| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Rells
Caldari
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
   |
Posted - 2007.10.15 20:21:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Rells on 15/10/2007 20:21:56
As I see it, the tech 2 freighter has a number of goals and limitations that it should address.
1) The goal is to replace the use of carriers as the primary logistic means in 0.0 and give the ability to supply 0.0 a bigger boost.
2) At the same time we are working on Goal 1, we don't want freighters to replace carriers completely but rather make it more beneficial to do logistics in a freighter and restore carriers back to a role of combat.
3) Prevent jump freighters from being used in high sec to quickly or instantly run NPC trade routes (which I would like eliminated completely but that is another thread. =) )
4) Prevent that everyone and their dog owns a tech 2 freighter.
5) Make sure that tech 2 freighter is not just a toy for the super alliances. They have enough toys and it is time to design for the rest of us. We need more small business support. =)
To that end, I have a few recommendations about how we could accomplish that goal.
1) Skill Requirements should be used to minimize usage rather than build costs. If the build cost is high in the billions then it is only a toy for the super alliances. If the skill res are high, it is a toy for anyone with the desire to train for it. I would reccomend the following skills.
Freighter 5
Jump Drive Callibration 4
Transport Ships 4
These requirements will mean that you will have to be dedicated to fly one of these things but it will be in the reach of everyone. Also a req of transport ships 4 would mean that the Transport Ships skill would have a reason to be trained.
2) In order to make the freighter more useful for logistics than the carrier, we have to make it more desirable to use a freighter rather than a carrier. At the same time we need to not nerf the combat ability of a carrier. So I recommend the following changes to carriers:
* Reduce their cargo bay by 50%
* Create a secondary fuel only cargo bay if needed for long trips.
* Increase their ship maintenance bay by 50% to allow them to carry more ships assembled and ready to be yanked out and flown.
I also would give the tech 2 freighter the following bonses.
* Bonus to the packing volume of assembled ships so that at level 4, the assembled ships will be the size of their unassembled variety. Since the ships cant be pulled out in space and flown, there is no balance problem.
* Bonus compression to minerals, refined ice products and materials, such that at level 4, the minerals take up only one fifth of their current volume.
* Add freighter tech 1 bonuses.
Finally I would suggest that the attributes to the frieghter be changed so that the tech 2 freighter can jump at least as far as the carrier. This will allow it to navigate to deep space operations that are not easily reached with dreadnought jump distance.
3) I would recommend that the freighter be able to use gates in high sec and lowsec space but cannot jump in high sec. This would mean that a freighter could load in high sec, navigate to low sec and the jump.
4) I would give the freighter low and medium slots (count by race) and 2 rigs to allow them to be customizable by players.
Caldari: 2 lows, 2 Meds
Minmatar: 3 Lows, 1 Med
Amarr: 4 lows
Gallente: 3 lows, 1 med
No high slots because we don't want them cloaking.
5) Only available through invention of course.
Four years is long enough to leave the corp interface broken! |
War Fairy
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 20:28:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Rells
2) In order to make the freighter more useful for logistics than the carrier, we have to make it more desirable to use a freighter rather than a carrier. At the same time we need to not nerf the combat ability of a carrier. So I recommend the following changes to carriers:
* Reduce their cargo bay by 50%
* Create a secondary fuel only cargo bay if needed for long trips.
* Increase their ship maintenance bay by 50% to allow them to carry more ships assembled and ready to be yanked out and flown.
This would acctually make a carrier better at hauling since you could fit more haulers in the maintenance bay.
|
Tonto Auri
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 20:53:00 -
[3]
Bonus to carried cargo volume is something that
a) Cannot be implemented easily.
b) Makes no sence.
To carry assembled ships, use carriers. They're intended to carry assembled ships :) (I still hope that someday we'll see ships actually (un)docking (from)to carriers/POS's)
To the minerals.. You can do many trips using one cyno field if You have enough Augorors at each end.
Jump in, offload, while offloading, get a captransfer from Augoror (120-140 cap per cycle, 3-4 captransfer per cruiser, 30km+ range). Even with 1k+ capacitor capacity, You'll get Your cap filled in minute or two while You slowboating to nearby Silo/hangar.
From these two, I can't see real point to have any strange tricks with item volumes.
About mid/low slots...
