -Goonswarm 2014 |
Callic Veratar
607
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 21:01:00 -
[36] - Quote
Catherine Laartii wrote:I suppose this is supposed to counterbalance the increased fuel requirements; fair enough. To be quite honest, I think it would be impressive if you added something to increase jump RANGE. That would have a lot more potential to shake things up.
Sounds like an interesting idea:
- Cut jump drive range on all caps by 50% - Add a jump drive range module that increases the jump drive range by 45-65% - 2-3 stacking penalized jump drive range modules give previous range plus a bit |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1169
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 21:01:00 -
[37] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: The primary goal here is to provide an interesting set of choices to capital pilots (especially Jump Freighter pilots) in how to fill up their low slots for any given activity.
Choice provided
If refiting service available then fit fuel reduction module Else Do not fit fuel reduction module End if |
Ammzi
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
1816
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 21:09:00 -
[38] - Quote
Would be cool if they work when bridging people as well (titans, blops) |
na'Vi Ronuken
Louis Nothing And Nobody
11
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 21:14:00 -
[39] - Quote
gonna call it right now - some dumb ass is going to fit an Erebus full of these modsand get caught on a mid with no cap - no tank - just a fit full of **** hand die in a ball of fire. |
Ripard Teg
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
921
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 21:15:00 -
[40] - Quote
Why is there no limit on the number of these that you can fit?
I am concerned about certain alliances who shall remain nameless buying four of these for each of their carriers and supers. By doing so, they avoid the bulk of the nerf you stuck the rest of us with... aka Jester, who apparently was once entrusted to Wield The Banhammer to good effect. |
|
Pheusia
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
144
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 21:19:00 -
[41] - Quote
Ripard Teg wrote:Why is there no limit on the number of these that you can fit?
I am concerned about certain alliances who shall remain nameless buying four of these for each of their carriers and supers. By doing so, they avoid the bulk of the nerf you stuck the rest of us with...
Power Projection wasn't a problem when only rich people could do it, amirite? |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
5383
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 21:40:00 -
[42] - Quote
So travel fits will now include a step to fit these right before you jump then change back to cap recharge fit. I guess that adds a few seconds. The Paradox |
Gaijin Lanis
Surely You're Joking
131
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 21:47:00 -
[43] - Quote
Any chance of having these restricted to JFs and carriers only? Jump costs being the same across all capital classes (and more for the lightest capitals) is pretty backwards to start.
Of course, this is all pretty much moot. Its not like any sort of modification to jump costs is going to do anything what so ever to the blue doughnut. The above was written and posted with nothing but love in my heart for all. |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
857
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 21:49:00 -
[44] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:So travel fits will now include a step to fit these right before you jump then change back to cap recharge fit. I guess that adds a few seconds.
so why are capitals even allowed too change fit willy nilly .. seems odd 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. |
Circumstantial Evidence
132
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 21:50:00 -
[45] - Quote
A toy for rich players, who could afford isotopes if they were 4x the current cost. -Limited by # of besieged sites in lowsec. -Limited by # of player pirates lurking near systems with a besieged site. -Insatiable demand will drive up the price.
|
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
1309
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 21:58:00 -
[46] - Quote
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:A toy for rich players, who could afford isotopes if they were 4x the current cost. -Limited by # of besieged sites in lowsec. -Limited by # of player pirates lurking near systems with a besieged site. -Insatiable demand will drive up the price.
There is absolutely nothing stopping you from running these sites. As a low-sec resident, I can tell you I've ran them many times (often in OMS or Heydieles) and it's rare that anyone bothers you. If they do bother you though, you're fighting wether you like it or not, Mordu's Legion will have you warp disrupted the second you land in the site.
This is not a bad thing. Risk vs Reward. |
TheMercenaryKing
StarFleet Enterprises Intrepid Crossing
252
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 22:05:00 -
[47] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Milla Goodpussy wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:These modules will only affect their ship's jump drive fuel cost, not bridging cost. any word or time frame set to update the rorqual? I must ask here cause you guys seem to dodge it.. and it uses jump fuel as well.. are these modules able to handle cap sized ships? thanks. We don't have a date to announce for Rorqual changes quite yet, partially because some of the changes we want to make for it depend on some back-end code changes first that are in progress. And these modules can indeed be used and will provide their benefit on Rorquals.
What should we look forward to? Industrial (some form of mining/manufacturing/hauling) combative (defenses and logistics, probably no offensive bonus) Support (boosting, moving other ships) New role (something completely unique to the ship, like the manufacturing lines were)
Edit: OH! A capital modal that "Heals" an asteroid! |
Gaijin Lanis
Surely You're Joking
131
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 22:09:00 -
[48] - Quote
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:-Insatiable demand will drive up the price. You realize 25% of nothing is nothing, right? The above was written and posted with nothing but love in my heart for all. |
Locke DieDrake
The Arrow Project
22
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 22:15:00 -
[49] - Quote
Catherine Laartii wrote:I suppose this is supposed to counterbalance the increased fuel requirements; fair enough. To be quite honest, I think it would be impressive if you added something to increase jump RANGE. That would have a lot more potential to shake things up.
In typical CCP style, they will do so. Two months after they nerf the range of all jump drives by 10% more than the modules will make up for.
|
Circumstantial Evidence
132
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 22:34:00 -
[50] - Quote
Gaijin Lanis wrote:Circumstantial Evidence wrote:-Insatiable demand will drive up the price. You realize 25% of nothing is nothing, right? hmmm. I was a bit contradictory... rich players don't need them / insatiable demand. Lowsec can always use the help; imagine the outrage / conspiracy theorizing, if this dropped only in nullsec. |
|
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
3355
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 22:48:00 -
[51] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hello everyone. As we mentioned a while back, I've been working on a set of low-slot modules that decrease the fuel requirements of jump drives.
The primary goal here is to provide an interesting set of choices to capital pilots (especially Jump Freighter pilots) in how to fill up their low slots for any given activity.
These modules will require 1 PG and 0 CPU, there will be no limit in how many you can fit to one ship but they are stacking penalized with each other.
Like the Hyperspatial Accelerators, we are starting with three versions of this module. Also like the Accelerators the blueprints for these modules will be found exclusively in Besieged Ghost Sites in low security space. The rarity will increase with the power between the three modules, and all of them will have a skill requirement of Jump Fuel Conservation 1.
The fuel reduction per module is: Limited Jump Drive Economizer - 4% Experimental Jump Drive Economizer - 7% Prototype Jump Drive Economizer - 10%
I'll let you guys know when these babies hit SISI for your testing pleasure. Feel free to post your feedback in the thread below. Thanks!
So let's do the math, shall we?
Assume a ship used 100 Isotopes before the 50% increase. So now it is 150.
1st module drops it down to 135. 2nd Module, at 8.7% (after stacking penalty), drops it to 135 *.913 = 123.26 3rd Module, a 5.7% (after stacking penalty) drops it to 123.26 * .943 = 116.23 units.
Or, is it like this:
1st module, drops it 10% of 150 = 15 units. 2nd module then reduces it 8.7% of 150 = 13.05 units 3rd module then reduces it 5.7% of 150 = 8.55 units.
150 - (15+13.05+8.55) = 113.4
Either way, this is a joke. When the 50% bump in costs was being announced, you clearly had these modules in your back pocket, so the null sec cartels are really only facing a 13 or 16% increase in isotopes, not a 50% increase in fuel costs for JF's. |
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys Mordus Angels
1952
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 23:01:00 -
[52] - Quote
Good stuff, but I kinda think the combat caps (carriers, dreads, supers, and titans) should have some restrictions on using these modules. Like not being able to, at all.
Oh. Just make it so that only ships that can use a stargate can fit these modules for [insert lore reason here]. |
Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
16026
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 23:45:00 -
[53] - Quote
Circumstantial Evidence wrote: imagine the outrage / conspiracy theorizing, if this dropped only in nullsec.
Blood would shoot out of Dinsdale's nose, Tinfoil prices would skyrocket, Eve would ...still be dying. Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings? |
Mariner6
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
197
|
Posted - 2014.08.01 00:58:00 -
[54] - Quote
Lowsec again? No issue with that I guess but it would be nice if something like this could be seeded in NPC Null only. Might spice things up a bit down here. Some extra small gang incentive would be nice like your doing in lowsec with your clone tags, mordus legion etc etc. But you know....amp it up a bit down here for some more risk/reward aspects. Its been getting quiet around here in Syndicate of late and not much better in other NPC null. |
Hayley Enaka
Hard Knocks Inc.
36
|
Posted - 2014.08.01 00:58:00 -
[55] - Quote
Is there anything to stop me from fitting one of these in every low slot I have when moving capitals? |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
1101
|
Posted - 2014.08.01 01:01:00 -
[56] - Quote
is there any plans on adding or discussing other jump-affecting modules in the future? |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
1101
|
Posted - 2014.08.01 01:02:00 -
[57] - Quote
Hayley Enaka wrote:Is there anything to stop me from fitting one of these in every low slot I have when moving capitals? Fro what I can tell no. However since they have stacking penalties anything beyond 3-4 might just be a waste of a slot. |
XvXTeacherVxV
Dayman Industries
98
|
Posted - 2014.08.01 01:16:00 -
[58] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: The primary goal here is to provide an interesting set of choices to capital pilots (especially Jump Freighter pilots) in how to fill up their low slots for any given activity.
Choice provided If refiting service available then fit fuel reduction module Else Do not fit fuel reduction module End if
You're right that there doesn't seem to be much of a choice here for most capital ships, but this does present a very real choice for JF pilots: increase cargo or decrease cost? BLOPS pilots might opt for these over a full rack of cargo expanders for more fuel space. But letting caps & supercaps fit these in the current environment would be a mistake.
+1 to excluding carriers, dreads & supercaps from using these. Can you see the rapier?: http://imgur.com/aFelCpv,GH6lqDE |
jiujitsutou
Outrider's Black. Sails
2
|
Posted - 2014.08.01 01:37:00 -
[59] - Quote
While this module is in theory a fun idea . Its kinda stupid .. you basicly exclude all ships that just got their travel cost upped from the said changes ... you would only have to pay the full isotope amount for the final jump onto the battlefield. This Module should be available for JFs yes and Blackops (the fuel bay is very small) and imho . On a side note upping the fuel cost for jumping was pretty much useless anyways unless you targeted smaller groups who dare to jump caps around . |
Twizted3
Doughboys Overload Everything
5
|
Posted - 2014.08.01 02:13:00 -
[60] - Quote
This is some of the dumbest s*** I have ever heard, yeah lets fit our combat caps with these jump fuel mods, the only people this affects positively are jump freighter pilots.
The only people effected by the fuel cost changes are the smaller alliances who like to use caps to escalate fights now and again, the huge bloc alliances don't care about the rising cost of fuel and the increased cost of jumping.
GG Fozzie you fixed the game! |
|
Jassmin Joy
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
272
|
Posted - 2014.08.01 02:51:00 -
[61] - Quote
Ripard Teg wrote:Why is there no limit on the number of these that you can fit?
I am concerned about certain alliances who shall remain nameless buying four of these for each of their carriers and supers. By doing so, they avoid the bulk of the nerf you stuck the rest of us with...
You say that like the "nerf" effects any of us. |
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
1907
|
Posted - 2014.08.01 03:04:00 -
[62] - Quote
it would be cool if you guys also added a cpuless version of a downgraded damage control unit.
make it only add 30% resists to hull. but that couppled with 2 bulkheads should make a ganker think twice. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad. |
afkboss
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
28
|
Posted - 2014.08.01 03:14:00 -
[63] - Quote
Why does the best one save 2 and a half times more than the lower tier. shouldn't you make it 8%, 9% and 10%? |
TheButcherPete
Incompertus INC Fatal Ascension
469
|
Posted - 2014.08.01 04:20:00 -
[64] - Quote
LOL guys, this fuel nerf wasn't meant for the coalitions. It's just CCP's way of kicking the little guys in the balls and making them have to join blocs just to stay in low/null.
one step forward, two steps back.
MeBiatch wrote:it would be cool if you guys also added a cpuless version of a downgraded damage control unit.
make it only add 30% resists to hull. but that couppled with 2 bulkheads should make a ganker think twice.
Have you seen what deadspace adaptive nano platings with good skills do to Freighters? It's hilarious. THE KING OF EVE RADIO
If EVE is real, does that mean all of us are RMTrs? |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
652
|
Posted - 2014.08.01 06:54:00 -
[65] - Quote
Sugar Kyle wrote:It is a module that comes from a BPC that drops in a spawning site in low sec. I guess we should encourage more people to do besieged sites to keep the prices down, mmm?
Rather you should make CCP to fix these sites so that they don't stay in system long after they were completed. |
Looping Loui
Allegiant Enterprises
0
|
Posted - 2014.08.01 08:14:00 -
[66] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: The fuel reduction per module is: Limited Jump Drive Economizer - 4% Experimental Jump Drive Economizer - 7% Prototype Jump Drive Economizer - 10%
First you tell us price is not a way to balance things and the shouldn't be a strict progression from 'being bad in all ways' for the meta 0 module to 'being better in all means' in the higher meta levels.
And then you release a set of modules that will almost never get destroyed, give us a steady supply for it from exploration and balance them exactly this way: from straight worse the best. It won't be long until anything except the prototype will gather dust and never be used.
|
Sekket
Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels
49
|
Posted - 2014.08.01 08:19:00 -
[67] - Quote
Are you trying to indirectly buff shield carries? Because it seems you're trying to indirectly buff shield carriers. Wonder how many carriers will end up getting blown up because they were fit for jump fuel economy. - CQ isn't a refuge, it's a cage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iu4iekX3WE |
Linus Gorp
Ministry of Propaganda and Morale Black Marker
19
|
Posted - 2014.08.01 08:26:00 -
[68] - Quote
I'll continue to fly my Nyx with bulkheads. Just sayin'. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
739
|
Posted - 2014.08.01 08:32:00 -
[69] - Quote
do we have awful nullscrubs from awful blob 'coalitions' talking about 'the little guy' again? |
Sigras
Conglomo
827
|
Posted - 2014.08.01 09:09:00 -
[70] - Quote
Please make the modules capital sized (>=4000 m^3) otherwise you may as well just reduce the jump fuel cost of all ships by 25% and call it a day...
If these modules are allowed to be 5 m^3 like most other modules not specifically tied to a ship class then every carrier will just carry around 4-5 of them and insta switch them out when they land. |
|
Buhhdust Princess
Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships.
8341
|
Posted - 2014.08.01 09:31:00 -
[71] - Quote
Hahaha this is another 'We made a mistake, lets pretend it was on purpose' module.
Please decide if you want to nerf or buff capitals, i am glad you added these though, as i dont think nerfing capital moving for only smaller entities was your intention. |
Hra Neuvosto
FinFleet Northern Coalition.
283
|
Posted - 2014.08.01 10:58:00 -
[72] - Quote
Whads habbening |
Kane Fenris
NWP
151
|
Posted - 2014.08.01 11:12:00 -
[73] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hello everyone. As we mentioned a while back, I've been working on a set of low-slot modules that decrease the fuel requirements of jump drives.
The primary goal here is to provide an interesting set of choices to capital pilots (especially Jump Freighter pilots) in how to fill up their low slots for any given activity.
These modules will require 1 PG and 0 CPU, there will be no limit in how many you can fit to one ship but they are stacking penalized with each other.
Like the Hyperspatial Accelerators, we are starting with three versions of this module. Also like the Accelerators the blueprints for these modules will be found exclusively in Besieged Ghost Sites in low security space. The rarity will increase with the power between the three modules, and all of them will have a skill requirement of Jump Fuel Conservation 1.
The fuel reduction per module is: Limited Jump Drive Economizer - 4% Experimental Jump Drive Economizer - 7% Prototype Jump Drive Economizer - 10%
I'll let you guys know when these babies hit SISI for your testing pleasure. Feel free to post your feedback in the thread below. Thanks!
why oh why...... this is bad game design at its finest. first the bad change about fuel costs ... and now this.... all you do with this change is reveres some part of the fuel change and haveing players do some refitting put them in jump refit ! seriously ? extra anoying gameplay to reveres parts of a change that wasnt needed ? |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
10830
|
Posted - 2014.08.01 11:47:00 -
[74] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Please make the modules capital sized (>=4000 m^3) otherwise you may as well just reduce the jump fuel cost of all ships by 25% and call it a day...
If these modules are allowed to be 5 m^3 like most other modules not specifically tied to a ship class then every carrier will just carry around 4-5 of them and insta switch them out when they land.
The currently planned volume of these modules is 3500m3 Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
xplosiv
State War Academy Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2014.08.01 11:53:00 -
[75] - Quote
Nope. just put fuel back as it was. Every damn capital will have these and a mobile depot. And if you make them 4000m3 you shaft over all blackops etc. so just revert and leave it as it was. |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
650
|
Posted - 2014.08.01 13:14:00 -
[76] - Quote
xplosiv wrote:Nope. just put fuel back as it was. Every damn capital will have these and a mobile depot. And if you make them 4000m3 you shaft over all blackops etc. so just revert and leave it as it was.
was a stupid change that only hurt small corps and the individual any way. The super power GIVE NO ****s. Every capital operation CFC and NC do is now covered by a Fuel replacement scheme. some are having renter mine ice as payment for their RENT and other make so much isk it's not even a ripple in their wallets. SO power projection has NOT BEEN HURT AT ALL.
WHAT IS HAS DONE: Screwed over industry in 00 by making everything expensive to produce or expensive to ship to empire and sell. MADE IT HARD AS HELL for small corps to get into 00 because of the fuel bills they have no way to reclaim or subsidise by mining. BRAVO CCP You made industry better for 00 then screwed it over by ruining the logistical back bone. i wasn't all that much in favor of the jump change until i read this post |
Hespire Malneant
EVE University Ivy League
15
|
Posted - 2014.08.01 14:32:00 -
[77] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Sigras wrote:Please make the modules capital sized (>=4000 m^3) otherwise you may as well just reduce the jump fuel cost of all ships by 25% and call it a day...
If these modules are allowed to be 5 m^3 like most other modules not specifically tied to a ship class then every carrier will just carry around 4-5 of them and insta switch them out when they land. The currently planned volume of these modules is 3500m3
ELI5 why this is so significant, plz. |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
650
|
Posted - 2014.08.01 15:16:00 -
[78] - Quote
Hespire Malneant wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Sigras wrote:Please make the modules capital sized (>=4000 m^3) otherwise you may as well just reduce the jump fuel cost of all ships by 25% and call it a day...
If these modules are allowed to be 5 m^3 like most other modules not specifically tied to a ship class then every carrier will just carry around 4-5 of them and insta switch them out when they land. The currently planned volume of these modules is 3500m3 ELI5 why this is so significant, plz. combat capitals (carriers, dreads) can't carry these and then refit at their destination without severely crippling their ability to hold any other fit or extra fuel
titans and supercarriers maybe, but they still usually won't want to waste the space |
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective
1241
|
Posted - 2014.08.01 15:18:00 -
[79] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Sigras wrote:Please make the modules capital sized (>=4000 m^3) otherwise you may as well just reduce the jump fuel cost of all ships by 25% and call it a day...
If these modules are allowed to be 5 m^3 like most other modules not specifically tied to a ship class then every carrier will just carry around 4-5 of them and insta switch them out when they land. The currently planned volume of these modules is 3500m3
There should be a smaller subcap version for black ops and maybe future subcap jump capable ships.
Signature Tanking - Best Tanking. Beware the french guy!
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
10833
|
Posted - 2014.08.01 15:35:00 -
[80] - Quote
Altrue wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Sigras wrote:Please make the modules capital sized (>=4000 m^3) otherwise you may as well just reduce the jump fuel cost of all ships by 25% and call it a day...
If these modules are allowed to be 5 m^3 like most other modules not specifically tied to a ship class then every carrier will just carry around 4-5 of them and insta switch them out when they land. The currently planned volume of these modules is 3500m3 There should be a smaller subcap version for black ops and maybe future subcap jump capable ships.
Blackops are free to fit them, but they won't be able to swap them into their cargo holds. This is by design. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
|
Voyager Arran
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
463
|
Posted - 2014.08.01 15:38:00 -
[81] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Sigras wrote:Please make the modules capital sized (>=4000 m^3) otherwise you may as well just reduce the jump fuel cost of all ships by 25% and call it a day...
If these modules are allowed to be 5 m^3 like most other modules not specifically tied to a ship class then every carrier will just carry around 4-5 of them and insta switch them out when they land. The currently planned volume of these modules is 3500m3
People need to pay more attention to this detail.
At best, a carrier can tote around two, and that leaves them without room for any other capital modules in their fleet hangar and also gives up 7,000 m3 that could have just been more fuel. Dreads won't be able to carry any of them at all. |
Kane Fenris
NWP
151
|
Posted - 2014.08.01 16:15:00 -
[82] - Quote
Voyager Arran wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Sigras wrote:Please make the modules capital sized (>=4000 m^3) otherwise you may as well just reduce the jump fuel cost of all ships by 25% and call it a day...
If these modules are allowed to be 5 m^3 like most other modules not specifically tied to a ship class then every carrier will just carry around 4-5 of them and insta switch them out when they land. The currently planned volume of these modules is 3500m3 People need to pay more attention to this detail. At best, a carrier can tote around two, and that leaves them without room for any other capital modules in their fleet hangar and also gives up 7,000 m3 that could have just been more fuel. Dreads won't be able to carry any of them at all.
yeah this makes em even more awefull....
power blocks will have them lying around in their infrastructure so if they have a 4 jump way theyll jump 3 jumps with those mods then refit and make final jump fitted with normal combat fit
smaler corps who do not have this infrastructure are the ones who are ***** by this change |
Strata Maslav
Born-2-Kill Exodus.
94
|
Posted - 2014.08.01 16:22:00 -
[83] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Sigras wrote:Please make the modules capital sized (>=4000 m^3) otherwise you may as well just reduce the jump fuel cost of all ships by 25% and call it a day...
If these modules are allowed to be 5 m^3 like most other modules not specifically tied to a ship class then every carrier will just carry around 4-5 of them and insta switch them out when they land. The currently planned volume of these modules is 3500m3
There doesn't seem to be any specification currently with the fitting to any specific ship. Theoretically you could take a frigate, fit these modules to it and store it inside your carrier. It would still be very difficult to fit these in space still but allow you to refit easily in a station. |
Wrecked Angle
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5
|
Posted - 2014.08.01 16:43:00 -
[84] - Quote
Strata Maslav wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Sigras wrote:Please make the modules capital sized (>=4000 m^3) otherwise you may as well just reduce the jump fuel cost of all ships by 25% and call it a day...
If these modules are allowed to be 5 m^3 like most other modules not specifically tied to a ship class then every carrier will just carry around 4-5 of them and insta switch them out when they land. The currently planned volume of these modules is 3500m3 There doesn't seem to be any specification currently with the fitting to any specific ship. Theoretically you could take a frigate, fit these modules to it and store it inside your carrier. It would still be very difficult to fit these in space still but allow you to refit easily in a station.