I think it is a bit strange.... but if that will be implemented, every race freighter should have at least one of slots.
So, basically:
Amarr/Gallente: 0/1/2/2
Minmatar/Caldari: 0/2/1/2
But there's also problem with cargoholds. You'll be able to fit 2x cargo expanders and 2x cargo rigs... About 600k m3 per freighter. Can't say if it is fair or not.. I (personally) like it. CCP - ? Probably not.
--
Thanks CCP for cu<end of sig> |
Soneia Blends
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 21:02:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Rells
Also a req of transport ships 4 would mean that the Transport Ships skill would have a reason to be trained.
Holy mother of mary magdalene...
You mean there's no reason to train transports? I could've flown the prorator or the impel without the skill?
*storms off cursing* |
Valator Uel
Caldari
Pax Minor Asylum
Confederation of Independent Corporations
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 21:03:00 -
[5]
I agree on the skills (perhaps even add advance spaceship command V) and invention requirements. The chance of success for invention needs to be looked at because of the time to research/copy a capital BPO and the high amount of datacores (will probably end up needing 64 of both datacores). If they don't do this then these ships will become the big alliance toys that you speak of.
As for carriers, meh I don't think they are much of a "threat" to these freighters that they need to be changed. With 250k+ cargo no serious trader will use a carrier once he has a freighter.
The bonus to mineral compression should be reserved to the Rorqual. All you have to do is transport the compressed minerals and leaves the Rorqual with its intended role. The bonuses I can think of (in addition to the T1 bonuses) is jump range and jump fuel usage, the rest I find less interesting.
I would LOVE to have slots on them, even if only a few as you mentioned. It allows you to tank them if you're carrying valuebles, or put WCS when doing low-sec solo trading.
-----------------------------------------------------
|
War Fairy
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 21:17:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Soneia Blends
Originally by: Rells
Also a req of transport ships 4 would mean that the Transport Ships skill would have a reason to be trained.
Holy mother of mary magdalene...
You mean there's no reason to train transports? I could've flown the prorator or the impel without the skill?
*storms off cursing*
. . . past level 1.
Look at what the transports skills give you. It's worthless past 1.
|
Drakus
Minmatar
Freelance Unincorporated
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2007.10.16 01:17:00 -
[7]
they've already made it so that they can't jump in high sec.... ya can't make a cyno there (afaik), so no cyno means no jumping... right? or am i missing something?
|
murder one
Gallente
Blood Corsair's
|
Posted - 2007.10.16 01:45:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Drakus
they've already made it so that they can't jump in high sec.... ya can't make a cyno there (afaik), so no cyno means no jumping... right? or am i missing something?
Current freighters can use jumpgates.
[07:13:55] doctorstupid2 > what do i train now?
[07:14:05] Trista Rotnor > little boys to 2
Fleet Combat Ships |
Rells
Caldari
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2007.10.16 05:11:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Tonto Auri
Bonus to carried cargo volume is something that
a) Cannot be implemented easily.
b) Makes no sence.
Already implemented on tech 1 haulers. So I think "cannot be easily implemented" is rather false. As for making sense, think of it as being better at packing, if that doesnt work, remember it is a game, not RL.
Originally by: Tonto Auri
To carry assembled ships, use carriers. They're intended to carry assembled ships :) (I still hope that someday we'll see ships actually (un)docking (from)to carriers/POS's)
You need to be able to carry assembled ships because people have rigged ships that they need to move and we want carriers to be used for combat, not as glorified haulers and yet another reason is that battleships dont fit in carriers at all.
Four years is long enough to leave the corp interface broken! |
Rells
Caldari
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2007.10.16 05:12:00 -
[10]
Originally by: War Fairy
Originally by: Soneia Blends
Originally by: Rells
Also a req of transport ships 4 would mean that the Transport Ships skill would have a reason to be trained.
Holy mother of mary magdalene...
You mean there's no reason to train transports? I could've flown the prorator or the impel without the skill?
*storms off cursing*
. . . past level 1.
Look at what the transports skills give you. It's worthless past 1.
Correct, this is my intention.