Please stop thinking outside the box breaking CCPs meticulous design |
Karash Amerius
Sutoka
191
|
Posted - 2014.08.01 17:31:00 -
[85] - Quote
TheButcherPete wrote:LOL guys, this fuel nerf wasn't meant for the coalitions. It's just CCP's way of kicking the little guys in the balls and making them have to join blocs just to stay in low/null. one step forward, two steps back. MeBiatch wrote:it would be cool if you guys also added a cpuless version of a downgraded damage control unit.
make it only add 30% resists to hull. but that couppled with 2 bulkheads should make a ganker think twice. Have you seen what deadspace adaptive nano platings with good skills do to Freighters? It's hilarious.
Only reason you would use any platings on a freighter is if you have guardians on grid (and more than just a few). Otherwise, it is always better to put T2 Reinforced Bulkheads to increase your overall EHP. Karash Amerius Operative, Sutoka |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
10835
|
Posted - 2014.08.01 18:08:00 -
[86] - Quote
Strata Maslav wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Sigras wrote:Please make the modules capital sized (>=4000 m^3) otherwise you may as well just reduce the jump fuel cost of all ships by 25% and call it a day...
If these modules are allowed to be 5 m^3 like most other modules not specifically tied to a ship class then every carrier will just carry around 4-5 of them and insta switch them out when they land. The currently planned volume of these modules is 3500m3 There doesn't seem to be any specification currently with the fitting to any specific ship. Theoretically you could take a frigate, fit these modules to it and store it inside your carrier. It would still be very difficult to fit these in space still but allow you to refit easily in a station.
Good point, and easy enough to solve. We have the technology. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Aerie Evingod
Midwest Miners LLC
52
|
Posted - 2014.08.01 19:58:00 -
[87] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Strata Maslav wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Sigras wrote:Please make the modules capital sized (>=4000 m^3) otherwise you may as well just reduce the jump fuel cost of all ships by 25% and call it a day...
If these modules are allowed to be 5 m^3 like most other modules not specifically tied to a ship class then every carrier will just carry around 4-5 of them and insta switch them out when they land. The currently planned volume of these modules is 3500m3 There doesn't seem to be any specification currently with the fitting to any specific ship. Theoretically you could take a frigate, fit these modules to it and store it inside your carrier. It would still be very difficult to fit these in space still but allow you to refit easily in a station. Good point, and easy enough to solve. We have the technology.
Stronger? Faster? |
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
150
|
Posted - 2014.08.01 20:08:00 -
[88] - Quote
Aerie Evingod wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Strata Maslav wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Sigras wrote:Please make the modules capital sized (>=4000 m^3) otherwise you may as well just reduce the jump fuel cost of all ships by 25% and call it a day...
If these modules are allowed to be 5 m^3 like most other modules not specifically tied to a ship class then every carrier will just carry around 4-5 of them and insta switch them out when they land. The currently planned volume of these modules is 3500m3 There doesn't seem to be any specification currently with the fitting to any specific ship. Theoretically you could take a frigate, fit these modules to it and store it inside your carrier. It would still be very difficult to fit these in space still but allow you to refit easily in a station. Good point, and easy enough to solve. We have the technology. Stronger? Faster? Most likely by restricting the fitting to jump capable ships only. |
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys Mordus Angels
1955
|
Posted - 2014.08.01 21:49:00 -
[89] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Strata Maslav wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Sigras wrote:Please make the modules capital sized (>=4000 m^3) otherwise you may as well just reduce the jump fuel cost of all ships by 25% and call it a day...
If these modules are allowed to be 5 m^3 like most other modules not specifically tied to a ship class then every carrier will just carry around 4-5 of them and insta switch them out when they land. The currently planned volume of these modules is 3500m3 There doesn't seem to be any specification currently with the fitting to any specific ship. Theoretically you could take a frigate, fit these modules to it and store it inside your carrier. It would still be very difficult to fit these in space still but allow you to refit easily in a station. Good point, and easy enough to solve. We have the technology. When you solve this problem, will they still be able to fit to a blops? Just making sure....
Also I wasn't clear on this: Will the modules affect blops bridges which use normal fuels instead of stront? |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
1104
|
Posted - 2014.08.01 22:39:00 -
[90] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Strata Maslav wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Sigras wrote:Please make the modules capital sized (>=4000 m^3) otherwise you may as well just reduce the jump fuel cost of all ships by 25% and call it a day...
If these modules are allowed to be 5 m^3 like most other modules not specifically tied to a ship class then every carrier will just carry around 4-5 of them and insta switch them out when they land. The currently planned volume of these modules is 3500m3 There doesn't seem to be any specification currently with the fitting to any specific ship. Theoretically you could take a frigate, fit these modules to it and store it inside your carrier. It would still be very difficult to fit these in space still but allow you to refit easily in a station. Good point, and easy enough to solve. We have the technology. When you solve this problem, will they still be able to fit to a blops? Just making sure.... Also I wasn't clear on this: Will the modules affect blops bridges which use normal fuels instead of stront? The last answer I saw was no affects to any bridging. Just the jump-druve |
|
phalanx III
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
37
|
Posted - 2014.08.01 22:55:00 -
[91] - Quote
Your offering pleases me Fozzie..... |
Caleb Seremshur
The Atomic Fallout Kids
341
|
Posted - 2014.08.01 23:28:00 -
[92] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hello everyone. As we mentioned a while back, I've been working on a set of low-slot modules that decrease the fuel requirements of jump drives.
The primary goal here is to provide an interesting set of choices to capital pilots (especially Jump Freighter pilots) in how to fill up their low slots for any given activity.
These modules will require 1 PG and 0 CPU, there will be no limit in how many you can fit to one ship but they are stacking penalized with each other.
Like the Hyperspatial Accelerators, we are starting with three versions of this module. Also like the Accelerators the blueprints for these modules will be found exclusively in Besieged Ghost Sites in low security space. The rarity will increase with the power between the three modules, and all of them will have a skill requirement of Jump Fuel Conservation 1. These modules all have a volume of 3500m3.
The fuel reduction per module is: Limited Jump Drive Economizer - 4% Experimental Jump Drive Economizer - 7% Prototype Jump Drive Economizer - 10%
I'll let you guys know when these babies hit SISI for your testing pleasure. Feel free to post your feedback in the thread below. Thanks!
So instead of addressing things like invincible instadocking JF's or huge migrating cap fleets contributing to power projection we at CCP instead make it easier and cheaper for bigger groups to travel either faster, further or with more stuff over the guy just starting out. Saying that the 'new guy' has the same toolset is a back-handed compliment really - yes the big players naturally have better funding and will never be limited in any serious way towards having what they need but you aren't doing anything to address the fact that the biggest and most expensive ships in the game which are meant to be focal points for fleets and not fleets in and of themselves are the fastest and most versatile.
Here's a suggestion for your pidgeon hole: jump drives now illicit a 10 minute weapons timer. Now capital fleets must commit to a travel fit to travel, or take an entire spare load of combat modules in their cargo bays.
next: capitals cannot use mobile depots to refit (simple, the modules themselves are too big to be handled by such a small depot).
Finally: jump drive consumption should be relative to the size of the vessel. If carriers are used as a base, dreads are 1.5x and titans are an extreme 14x more isotopes per jump.
Remove bridging from the game and/or as another poster said, space out the universe more to further gimp rapid redeployments of entire capital fleets. A cap under the new system jumps optimally 2 systems not 25. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=348015 T3 OHing subsystem review and rebalance https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=290346 LP faction weapon store costs rebalancing
|
Emma Muutaras
State War Academy Caldari State
37
|
Posted - 2014.08.01 23:59:00 -
[93] - Quote
while i have nothing against the modules saving fuel in my gf/dread hell i'm game.
but i would be a lot more impressed if you re-balanced freighters/jumpfreighters completely, give them highs (highs not vital though at times i do wish i could cloak my JF :p), mids and lows and of cause rigs like every other ship in the game (shuttles/pods not included) and give players the choice to fit there ships properly the 3 lows was a nice start but really it dont give u many options even with a extra module type options are still very limiting |
Oxygen o2
Paragon Fury Tactical Narcotics Team
1
|
Posted - 2014.08.02 00:02:00 -
[94] - Quote
God this is awful. |
Regan Rotineque
Arch Angels Assault Force The Kadeshi
369
|
Posted - 2014.08.02 00:24:00 -
[95] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Altrue wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Sigras wrote:Please make the modules capital sized (>=4000 m^3) otherwise you may as well just reduce the jump fuel cost of all ships by 25% and call it a day...
If these modules are allowed to be 5 m^3 like most other modules not specifically tied to a ship class then every carrier will just carry around 4-5 of them and insta switch them out when they land. The currently planned volume of these modules is 3500m3 There should be a smaller subcap version for black ops and maybe future subcap jump capable ships. Blackops are free to fit them, but they won't be able to swap them into their cargo holds. This is by design.
You had me through this whole thread until this one post Fozzie
I think that there should be a blops version - im not saying we can fit 4 of em and carry them around - but at least one - sized appropriately for a sub capital. But a module that 3500m3 is a capital sized module not something for sub capitals. It basically makes it useless on anything under a capital sized hull.
Please reconsider - as i noted before im not saying make em 5 m3 but something maybe in the 400-500 m3 specifically for the blops would use up over 1/2 of the cargo capacity and still make them a useful and interesting choice.
Current design is not useful for sub caps |
Twizted3
Doughboys Overload Everything
6
|
Posted - 2014.08.02 01:13:00 -
[96] - Quote
I don't see how others are not saying this module is a terrible idea, at 3500 m3 no one is going to use it, can't carry extra fittings or extra fuel, can't justify using them on blackops because you can't take them off and refit using a depot.
This is basically admitting the fuel change was a bad idea then releasing a module to supposedly fix it, but making the module so huge it isn't worth using, again doesn't effect the big bloc alliances at all because they have the isk to pay for all their pilots fuel, and the resources to put carrier refits at the last jump before getting into combat.
Just put fuel back the way it was and leave it alone. You are making it much much worse. |
Skia Aumer
Atlas Research Group
84
|
Posted - 2014.08.02 06:36:00 -
[97] - Quote
Twizted3 wrote:I don't see how others are not saying this module is a terrible idea, at 3500 m3 no one is going to use it, can't carry extra fittings or extra fuel, can't justify using them on blackops... Then just dont use them on blackops. These are designed for JFs. |
xplosiv
State War Academy Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2014.08.02 08:56:00 -
[98] - Quote
typical CCP ignore the overall picture and only comment on the tiny little thing they are doing. You have screwed with small corps and individuals in 0.0 by making fuel more expensive and the pure amount of it you need to move around and in fact Given the large coalitions help with this change.
Seriously these modules are a kick in the teeth because the people who will get most out of them are yet again the big alliance who can bridge industrials with backup fits or have secondary fits in their forward bases to swap out to. You guys are making pointless changes that have no effect but bad ones.
You have now encouraged more renters being taken on to mine ice as there rent. You have screwed up the ability to supply nullsec. And you taunt some grand plan for making null self sufficient ect but you can't do industry in null because it's now crawling with interceptors, insta lock thrashers, dictors and cloaky camper cyno ships in any high use system.. You want industry in null make it at least possible you complete tards. please for the love of god before you change anything else go and play the game and get some understanding of what is actually happening. |
Carniflex
StarHunt Mordus Angels
268
|
Posted - 2014.08.02 09:59:00 -
[99] - Quote
Mariner6 wrote:Lowsec again? No issue with that I guess but it would be nice if something like this could be seeded in NPC Null only. Might spice things up a bit down here. Some extra small gang incentive would be nice like your doing in lowsec with your clone tags, mordus legion etc etc. But you know....amp it up a bit down here for some more risk/reward aspects. Its been getting quiet around here in Syndicate of late and not much better in other NPC null.
It is indeed a bit odd that CCP is ignoring the NPC null. For all practical purposes NPC null is low sec with bubbles and bombers and titan doomsday's. So CCP should act towards it like a subset of low sec instead of putting it in the same bin with sov null which is a lot different beast. Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... *THWONK!* GOT the bastard. |
Carniflex
StarHunt Mordus Angels
268
|
Posted - 2014.08.02 10:02:00 -
[100] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Strata Maslav wrote: There doesn't seem to be any specification currently with the fitting to any specific ship. Theoretically you could take a frigate, fit these modules to it and store it inside your carrier. It would still be very difficult to fit these in space still but allow you to refit easily in a station.
Good point, and easy enough to solve. We have the technology.
Does it mean that the carrier will need to carry a BLOPS fitted with these to store them ? Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... *THWONK!* GOT the bastard. |
|
Carniflex
StarHunt Mordus Angels
268
|
Posted - 2014.08.02 10:12:00 -
[101] - Quote
Twizted3 wrote:I don't see how others are not saying this module is a terrible idea, at 3500 m3 no one is going to use it, can't carry extra fittings or extra fuel, can't justify using them on blackops because you can't take them off and refit using a depot.
This is basically admitting the fuel change was a bad idea then releasing a module to supposedly fix it, but making the module so huge it isn't worth using, again doesn't effect the big bloc alliances at all because they have the isk to pay for all their pilots fuel, and the resources to put carrier refits at the last jump before getting into combat.
Just put fuel back the way it was and leave it alone. You are making it much much worse.
You are sitting in too tight box mate. Ofcource you can refit them on BLOPS without major issues. You just cant carry them comfortably ;) But nothing prevents you leaving one (or more of them) in the depot if you need to refit for something else. With some careful juggling with jetcans and expanders you could even make it so that your fuel truck can pick it up .. or something.
It's just not that relevant for BLOPS scene as it does not affect bridging and if you are hopping around just yourself you most likely are better off with something else instead of this fuel conservation module as BLOPS are already reasonably fuel efficient per ly (as long as they do not need to bridge other stuff around with them). For purely bridge BLOPS which is fitted for that it is probably still better to go with full expanders instead of fitting one or more of these.
But dunno perhaps it would make sense in some scenarios to use some of these on blops. Although BLOPS would benefit more from something that would make it able to extend its jump range.
Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... *THWONK!* GOT the bastard. |
Carniflex
StarHunt Mordus Angels
268
|
Posted - 2014.08.02 10:16:00 -
[102] - Quote
xplosiv wrote:typical Seriously these modules are a kick in the teeth because the people who will get most out of them are yet again the big alliance who can bridge industrials with backup fits or have secondary fits in their forward bases to swap out to.
The easiest solution, in my opinion, is just bringing Roqual along if you absolutely need to refit and store these in space. It can be expanded to ~130 k base cargo and has also 50 000 corp hangar. Only issue is ofc that Roqual, if I remember correct, is a bit shorter jump range than carriers. And it adds some complexity to the refitting procedure.
Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... *THWONK!* GOT the bastard. |
Jamaica Merchant
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2014.08.02 11:12:00 -
[103] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: The primary goal here is to provide an interesting set of choices to capital pilots (especially Jump Freighter pilots) in how to fill up their low slots for any given activity.
I can hardly think of anything more interesting than contemplating capital low slots.
|
Desert Ice78
Gryphons of the Western Wind
400
|
Posted - 2014.08.02 11:45:00 -
[104] - Quote
Voyager Arran wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Sigras wrote:Please make the modules capital sized (>=4000 m^3) otherwise you may as well just reduce the jump fuel cost of all ships by 25% and call it a day...
If these modules are allowed to be 5 m^3 like most other modules not specifically tied to a ship class then every carrier will just carry around 4-5 of them and insta switch them out when they land. The currently planned volume of these modules is 3500m3 People need to pay more attention to this detail. At best, a carrier can tote around two, and that leaves them without room for any other capital modules in their fleet hangar and also gives up 7,000 m3 that could have just been more fuel. Dreads won't be able to carry any of them at all. That size seems to be a bit excessive. 2000m3 would be a better balance, me thinks. I am a pod pilot: http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/DesertIce/POD.jpg
CCP Zulu: Came expecting a discussion about computer monitors, left confused. |
Hevymetal
Eve Defence Force Cult of War
339
|
Posted - 2014.08.02 12:46:00 -
[105] - Quote
I support this idea, however 3500m3 does seem a bit much.
One of you Eve math gurus wanna do the calculations on this one?
An archon with a full fuel bay, jump fuel conservation V and 7 lows fitted the best versions of these 10% including the stacking penalties can go how far now before needing refueling?
|
Max Goldwing
Homeworld Republic The Explicit Alliance
11
|
Posted - 2014.08.02 17:40:00 -
[106] - Quote
Hevymetal wrote:I support this idea, however 3500m3 does seem a bit much.
One of you Eve math gurus wanna do the calculations on this one?
An archon with a full fuel bay, jump fuel conservation V and 7 lows fitted the best versions of these 10% including the stacking penalties can go how far now before needing refueling?
6th and 7th module is probaly not worth it, with 5 you get 32.27% with 7 you get 33.36% less fuel usage.
|
Alundil
Isogen 5
616
|
Posted - 2014.08.02 17:53:00 -
[107] - Quote
Ripard Teg wrote:Why is there no limit on the number of these that you can fit?
I am concerned about certain alliances who shall remain nameless buying four of these for each of their carriers and supers. By doing so, they avoid the bulk of the nerf you stuck the rest of us with... This is exactly the point. It completely invalidates the effects of the isotope changes (making them more expensive) for those groups that can, and make no mistake WILL, purchase these in bulk for their capital fleets. This makes perfect sense as an Alliance-level capital fleet expense item. Groups with more ISK than they know what to do with (read: blocs and heads of rental+moon empires) won't even bat an eye at buying these by the hundreds.
However, for other less well supported (propped up) capital pilots, mainly those smaller alliances without moons or renter, or smaller corps, or even individual pilots, will be effectively priced out of these and stuck with the isotope price hike you hit them with. With no mitigation available due to no "Scrooge McDuck" piles of ISK.
Why would these items even be conceptualized if you, CCP, were concerned with the ease of teleportation across the map and then made an change just a few short months ago to make it a little less easy, or at least more expensive to do. This reverses that for those who can pay.
IDGI
I'm right behind you |
Hopelesshobo
Red Dwarf Mining Corporation space weaponry and trade
280
|
Posted - 2014.08.02 17:57:00 -
[108] - Quote
Catherine Laartii wrote:To be quite honest, I think it would be impressive if you added something to increase jump RANGE. That would have a lot more potential to shake things up.
Yes, lets make eve even smaller, so the large coalitions have an even easier time moving around and controlling an even larger portion of nulsec. That has got to be a GREAT idea, have 1 coalition controlling all of nulsec....how can that possibly be boring? Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012. |
Snake O'Donell
Core Impulse Nihilists Social Club
5
|
Posted - 2014.08.02 18:04:00 -
[109] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Strata Maslav wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Sigras wrote:Please make the modules capital sized (>=4000 m^3) otherwise you may as well just reduce the jump fuel cost of all ships by 25% and call it a day...
If these modules are allowed to be 5 m^3 like most other modules not specifically tied to a ship class then every carrier will just carry around 4-5 of them and insta switch them out when they land. The currently planned volume of these modules is 3500m3 There doesn't seem to be any specification currently with the fitting to any specific ship. Theoretically you could take a frigate, fit these modules to it and store it inside your carrier. It would still be very difficult to fit these in space still but allow you to refit easily in a station. Good point, and easy enough to solve. We have the technology. Ok, so when I move my dread fleet the whole way across the galaxy, I just dock up one jump out of my destination, unfit these mods, and replace with damage mods and leave it in the station. When I jump out of combat I just refit in station again. Once again this mainly ends up really affecting small alliances without pre-established jump points and large logistics chains, well barely even effecting large alliances and coalitions. |
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
1311
|
Posted - 2014.08.02 19:16:00 -
[110] - Quote
I'm not even in the big blocks and I think the constant tears over fuel costs for "the little guy" are a joke. In fact, I'd place myself firmly in the position of being "the little guy" and I have no trouble fueling my capitals. The current price for a carrier is 1.35 billion. If you can afford the hull, you can afford another 300-500mil to fit it.
And if you can't afford jump fuel, then you've got bigger problems than these modules. Get yourselves sorted out and stop the tears. It's embarrassing. |
|
Kane Fenris
NWP
152
|
Posted - 2014.08.02 20:32:00 -
[111] - Quote
Paikis wrote:I'm not even in the big blocks and I think the constant tears over fuel costs for "the little guy" are a joke. In fact, I'd place myself firmly in the position of being "the little guy" and I have no trouble fueling my capitals. The current price for a carrier is 1.35 billion. If you can afford the hull, you can afford another 300-500mil to fit it.
And if you can't afford jump fuel, then you've got bigger problems than these modules. Get yourselves sorted out and stop the tears. It's embarrassing.
its about the economics
I suggest you read this
its an intresting article (warning its long!) there is explained in detail why there are only two power blocks in eve nullsec and why game mechanics do not allow a more inhomogenious null space.
its because of mecanics like this (fuel changes) (fuel costs and now even worse allowing parties that have a good infrastructure to even safe more fuel)
|
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
1311
|
Posted - 2014.08.02 22:30:00 -
[112] - Quote
Kane Fenris wrote:its about the economics I suggest you read thisits an intresting article (warning its long!) there is explained in detail why there are only two power blocks in eve nullsec and why game mechanics do not allow a more inhomogenious null space. its because of mecanics like this (fuel changes) (fuel costs and now even worse allowing parties that have a good infrastructure to even safe more fuel)
I read that post when it came out. I don't see the relevance to this issue. It talks about why there are two blocks, this discussion is about jump fuel costs.
I say again, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from going to low sec and getting some of these modules for yourself, or running missions/anoms/mining for long enough to just buy one. Just as there is no reason why you wouldn't be able to afford the increased jump fuel.
If you can afford a ship with a jump drive, then you can afford to fuel it. End of story. Just do more of what you did to buy the hull. |
Pheusia
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
159
|
Posted - 2014.08.03 00:21:00 -
[113] - Quote
Carniflex wrote:Mariner6 wrote:Lowsec again? No issue with that I guess but it would be nice if something like this could be seeded in NPC Null only. Might spice things up a bit down here. Some extra small gang incentive would be nice like your doing in lowsec with your clone tags, mordus legion etc etc. But you know....amp it up a bit down here for some more risk/reward aspects. Its been getting quiet around here in Syndicate of late and not much better in other NPC null. It is indeed a bit odd that CCP is ignoring the NPC null. For all practical purposes NPC null is low sec with bubbles and bombers and titan doomsday's. So CCP should act towards it like a subset of low sec instead of putting it in the same bin with sov null which is a lot different beast.