Four years is long enough to leave the corp interface broken! |
ollobrains
DarkStar 1
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.16 05:17:00 -
[11]
keep em totally out of high sec low and 0.0 only.
as far as the NPC trade goods with conquerable planets coming in id say tweak and improve NPC trade routes so they arent as farmable by automated bots but would require intellignece and dynamic volume and price as well as station shifts in demand and supply to allow for profit for smart traders
|
Rells
Caldari
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2007.10.16 06:18:00 -
[12]
Originally by: ollobrains
keep em totally out of high sec low and 0.0 only.
as far as the NPC trade goods with conquerable planets coming in id say tweak and improve NPC trade routes so they arent as farmable by automated bots but would require intellignece and dynamic volume and price as well as station shifts in demand and supply to allow for profit for smart traders
Freighters going through 0.0 chokes through gates. BAD BAD BAD BAD IDEA. Might as well not make the bloody thing.
Its not the bots doing the farming but the 10c per hour chineese palyers.
Four years is long enough to leave the corp interface broken! |
Rells
Caldari
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 02:03:00 -
[13]
Well, they are on variations now but no data. 
Four years is long enough to leave the corp interface broken! |
Riley Craven
Caldari
Copacetic Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 17:31:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Rells
Edited by: Rells on 16/10/2007 05:07:50
Edited by: Rells on 15/10/2007 20:21:56
4) Prevent that everyone and their dog owns a tech 2 freighter.
5) Make sure that tech 2 freighter is not just a toy for the super alliances. They have enough toys and it is time to design for the rest of us. We need more small business support. =)
To that end, I have a few recommendations about how we could accomplish that goal.
1) Skill Requirements should be used to minimize usage rather than build costs. If the build cost is high in the billions then it is only a toy for the super alliances. If the skill res are high, it is a toy for anyone with the desire to train for it. I would reccomend the following skills.
Freighter 5
Jump Drive Callibration 4
Transport Ships 4
These requirements will mean that you will have to be dedicated to fly one of these things but it will be in the reach of everyone. Also a req of transport ships 4 would mean that the Transport Ships skill would have a reason to be trained.
2) In order to make the freighter more useful for logistics than the carrier, we have to make it more desirable to use a freighter rather than a carrier. At the same time we need to not nerf the combat ability of a carrier. So I recommend the following changes to carriers:
* Reduce their cargo bay by 50%
* Create a secondary fuel only cargo bay if needed for long trips.
* Increase their ship maintenance bay by 50% to allow them to carry more ships assembled and ready to be yanked out and flown.
* Disallow the ability to put assembled haulers in the ship maintenance bay.
I also would give the tech 2 freighter the following bonses.
* Bonus to the packing volume of assembled ships so that at level 4, the assembled ships will be the size of their unassembled variety. Since the ships cant be pulled out in space and flown, there is no balance problem.
* Bonus compression to minerals, refined ice products and materials, such that at level 4, the minerals take up only one fifth of their current volume.
* Add freighter tech 1 bonuses.
Finally I would suggest that the attributes to the frieghter be changed so that the tech 2 freighter can jump at least as far as the carrier. This will allow it to navigate to deep space operations that are not easily reached with dreadnought jump distance.
3) I would recommend that the freighter be able to use gates in high sec and lowsec space but cannot jump in high sec. This would mean that a freighter could load in high sec, navigate to low sec and the jump.
4) I would give the freighter low and medium slots (count by race) and 2 rigs to allow them to be customizable by players.
Caldari: 2 lows, 2 Meds
Minmatar: 3 Lows, 1 Med
Amarr: 4 lows
Gallente: 3 lows, 1 med
No high slots because we don't want them cloaking.
5) Only available through invention of course.
Your completely off your rocker.
First. The jump freighter should not be t2. It makes no sense what so ever for this ship to be tech. Its not like the mothership is a t2 carrier afterall.....
So with that out of the way, to make this ship make any sense and to follow with the eve design it needs the following skill reqs
Cap Ship 1
Freighter 2
and whatever skills a carrier or other cap ship needs to use jump drives
It should have the same range as a carrier
It should not be allowed in high sec and it should not be allowed to use gates (it has a jump drive, what other ship with a jump drive can use gates... not even the Rorqual can use gatess)
It doesnt need any ship bay, it does need a seperate fuel bay like the carrier.