Well said that man. lo-sec has received a great series of buffs lately. NPC 0.0 could do with some love. |
Kane Fenris
NWP
152
|
Posted - 2014.08.03 10:43:00 -
[114] - Quote
Paikis wrote:Kane Fenris wrote:its about the economics I suggest you read thisits an intresting article (warning its long!) there is explained in detail why there are only two power blocks in eve nullsec and why game mechanics do not allow a more inhomogenious null space. its because of mecanics like this (fuel changes) (fuel costs and now even worse allowing parties that have a good infrastructure to even safe more fuel) I read that post when it came out. I don't see the relevance to this issue. It talks about why there are two blocks, this discussion is about jump fuel costs. I say again, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from going to low sec and getting some of these modules for yourself, or running missions/anoms/mining for long enough to just buy one. Just as there is no reason why you wouldn't be able to afford the increased jump fuel. If you can afford a ship with a jump drive, then you can afford to fuel it. End of story. Just do more of what you did to buy the hull. I mean, has anyone even bothered to do the maths on how much jump fuel costs? I have, and a max range jump for a JF is only 15mil, where it used to be 10m. Talk about a storm in a teacup. If you're making this big of a fuss over 15m now, but you were fine with 10m previously, then please turn in your capitals, because you're too dumb to be flying them.
|
Christopher Tsutola
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
14
|
Posted - 2014.08.03 12:52:00 -
[115] - Quote
Rowells wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:
Also I wasn't clear on this: Will the modules affect blops bridges which use normal fuels instead of stront?
The last answer I saw was no affects to any bridging. Just the jump-druve
I was unclear on this as well since bridge fuel is stront and the cost to jump a ship is based of the base jump cost of the bridging ship if these do reduce the cost of BLOP bridges then i'm fine with them and i think it would fix most of the problems with BLOPS in general. if it doesn't affect the bridge however there wont be much point fitting these on BLOPS. This isn't much of a problem if they were only intended for capital ships however and not BLOPS |
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
3068
|
Posted - 2014.08.03 16:42:00 -
[116] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: The primary goal here is to provide an interesting set of choices to capital pilots (especially Jump Freighter pilots) in how to fill up their low slots for any given activity.
Then you have failed before you started.
You have provided no interesting choices. What you have done is provided for a new module that will be used on most if not all travel fits, and almost never on a combat fit. That's not new, or interesting. "i advice you to go spit on the back of someone else because you are fall on the wrong horse." - Meio Rayliegh |
Christopher Tsutola
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
14
|
Posted - 2014.08.03 16:51:00 -
[117] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: The fuel reduction per module is: Limited Jump Drive Economizer - 4% Experimental Jump Drive Economizer - 7% Prototype Jump Drive Economizer - 10%
As many have stated this will just cause anyone who uses these mods to only go for the Prototype something you have said you wanted avoided with the meta modals why not start your balancing with these give some small buff to each of them
Prototype would just stay with its 10%
but give the limited perhaps a boost to bridge cost and the experimental a boost to cap cost
now these bones are not the best for one it looks like they don't want them to effect bridge cost just examples of things related to jump drives i could think of off hand and would help to add to the choices a pilot could make |
Skia Aumer
Atlas Research Group
85
|
Posted - 2014.08.04 05:08:00 -
[118] - Quote
Domanique Altares wrote:Then you have failed before you started.
You have provided no interesting choices. What you have done is provided for a new module that will be used on most if not all travel fits, and almost never on a combat fit. That's not new, or interesting. They failed the moment they scrapped the idea of freighter rigs. With rigs, you have to think first, then make decisions and finally suffer the consequences. Without, you just take spare modules anywhere you go and refit anytime you wish. |
Kane Fenris
NWP
152
|
Posted - 2014.08.04 10:19:00 -
[119] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:Domanique Altares wrote:Then you have failed before you started.
You have provided no interesting choices. What you have done is provided for a new module that will be used on most if not all travel fits, and almost never on a combat fit. That's not new, or interesting. They failed the moment they scrapped the idea of freighter rigs. With rigs, you have to think first, then make decisions and finally suffer the consequences. Without, you just take spare modules anywhere you go and refit anytime you wish. As an example, when I run a freighter full of goodies, I fit bulkheads to have a chance against gankers. When I autopilot back, I fit nanofibers. When sometimes I need to haul craptons of ore - I have cargoholds too. Just a few clicks were added into the game, nothing interesting. These economizers are a bit more tricky because they have rather big volume, but still not even 10% as fun as if they were rigs.
totally agree with you both.
if those jump mdules were rigs you wouldnt have the problem i see with those mods and dont create unnecessary clicks (ofc nobody in the galaxy would fit them well maybe to jf's.... but thats another point)
problem was the feigther rig thing had some flaws of its own.
to me the best solution wold be if theres a need in the economy (from dev side) to cut on fuel prices just give the reduction of 2-3 of those mods fitted to all jumpable ships. if theres no need then do nothing at all -> dont bring those mods in the game they offer NOTHING that could be consdiered as FUN |
Mindo Junde
Bunnie Slayers Redrum Fleet
8
|
Posted - 2014.08.04 10:30:00 -
[120] - Quote
Kane Fenris wrote:Paikis wrote:I'm not even in the big blocks and I think the constant tears over fuel costs for "the little guy" are a joke. In fact, I'd place myself firmly in the position of being "the little guy" and I have no trouble fueling my capitals. The current price for a carrier is 1.35 billion. If you can afford the hull, you can afford another 300-500mil to fit it.
And if you can't afford jump fuel, then you've got bigger problems than these modules. Get yourselves sorted out and stop the tears. It's embarrassing. its about the economics I suggest you read thisits an intresting article (warning its long!) there is explained in detail why there are only two power blocks in eve nullsec and why game mechanics do not allow a more inhomogenious null space. its because of mecanics like this (fuel changes) (fuel costs and now even worse allowing parties that have a good infrastructure to even safe more fuel) the word your looking for is heterogeneous, beyond that your are correct
Seems that whoever in CCP came up with this module is more interested in undoing any attempts to balkanise null sec, for whatever moronic reason. Its a sad day when everybody wants CCP to change sov and CCP are trying to keep it???? |
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1494
|
Posted - 2014.08.04 11:18:00 -
[121] - Quote
Jamaica Merchant wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: The primary goal here is to provide an interesting set of choices to capital pilots (especially Jump Freighter pilots) in how to fill up their low slots for any given activity.
I can hardly think of anything more interesting than contemplating capital low slots.
lol.. that... specially JF. "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |
Kane Fenris
NWP
152
|
Posted - 2014.08.04 11:21:00 -
[122] - Quote
Mindo Junde wrote: the word your looking for is heterogeneous, beyond that your are correct
sry for the offtopic but i have to.... http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/inhomogeneous |
beaconBoy SavesTheDay
Galactic Hauling Solutions Inc.
2
|
Posted - 2014.08.04 14:41:00 -
[123] - Quote
Sugar Kyle wrote:It is a module that comes from a BPC that drops in a spawning site in low sec. I guess we should encourage more people to do besieged sites to keep the prices down, mmm?
Look at how CCP's changes for this summer have been tweaked wtih both low sec capsuleers and jump freighter pilots in mind. Looks like my vote for Sugar Kyle for CSM9 has already paid dividend!
Where can I make a campaign contribution for your run for CSM10?
|
Kari Trace
24
|
Posted - 2014.08.04 15:18:00 -
[124] - Quote
@OP: Did CCP not just increase the size of ozone as a direct result of how cheap and easy it is to move capitals across the map? Adding modules to make it cheap again defeats the purpose of encouraging local markets, causing capital movement costs to rise, and reducing the easy of movement for said hulls.
If anything make it HARDER for jump drive hulls to move vast distances, not easier. I promise right here as soon as these possible modules hit market every carrier and up pilot will be required to have them in their cargo hold. Also....hulls with higher number of low slots will gain an inherent advantage, perpetuating armor capital doctrines and relegating shield capital doctrines to near laughable non-usage.
0.02 ISK I like making things explode.
Kari Trace |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
53
|
Posted - 2014.08.04 20:13:00 -
[125] - Quote
Kari Trace wrote:@OP: Did CCP not just increase the size of ozone as a direct result of how cheap and easy it is to move capitals across the map? Adding modules to make it cheap again defeats the purpose of encouraging local markets, causing capital movement costs to rise, and reducing the easy of movement for said hulls.
If anything make it HARDER for jump drive hulls to move vast distances, not easier. I promise right here as soon as these possible modules hit market every carrier and up pilot will be required to have them in their cargo hold. Also....hulls with higher number of low slots will gain an inherent advantage, perpetuating armor capital doctrines and relegating shield capital doctrines to near laughable non-usage.
0.02 ISK
I didn't realize that there were caps with less than 4 low slots. cause you know that after 4 mods the stacking penalty makes more useless. |
Alexis Nightwish
State War Academy Caldari State
20
|
Posted - 2014.08.04 23:02:00 -
[126] - Quote
You want to make nullsec more local and less spread out? More "home-grown" and less of an import society? Then stop enabling jump travel. Scrap these mods.
And if you absolutely have to have these damn things, make them a FLAT decrease in jump fuel cost. Like 100, 150, 200. And no those numbers are not per LY, they are per jump. |
Carniflex
StarHunt Mordus Angels
272
|
Posted - 2014.08.05 09:39:00 -
[127] - Quote
Alexis Nightwish wrote:You want to make nullsec more local and less spread out? More "home-grown" and less of an import society? Then stop enabling jump travel. Scrap these mods.
And if you absolutely have to have these damn things, make them a FLAT decrease in jump fuel cost. Like 100, 150, 200. And no those numbers are not per LY, they are per jump.
There is no point in introducing useless modules. If modules are introduced they must make some sense to fit, even if their reasonable usage cases happen to be situational with very small niche.
As addressed in multiple occasions the outright removal of jump drives from EVE will not stop power projection on its own. Although it for sure would be a very populist move in a sense of addressing one of the more visible effects instead of going after the root causes. And ofc like all populist moves it would have significant "unintended consequences" which are obvious to anyone with few brain cells to rub together.
Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... *THWONK!* GOT the bastard. |
Sigras
Conglomo
829
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 00:59:00 -
[128] - Quote
Voyager Arran wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Sigras wrote:Please make the modules capital sized (>=4000 m^3) otherwise you may as well just reduce the jump fuel cost of all ships by 25% and call it a day...
If these modules are allowed to be 5 m^3 like most other modules not specifically tied to a ship class then every carrier will just carry around 4-5 of them and insta switch them out when they land. The currently planned volume of these modules is 3500m3 People need to pay more attention to this detail. At best, a carrier can tote around two, and that leaves them without room for any other capital modules in their fleet hangar and also gives up 7,000 m3 that could have just been more fuel. Dreads won't be able to carry any of them at all. And that's the way Uh-huh Uh-huh I like it.
You want cheaper fuel costs, there must be some trade off. |
Elmar Windlicht
Cleptomaniacs dsd Brothers of Tangra
1
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 03:40:00 -
[129] - Quote
So: Let's be reasonable. The first choice of moving large amounts of [insert something] would be the Anshar because of it's cargo-to-fuel ratio. An 3x Cargo Expander Anshar has 341.990,9m^3, an 2x Cargo Expander Anshar has 268.228,1m^3 (all presumed Freighter IV). So if I am reading the numbers correctly: What you are proposing is a factor 0.783fuckme decrease in cargo hold (spelled out for the public: -21.5686blerg%) to gain a (at maximum, probably horribly expensive) -10% decrease in Jump Fuel? I'd like to know the sales guy who could convince me that this would be a grand idea after you screwed over small corporations by increasing their fuel costs. If you want to disturb power projection by this, go for carriers, moms, titans. Just accept a mistake, accept it and step back from it. But introducing a module that does not make sense at it's first glance is rather insulting. |
Anthar Thebess
638
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 07:50:00 -
[130] - Quote
Make those only for non combat designed capital ships only , so : - Jump Freighters - Rorquals
Jumping supercapitals is already way to cheep now. Support Needed : Jump Fuel Consumption |
|
Sentamon
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
2052
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 08:16:00 -
[131] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:So travel fits will now include a step to fit these right before you jump then change back to cap recharge fit. I guess that adds a few seconds.
Very much this.
Swapping modules is far to convenient and fast to make any of this an interesting choice. Its more like tedium tbo. ~ Professional Forum Alt -á~ |
Christopher Tsutola
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
18
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 08:35:00 -
[132] - Quote
so how long do you think it will take for Fozzie to abandon this post and just go ahead with the changes? |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
1134
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 08:40:00 -
[133] - Quote
im in the wrong topic |
Kane Fenris
NWP
152
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 11:53:00 -
[134] - Quote
Christopher Tsutola wrote:so how long do you think it will take for Fozzie to abandon this post and just go ahead with the changes?
wait ... your saying this hasnt already happened? im confused |
Shaklu
Mass Effect Enterprises Dark Knights of Eden
3
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 19:02:00 -
[135] - Quote
While I can see, with the addition of low slots on freighters, this making sense; I just don't see why you would increase the amount to jump simply to decrease it again. Especially when almost every other post on the forums is asking for jumping to be harder, not easier.
It makes me think that perhaps the changes that will be done to null to make it better for everyone or harder for blue doughnut to exist, will then be changed back by adding some expensive and hard to get things that only vast mega-alliances are capable of getting in vast quantities, therefore changing nothing. I certainly hope that doesn't happen.
I also agree with the people who say make it a Freighter/Rorq only mod or rig. I read on another post about how it makes little sense that small ships take forever to travel long distances and massive slow capitals can get there instantly (which makes tons of sense) and this just seems to be ignoring that idea, which I find is a good one.
The problem with nerfing jump ranges or fuel costs is that it makes logistics a nightmare.. and EVE runs on logistics.. so give them a boost, but not the combat ships that most agree (via oodles of forum posts) need to get scaled down. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
10974
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 15:02:00 -
[136] - Quote
Hey everyone. Thanks for the feedback so far.
After some more discussion we're going to go ahead and limit the fitting of these modules to Jump Freighters and Rorquals. Those are the only places where they would see extensive use anyways and the rest of the ships were muddying the waters a bit too much. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective
1244
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 15:17:00 -
[137] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. Thanks for the feedback so far.
After some more discussion we're going to go ahead and limit the fitting of these modules to Jump Freighters and Rorquals. Those are the only places where they would see extensive use anyways and the rest of the ships were muddying the waters a bit too much.
It seems logical to me.
Does this change of mind also comes with a change of volume? Signature Tanking - Best Tanking. Beware the french guy!
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
10976
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 15:27:00 -
[138] - Quote
Altrue wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. Thanks for the feedback so far.
After some more discussion we're going to go ahead and limit the fitting of these modules to Jump Freighters and Rorquals. Those are the only places where they would see extensive use anyways and the rest of the ships were muddying the waters a bit too much. It seems logical to me. Does this change of mind also comes with a change of volume?
Not at this time, no. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
TAckermassacker
New Republic The Initiative.
57
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 15:28:00 -
[139] - Quote
everyone wants to gank travelfit carriers, please let them exchange their damage control for a fuel conversator! |
GameFreak X
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
0
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 15:28:00 -
[140] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. Thanks for the feedback so far.
After some more discussion we're going to go ahead and limit the fitting of these modules to Jump Freighters and Rorquals. Those are the only places where they would see extensive use anyways and the rest of the ships were muddying the waters a bit too much.
Gosh darn it fozzie.
I was really looking forward to putting some on my suitecase carrier which basically gets used like a jump freighter for fitted ships (Move a lot of ships, often). I would been happy with rigs for the thing. Why do you have to go and take this away from me? |
|
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective
1244
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 15:36:00 -
[141] - Quote
TAckermassacker wrote:everyone wants to gank travelfit carriers, please let them exchange their damage control for a fuel conversator!
Is that what allows you to talk to your fuel when you feel alone in space? Signature Tanking - Best Tanking. Beware the french guy!
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
761
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 15:59:00 -
[142] - Quote
I agree with the restriction. While it would have been nice to have on blackops BS, I was less enthused about having the jump drive economy modules available for supercarriers and titans, whose fleet hangars are large enough to carry them without issue. Keeping the modules available only for logistics vessels like Rorquals and Jump Freighters with low to no combat or force projection utility is a good move.
It also gives me a little faith that the Rorqual, one of my favorite and most-used ships, will retain its logistics role going forward. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Angrod Losshelin
Oath of the Forsaken Sanguis Ignis Prosperitum
64
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 17:06:00 -
[143] - Quote
Justin Cody wrote:
Before cynos and bridges sub capitals HAD to use gates. Now gates are for peasants. Gates were natural chokes and made fights happen. Now? Pfft.
force projection needs a complete nerf...no wait not nerf. It needs to be rethought.
Come to WH space and let the peasants use gates. I love climbing into holes! I train New Bro's in WormHoles! Check out my PodCast:-áPraise Bob! Also checkout these other PodCasts: http://evepodcasts.com/ |
Desert Ice78
Gryphons of the Western Wind
400
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 22:33:00 -
[144] - Quote
Altrue wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. Thanks for the feedback so far.
After some more discussion we're going to go ahead and limit the fitting of these modules to Jump Freighters and Rorquals. Those are the only places where they would see extensive use anyways and the rest of the ships were muddying the waters a bit too much. It seems logical to me. Does this change of mind also comes with a change of volume? +1
I am a pod pilot: http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/DesertIce/POD.jpg
CCP Zulu: Came expecting a discussion about computer monitors, left confused. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
10967
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 03:17:00 -
[145] - Quote
Are you looking over your numbers on the jump fuel cost increase to see if that was a worthwhile change with intended consequences, or is that a done deal and you're not going to bother? No, this isn't it at all. Make it more... psssshhhh. |
Shock Beer
Black Anvil Industries SpaceMonkey's Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 06:42:00 -
[146] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. Thanks for the feedback so far.
After some more discussion we're going to go ahead and limit the fitting of these modules to Jump Freighters and Rorquals. Those are the only places where they would see extensive use anyways and the rest of the ships were muddying the waters a bit too much.
Why would someone be jumping a rorqual around? |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
1146
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 08:11:00 -
[147] - Quote
Shock Beer wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. Thanks for the feedback so far.
After some more discussion we're going to go ahead and limit the fitting of these modules to Jump Freighters and Rorquals. Those are the only places where they would see extensive use anyways and the rest of the ships were muddying the waters a bit too much. Why would someone be jumping a rorqual around? 120k cargo + 30k fleet hangar + 250k ore hold + less fuel use than JF makes it a really good industry logistics ship. Especially if you don't want a dedicated JF. |
Skia Aumer
Atlas Research Group
87
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 09:24:00 -
[148] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:After some more discussion we're going to go ahead and limit the fitting of these modules to Jump Freighters and Rorquals. Those are the only places where they would see extensive use anyways and the rest of the ships were muddying the waters a bit too much. Yay, sandbox! These should have been rigs from the very beginning, now look what a nonsense you are creating. Stop it. Make the rigs. And introduce freighter rig slots in the next expansion. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
10968
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 11:49:00 -
[149] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:And introduce freighter rig slots in the next expansion. You're pretty oblivious, aren't you? No, this isn't it at all. Make it more... psssshhhh. |
Carniflex
StarHunt Mordus Angels
276
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 13:03:00 -
[150] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. Thanks for the feedback so far.
After some more discussion we're going to go ahead and limit the fitting of these modules to Jump Freighters and Rorquals. Those are the only places where they would see extensive use anyways and the rest of the ships were muddying the waters a bit too much.
I find this decision highly disappointing. I was really looking forward for fitting these on a BLOPS I use to haul my pod around and/or on a suitcase carrier. This restriction severely limits the player choice in the matter. Also - I believe these would have seen much more frequent use on Carriers than they would on JF's.
On a JF and Roqual the decision is pretty straightforward (depending if you have full bay of stuff, if not fit these) and on top of that the JF nor Roqual has any issues whatsoever carrying these around and/or refitting. If you limit it only for the JF / Roqual then you might as well reduce the volume to 100 m3. Or if you want the volume to be relevant for the Roqual then you would need to increase it above 16 600 m3 per module. The 3500 m3 size is after all specifically targeted at carriers and if carriers cant fit these there is no point of clinging to that particular size.
Granted on a suitcase carrier the decision is just as straightforward - always fit these.
Anyway - I know that patch is sort of creeping near - but have you considered perhaps adding a meaningful penalty to these modules and still allow them to be fitted on all jump capable ships. The most obvious meaningful penalty is ofc course the jump range (give JF and Roqual a role bonus negating that penalty if that is the main location where these modules are supposed to be used). Say, for example, the modules would give the currently proposed fuel savings AND the same percentage penalty into the jump range (similarly stacking penalized).
That would be in my opinion a meaningful decision to be made. Just banning the modules outright on anything but the ships on which they are "designed" to work is limiting player choice and emergent behavior. I can understand why it is needed in some cases (like cov ops cloaks) but the smaller is the number of "exceptions" in the rules the more sand I have in my sandbox.
So I would respectfully request you to reconsider this decision if this is still possible. If not then please add more universal modules for fuel reduction in the next patch without this artificial restriction.
Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... *THWONK!* GOT the bastard. |
|
Lynne Rankin
Podlins R Us
26
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 13:39:00 -
[151] - Quote
+1 Carniflex.
I am disturbed by the sudden decision to restrict the use of these modules to only Rorquals and Jump Freighters. It's a disturbing trend, more and more modules and ships are getting told "Not for you," Or "NOOOOOO!"
In the 3 years I've been playing there was certainly emergent gameplay, as Carniflex mentioned, but now it's becoming less of a feature and more classified as 'False Advertisement' in my opinion.
With these changes being made to the JDEM, I can firmly assure you that no one will be using these modules ever. Jump Freighters have a hard enough time getting from deep high-sec to border null without getting closer. Now they practically have to jump into the border system and then make a second, or third, jump into deep null if they have JDEMs fitted, as if your Jump Drive Calibration is sitting at lvl 1 or 2.
Take some risks, CCP. Make a few bans on what the item can be fitted on, but don't do a global ban. Otherwise you might as well rename these 'Industrial Jump Drive Economizers', since without industrial in the name the module is misleading.
Come Hyperion, we need another module to put in the graveyard. RIP Reactive Armor Hardner RIP Target Spectrum Breaker RIP Jump Drive Economizer Modules (I could list stuff like automatic targeting systems, passive targeting systems etc, but we all know those by heart) |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
1146
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 19:30:00 -
[152] - Quote
Lynne Rankin wrote:Now they practically have to jump into the border system and then make a second, or third, jump into deep null if they have JDEMs fitted, as if your Jump Drive Calibration is sitting at lvl 1 or 2. Where are you getting this from?Lynne Rankin wrote:I am disturbed by the sudden decision to restrict the use of these modules to only Rorquals and Jump Freighters. It's a disturbing trend, more and more modules and ships are getting told "Not for you," Or "NOOOOOO!" Tou must have also been disturbed when you found out bastions was only for marauders, siege/triage only for dreads/carriers, and covert cloaks/cynos only fitting on covert ops ships. It's nothing new. What this does is keep the impact of the fuel changes on normal capitals while giving the JF the lowslot option(s) that were promised. |
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys Mordus Angels
1987
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 22:26:00 -
[153] - Quote
Carniflex wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. Thanks for the feedback so far.
After some more discussion we're going to go ahead and limit the fitting of these modules to Jump Freighters and Rorquals. Those are the only places where they would see extensive use anyways and the rest of the ships were muddying the waters a bit too much. I find this decision highly disappointing. I was really looking forward for fitting these on a BLOPS I use to haul my pod around and/or on a suitcase carrier. This restriction severely limits the player choice in the matter. Also - I believe these would have seen much more frequent use on Carriers than they would on JF's. On a JF and Roqual the decision is pretty straightforward (depending if you have full bay of stuff, if not fit these) and on top of that the JF nor Roqual has any issues whatsoever carrying these around and/or refitting. If you limit it only for the JF / Roqual then you might as well reduce the volume to 100 m3. Or if you want the volume to be relevant for the Roqual then you would need to increase it above 16 600 m3 per module. The 3500 m3 size is after all specifically targeted at carriers and if carriers cant fit these there is no point of clinging to that particular size. Granted on a suitcase carrier the decision is just as straightforward - always fit these. Anyway - I know that patch is sort of creeping near - but have you considered perhaps adding a meaningful penalty to these modules and still allow them to be fitted on all jump capable ships. The most obvious meaningful penalty is ofc course the jump range (give JF and Roqual a role bonus negating that penalty if that is the main location where these modules are supposed to be used). Say, for example, the modules would give the currently proposed fuel savings AND the same percentage penalty into the jump range (similarly stacking penalized). That would be in my opinion a meaningful decision to be made. Just banning the modules outright on anything but the ships on which they are "designed" to work is limiting player choice and emergent behavior. I can understand why it is needed in some cases (like cov ops cloaks) but the smaller is the number of "exceptions" in the rules the more sand I have in my sandbox. So I would respectfully request you to reconsider this decision if this is still possible. If not then please add more universal modules for fuel reduction in the next patch without this artificial restriction. JF full load out of Hisec into null --> Cargo expander JF light/empty load out of null to high --> economizer
Likewise, fitting all the low slots of an archon with the fuel economizer modules would basically negate the recent fuel change that ccp implemented, so that wasn't going to happen.
Basically, what you wanted to do with your blops/suitcase carrier is exactly the reason why CCP doesn't want to do it.
|
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys Mordus Angels
1987
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 22:28:00 -
[154] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Lynne Rankin wrote:Now they practically have to jump into the border system and then make a second, or third, jump into deep null if they have JDEMs fitted, as if your Jump Drive Calibration is sitting at lvl 1 or 2. Where are you getting this from? Lynne Rankin wrote:I am disturbed by the sudden decision to restrict the use of these modules to only Rorquals and Jump Freighters. It's a disturbing trend, more and more modules and ships are getting told "Not for you," Or "NOOOOOO!" Tou must have also been disturbed when you found out bastions was only for marauders, siege/triage only for dreads/carriers, and covert cloaks/cynos only fitting on covert ops ships. It's nothing new. What this does is keep the impact of the fuel changes on normal capitals while giving the JF the lowslot option(s) that were promised.
I for one am deeply disturbed that I can't fit 7 bomb launchers to my phoon. |
Lynne Rankin
Podlins R Us
27
|
Posted - 2014.08.09 02:19:00 -
[155] - Quote
Not editing my post, but apparently I need to learn to read a bit more.
The jump drive range reduction was one of Caniflex's proposed penalties, and because of my skimming eyes (rushing off to work) I made a misinterpretation. |
Carniflex
StarHunt Mordus Angels
280
|
Posted - 2014.08.09 06:54:00 -
[156] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote: JF full load out of Hisec into null --> Cargo expander JF light/empty load out of null to high --> economizer
Likewise, fitting all the low slots of an archon with the fuel economizer modules would basically negate the recent fuel change that ccp implemented, so that wasn't going to happen.
Basically, what you wanted to do with your blops/suitcase carrier is exactly the reason why CCP doesn't want to do it.
That is not true. The fuel consumption was increased by 50%. The fuel cost reduction caps out at approx 25% with the 10% versions because of stacking penalties. Fitting anything above 4 is pretty much pointless.
As for the reason why - well we can only speculate but my suspicion is that it's not the fuel reductions on blops which made them do that decision. I can see few possibilities. (1) The reduction in online POS numbers might have been far more drastic than they expected after the industry expansion. So they feel that they must somehow burn all the isotopes to maintain luractivity of the ice mining. (2) The implemented the restriction mechanic to make it impossible to fit these on frigates and such for easy carrying in a carrier. Then the Q&A guys who were already stressed bcos of the patch creeping near went somethign on the lines of "no way in hell can we test all combinations of that before the patch" and the decision was made to just leave em for Roq and JF (a lot less Q&A). Basically a lazy shortcut to squeeze something already advertised for the upcoming patch into the available time resources. (3) It is theoretically possible that they might be worried about Carriers using that. I cant quite figure out why, exactly, would they be worried about that other than the abovementioned 2 points as for large coalitions the fuel cost is kinda pointless, their pilots do not buy their own fuel anyway and at most it might mean an extra JF run to the refueling midpoint. Small entities and solo pilots are not moving large enough distances on regular basis to have an significant effect. (4) There might have been technical problems when trying to make it so that one can not fit a frigate fitted with these in a carrier. This would be a just lazy shortcut to remove the "problem" altogether from the agenda.
Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... *THWONK!* GOT the bastard. |
Christopher Mabata
Dominion Tenebrarum Reverberation Project
83
|
Posted - 2014.08.10 19:13:00 -
[157] - Quote
Capqu wrote:do they work on bridges
neither the rorqual nor the Jump Freighter can bridge so no
Is it bad if your friend says "that was a Metaphor" and you say "Meta 4? Get Tech II or faction" ?I love the sound of silent explosions in Space.-á |
Christopher Mabata
Dominion Tenebrarum Reverberation Project
83
|
Posted - 2014.08.10 19:16:00 -
[158] - Quote
And while i must admit it is dissappointing that i will not be able to fit these to my Thanatos It does make sense, would be too easy to fit 3 of these and then refit when you drop your carrier fleet to full combat fit. Which circumvents the whole fuel amount and cost change CCP put in place. Oh well, good change either way and its a step foreward to making the rorqual viable once more Is it bad if your friend says "that was a Metaphor" and you say "Meta 4? Get Tech II or faction" ?I love the sound of silent explosions in Space.-á |
Carniflex
StarHunt Mordus Angels
281
|
Posted - 2014.08.11 11:39:00 -
[159] - Quote
Christopher Mabata wrote:And while i must admit it is dissappointing that i will not be able to fit these to my Thanatos It does make sense, would be too easy to fit 3 of these and then refit when you drop your carrier fleet to full combat fit. Which circumvents the whole fuel amount and cost change CCP put in place. Oh well, good change either way and its a step foreward to making the rorqual viable once more
I would not go as far as to say it's "too easy" to fit 3 of these. The volume was 3500 m3 meaning you can not carry three in a carrier no matter how you spin it. Sure you could fit these and/or then drop into a can but it would expose these modules to some risk if refitting in space.
Ofc the normal procedure would be to fit these for travel and then refit in a last station before combat zone leaving these mods in station. Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... *THWONK!* GOT the bastard. |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1180
|
Posted - 2014.08.11 13:58:00 -
[160] - Quote
Carniflex wrote:Christopher Mabata wrote:And while i must admit it is dissappointing that i will not be able to fit these to my Thanatos It does make sense, would be too easy to fit 3 of these and then refit when you drop your carrier fleet to full combat fit. Which circumvents the whole fuel amount and cost change CCP put in place. Oh well, good change either way and its a step foreward to making the rorqual viable once more I would not go as far as to say it's "too easy" to fit 3 of these. The volume was 3500 m3 meaning you can not carry three in a carrier no matter how you spin it. Sure you could fit these and/or then drop into a can but it would expose these modules to some risk if refitting in space. Ofc the normal procedure would be to fit these for travel and then refit in a last station before combat zone leaving these mods in station.
Can't you just go all the way untiil the very last jump with some dude in a JF to hold all the modules and log-off to be "hidden" in space while you fight in a full combat fit, then relog when the shoooting is done and the first jump out of the fight system is amde to give back all the modules to low-cost travel back home? Sure it's extra logistic work but many player organisation would only see it as a minor muscle flexing over what they already do... |
|
Vyzia
Common Sense Ltd Nulli Secunda
2
|
Posted - 2014.08.12 00:41:00 -
[161] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Altrue wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. Thanks for the feedback so far.
After some more discussion we're going to go ahead and limit the fitting of these modules to Jump Freighters and Rorquals. Those are the only places where they would see extensive use anyways and the rest of the ships were muddying the waters a bit too much. It seems logical to me. Does this change of mind also comes with a change of volume? Not at this time, no.
Given the ship restrictions is the large size still required? |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
1166
|
Posted - 2014.08.12 01:28:00 -
[162] - Quote
Vyzia wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Altrue wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. Thanks for the feedback so far.
After some more discussion we're going to go ahead and limit the fitting of these modules to Jump Freighters and Rorquals. Those are the only places where they would see extensive use anyways and the rest of the ships were muddying the waters a bit too much. It seems logical to me. Does this change of mind also comes with a change of volume? Not at this time, no. Given the ship restrictions is the large size still required? Well, you can now truly consider it a capital module so it still follows the pattern. and I don't really think your going to see a lack of space in those two ships to hold 3 of them. |
Vyzia
Common Sense Ltd Nulli Secunda
2
|
Posted - 2014.08.12 03:49:00 -
[163] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Vyzia wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Altrue wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. Thanks for the feedback so far.
After some more discussion we're going to go ahead and limit the fitting of these modules to Jump Freighters and Rorquals. Those are the only places where they would see extensive use anyways and the rest of the ships were muddying the waters a bit too much. It seems logical to me. Does this change of mind also comes with a change of volume? Not at this time, no. Given the ship restrictions is the large size still required? Well, you can now truly consider it a capital module so it still follows the pattern. and I don't really think your going to see a lack of space in those two ships to hold 3 of them.
Good point, i was actually thinking of the hypersptial accelerator as a comparison so maybe that needs to be bigger too. |
Carniflex
StarHunt Mordus Angels
281
|
Posted - 2014.08.12 07:51:00 -
[164] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Carniflex wrote:Christopher Mabata wrote:And while i must admit it is dissappointing that i will not be able to fit these to my Thanatos It does make sense, would be too easy to fit 3 of these and then refit when you drop your carrier fleet to full combat fit. Which circumvents the whole fuel amount and cost change CCP put in place. Oh well, good change either way and its a step foreward to making the rorqual viable once more I would not go as far as to say it's "too easy" to fit 3 of these. The volume was 3500 m3 meaning you can not carry three in a carrier no matter how you spin it. Sure you could fit these and/or then drop into a can but it would expose these modules to some risk if refitting in space. Ofc the normal procedure would be to fit these for travel and then refit in a last station before combat zone leaving these mods in station. Can't you just go all the way untiil the very last jump with some dude in a JF to hold all the modules and log-off to be "hidden" in space while you fight in a full combat fit, then relog when the shoooting is done and the first jump out of the fight system is amde to give back all the modules to low-cost travel back home? Sure it's extra logistic work but many player organisation would only see it as a minor muscle flexing over what they already do...
Too much hassle to use JF. You could use ofc Roqual which is better in that regard and/or additional JF but it would be too much hassle and increased complexity. Considering the outpost density it would be far far easier to just dock / refit 1j out and less possibility of seriously mess up.
Not that it matters as I am not holding my breath about CCP revisiting their decision whatever were the logic behind it. It is still ofc disappointing limitation removing the player choice where it should be left up to the players to decide.
EVE would be a bit different game when back in the beginning CCP would have made it so that you can not eject ore nor put it in a jet-can. Even if it would have made their design process simpler. In my opinion this change is in a nutshell telling us "that is this modules intended use/role and we will not let you use it any other way". Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... *THWONK!* GOT the bastard. |
Stalence
Caldari Colonial Defense Ministry Templis CALSF
27
|
Posted - 2014.08.12 18:15:00 -
[165] - Quote
Tho'mas wrote:Catherine Laartii wrote:I suppose this is supposed to counterbalance the increased fuel requirements; fair enough. To be quite honest, I think it would be impressive if you added something to increase jump RANGE. That would have a lot more potential to shake things up. I believe force projection is already bad enough in the current state of the game. I would not like to see jump range increased.
This isn't about PL's hot drop getting go-go-gadget length though. This is about easing logistics for rorquals and jump freighters. |
FlinnRyder
University of Caille Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.08.12 22:37:00 -
[166] - Quote
how does it help JF's and rorq that much if a jf has to choose lower fuel cost at the expense of cargo capacity? trading one maybe efficient way for another....
this 50% increase has kinda destroyed the market on topes. the smaller groups that need jf's and rorq for logistics of moving in and out have kinda stopped using them and the bigger groups arent phased at all by this change. Would be nice if you could find a solution that nerfed the carriers and supers without damaging smaller corps that barely use jump drive ships unless to move goods in and out.
Also it would be nice if CCP could find more of a use for Liquid Ozone and Heavy Water. I've been seeing how its being mined but there is even less of a market for it then the topes... dark glitter gelidus and glare crust are all over the place with these resources that have very little use. compared to the topes. |
Christopher Mabata
Dominion Tenebrarum Reverberation Project
99
|
Posted - 2014.08.12 22:47:00 -
[167] - Quote
FlinnRyder wrote:how does it help JF's and rorq that much if a jf has to choose lower fuel cost at the expense of cargo capacity? trading one maybe efficient way for another....
this 50% increase has kinda destroyed the market on topes. the smaller groups that need jf's and rorq for logistics of moving in and out have kinda stopped using them and the bigger groups arent phased at all by this change. Would be nice if you could find a solution that nerfed the carriers and supers without damaging smaller corps that barely use jump drive ships unless to move goods in and out.
Also it would be nice if CCP could find more of a use for Liquid Ozone and Heavy Water. I've been seeing how its being mined but there is even less of a market for it then the topes... dark glitter gelidus and glare crust are all over the place with these resources that have very little use. compared to the topes.
Part of the point of capital ships is you need people to back you up, even if they are alts. They don't function independently and as such should not be cheap to maintain, Its not hard to afford fuel for a carrier or a Jump freighter even after to 50% buff to consumption. Thats the bane of small corp carriers and such, you just dont have the same assets and liquid capital as larger groups and as such have to adapt to maintain your style of life.
And i agree heavy water needs some more use, but ozone is fine since you need it for cynos and POS Fuel. Is it bad if your friend says "that was a Metaphor" and you say "Meta 4? Get Tech II or faction" ?I love the sound of silent explosions in Space.-á |
FlinnRyder
University of Caille Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.08.12 22:53:00 -
[168] - Quote
my desire would be that ccp could find a way to nerf the power of coalitions and such without effecting smaller groups that only really use the rorq's or jump freighters for moving or mining. these may not be the effecting forces on our market right now. it could just be that in anticipation for Crius everyone took to heavy mining ice and it was nice when the market demand jumped but now its crashing for the excessive amounts available. and less demand |
Paynus Maiassus
Capital Munitions
78
|
Posted - 2014.08.13 02:45:00 -
[169] - Quote
These were not mentioned in the dev blog about what's coming in Hyperion. Are they not making it in?
I noticed that I haven't commented on them anywhere. I love the idea of these modules. They meet their goal of creating more options. They don't actually solve huge problems, but they do create more options and I will definitely be using them if they come out.
Reading this thread I would say that commentary on them is either positive, or unrelated discourses about how other ideas could also fix the problems that these modules address, and comments about details of the size of the modules or their bonuses or whatever. But overall, nobody has said these things are a bad idea. They're a good idea. Unless it takes 500 people hundreds of hours to implement them, please do. I sincerely hope they make it in with Hyperion. Since I don't do wormholes, there's really not anything in Hyperion for me to get excited about other than these modules. If they make it in, I will be very excited.
In my view, the large volume of these things may succeed in preventing exploitation by big capital fleets. The bonuses they provide are appropriate to their general application. If you wanted to increase the bonuses you may have to put in some hard controls (JFs and Rorqs only). But as originally presented I like them and I doubt they will be exploited by the big cap groups and they will be a nice boon to the little guy JF and Rorq users like me.
Just my two cents.
Still just loving Crius folks. Incredible improvement to indy. |
Kniht
Fleet-Jump Surely You're Joking
58
|
Posted - 2014.08.13 11:39:00 -
[170] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote::Update: They can only be fit to Jump Freighters and Rorquals. :Update: ... These modules all have a volume of 3500m3.
With the restriction to these ships, do they need to be 3500m3? |
|
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys Mordus Angels
2014
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 04:02:00 -
[171] - Quote
Kniht wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote::Update: They can only be fit to Jump Freighters and Rorquals. :Update: ... These modules all have a volume of 3500m3.
With the restriction to these ships, do they need to be 3500m3? I'd support making them smaller....say 1000m3, but it really doesn't make that much of a difference. |
Christopher Mabata
Dominion Tenebrarum Reverberation Project
108
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 04:53:00 -
[172] - Quote
well 3500m3 makes since since in essence this mod is somehow re calibrating your jump drives and re-routing fuel so you dont use as much per jump. So you do need room for all that hardware, processors, as well as any additional hull integration.
That aside 3500m3 isnt really that big you can still fit 3 in a blockade runner and several hundred in freighters. Besides when will you be moving more than 3 at a time in anything not a freighter or jump freighter anyways? Even if your bringing mods for a dozen people your probably going to be using something with the cargohold to boot. Is it bad if your friend says "that was a Metaphor" and you say "Meta 4? Get Tech II or faction" ?I love the sound of silent explosions in Space.-á |
BadAssMcKill
ElitistOps
839
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 22:14:00 -
[173] - Quote
So what's the reasoning behind making them Rorq/JF only . |
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective
1249
|
Posted - 2014.08.15 09:26:00 -
[174] - Quote
BadAssMcKill wrote:So what's the reasoning behind making them Rorq/JF only
Reduce a bit freighting costs when you're not moving the max capacity of these ships. So that the isk/m3 doesn't increase too much when moving less than the maximum. Signature Tanking - Best Tanking. Beware the french guy!
|
Plaid Rabbit
Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation
5
|
Posted - 2014.08.15 16:12:00 -
[175] - Quote
Please add modules that are interesting for players to chose, with these new modules it will literally be:
Can I remove a cargo expander? Yes: Okay, fit another conservation module. Repeat.
This aren't exciting decisions for a pilot to make, they just add more boringness to an already boring process (moving things around). |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
1190
|
Posted - 2014.08.16 00:39:00 -
[176] - Quote
Plaid Rabbit wrote:Please add modules that are interesting for players to chose, with these new modules it will literally be:
Can I remove a cargo expander? Yes: Okay, fit another conservation module. Repeat.
This aren't exciting decisions for a pilot to make, they just add more boringness to an already boring process (moving things around). It's not like there are many interesting things to do with a JF to begin with. Rorqual already has access to most most modules so no lack of fun there. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
8
|
Posted - 2014.08.16 01:01:00 -
[177] - Quote
Rowells wrote: It's not like there are many interesting things to do with a JF to begin with. Rorqual already has access to most most modules so no lack of fun there.
that doesn't mean they shouldn't i'd like to see each of the different meta levels do something a little different so it isn't just the meta 4 being used |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
144
|
Posted - 2014.08.16 18:23:00 -
[178] - Quote
Introduce a capital officer drone / merc carrier. Give him a chance to drop an officer version.
Can probably take the AI from the L5 carrier missions, but make it so he jumps out at 25% armor (Assuming the officer is armor tanked) unless there's a bubble or a HIC on him. |
Major Trant
CTRL-Q Iron Oxide.
910
|
Posted - 2014.08.18 08:56:00 -
[179] - Quote
I assume the original reason for having the 3500m size was to give a hard choice to cap pilots with limited room to carry them if not fitted. But now that they are limited to JFs and Rorqs can their size come down?
Virtually, every JF will be carrying 3 of these, with really the only other choice (when a jump is occurring, as opposed to slow boating through high sec), being the expanded cargohold when you have a large cargo. So losing 10500m3 to carry them for the return journey is a poor option. CTRL-Q - Minmatar FW - Low Sec PvP - Euro TZ - New Player Friendly Contact: Major Trant In game channel: FeO Public Recruitment thread: CTRL-Q |
Talvorian Dex
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
24
|
Posted - 2014.08.19 20:19:00 -
[180] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. Thanks for the feedback so far.
After some more discussion we're going to go ahead and limit the fitting of these modules to Jump Freighters and Rorquals. Those are the only places where they would see extensive use anyways and the rest of the ships were muddying the waters a bit too much.
I tend to disagree. A lot of people buy carriers specifically to move their stuff around (I used to have a travel carrier that was meant to cart me back and forth on deployments). It sounds like the issue of fitting too many won't be a problem given the size of the module. Why this change? Writer of Target Caller, an Eve Online PvP blog, at http://targetcaller.blogspot.com |
|
Natasha Love
Republic University Minmatar Republic
6
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 23:11:00 -
[181] - Quote
Eventhough those modules already hit TQ I hope there is still going to be some change on it.
That those modules are only fitable to a Rorqual or a Jump Freighter is alright but then the huge volume of 3500 doesn't make any sense at all. The big volume is there to ensure that you cannot fill your capital up with tons of capital modules to refit so a carrier could only have 2 of those in his fleethangar etc. as a Rorq aswell as a JF have enough cargo to get a full rack of them anyways.
The only use that I see for that module was that you would be able to jump to your destination with 3 cargo expanders and full cargo and have 3 of those jump fuel economizers in your cargo and then fit them in for the way back. As often when you're doing logistics you don't really have the possibility to wait to fill your JF for both ways.
For that to happen now you would have to waste 10'500 m^3 for nothing.
So either you make that module available for every capital and you increase volume to 4'000 and give it a name worth of a capital module "Capital ... Jump Drive Economizer" or you leave them as they are now (just availble for Rorq and JFs) and decrease the volume to a reasonable 5-10m^3 as normal for a non-capital module.
The way it's right now I don't see much point in using them as you have to have quite the trade off and it makes the life of those who have to do all the logistics not a bit better. So make the life a bit easier for the people who waste hours of their own game time to ensure that their mates can have fun. |
Colonel Mortis
Coven Of Witches
5
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 06:07:00 -
[182] - Quote
Big size is good. Capitals should only be able to fit capital modules in their slots. And all of them should have size >2000 m3 |
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
17
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 06:16:00 -
[183] - Quote
Colonel Mortis wrote:Big size is good. Capitals should only be able to fit capital modules in their slots.
so with that logic then these economizers should be the only thing JFs can fit to them? and no capital should be able to fit any type of resist, capacitor, ECCM ect. module? |
SiKong Ma
House of Nim-Lhach Fraternity.
2
|
Posted - 2014.09.05 08:05:00 -
[184] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Colonel Mortis wrote:Big size is good. Capitals should only be able to fit capital modules in their slots.
so with that logic then these economizers should be the only thing JFs can fit to them? and no capital should be able to fit any type of resist, capacitor, ECCM ect. module?
Sir, you must be my long lost brother. Therefore, I must agree with you to disagree with Colonel Mortis' logic. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: [one page] |