It should have no more than 200k space of cargo room
Slot layout is debateable. I dont really see the need for it to have any slots or any better resists than the orginal (cuse its not a t2 ship)
Bonuses... to cargo room like current freighter but only to a max of 200k depending on race.
|
K'ang
Minmatar
Damage Unlimited Inc
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 17:43:00 -
[15]
So with that out of the way, to make this ship make any sense and to follow with the eve design it needs the following skill reqs
Cap Ship 1
Freighter 2
and whatever skills a carrier or other cap ship needs to use jump drives
^^ This gets my vote. T2 makes no sense. They are a new cap ship. Requiring Freighter 5 would not make sense to me. Using the cap ship requirements make the skills expensive, but the training time reasonable.
/K'ang.
|
Mnengli Noiliffe
|
Posted - 2007.10.19 06:14:00 -
[16]
my dog has min freighter 5 woot! so you're inaccurate here.
also don't you find 4. and 5. contradicting?
|
Bund
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.19 08:44:00 -
[17]
With the current tech 2, invention-based build requirements, all of this is moot. These suckers are going to cost an amount so exorbitant that people will just continue to use motherships for the same purpose.
CCP, please, please, please do not make these things invention-based. This would make the ship utterly worthless. There is no good reason to have tech 2 capital ships. There is no excuse to require invention for capital ships. |
Malachon Draco
eXceed Inc.
INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.10.19 09:32:00 -
[18]
Why would making them Tech 2 make them incredibly expensive by default?
Doesn't that all depend on what variables you use and what the base price is? I don't see these ships cost more than 2-4 billion.
What I would do is give it the same jumprange as a carrier.
------------------------------------------------
|
Tonto Auri
|
Posted - 2007.10.19 11:20:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Tonto Auri on 19/10/2007 11:25:17
Originally by: Rells
Originally by: Tonto Auri
Bonus to carried cargo volume is something that
a) Cannot be implemented easily.
b) Makes no sence.
Already implemented on tech 1 haulers.
Sorry... Didn't know that. Please point me in right direction?
Probably You mean cargo capacity? (T2 freighters lack of that bonus as I saw last time on SiSi)
If Yes, I've misunderstand Your original post.
But You are clearly stated that it is "volume" of carried stuff. THIS bonus is unappropriate.
Speaking about BS's - the're changed in size already and will be amended to be able to fit each BS fit in carriers I guess.
--
Thanks CCP for cu<end of sig> |
ockackies
|
Posted - 2007.10.19 11:26:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Rells
Edited by: Rells on 16/10/2007 05:07:50
Edited by: Rells on 15/10/2007 20:21:56
* Disallow the ability to put assembled haulers in the ship maintenance bay.
Rigs make unassembling your haulers very expensive!
Otherwise some intresting points.
|
Rells
Caldari
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 00:34:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Tonto Auri
Edited by: Tonto Auri on 19/10/2007 11:25:17
Originally by: Rells
Originally by: Tonto Auri
Bonus to carried cargo volume is something that
a) Cannot be implemented easily.
b) Makes no sence.
Already implemented on tech 1 haulers.
Sorry... Didn't know that. Please point me in right direction?
Probably You mean cargo capacity? (T2 freighters lack of that bonus as I saw last time on SiSi)
If Yes, I've misunderstand Your original post.
But You are clearly stated that it is "volume" of carried stuff. THIS bonus is unappropriate.
Speaking about BS's - the're changed in size already and will be amended to be able to fit each BS fit in carriers I guess.
What else do you mean by volume? Obviously I'm not talking aobut ship size. From the Badger Mark II Description:
Quote:
The Badger Mark II is the latest version of the famous Badger, it's mostly used by the military or the mega corps for transports of goods of great value. The Mark II has stronger defenses and more high-tech equipment, making it one of the best freight carriers available.
Special Ability: 5% Bonus Cargo Capacity and Max Velocity per Caldari Industrial skill level
As for something being difficult to implement, that is an ourtageously preposterous argument unless you have access to CCP's code. It crosses the line of "uninformed sillyness." The only people on this forum that can comment on ease of implementation are emplyees of CCP.
Four years is long enough to leave the corp interface broken! |
Bund
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 01:29:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Bund on 20/10/2007 01:29:29
Originally by: Malachon Draco
Why would making them Tech 2 make them incredibly expensive by default?
Doesn't that all depend on what variables you use and what the base price is? I don't see these ships cost more than 2-4 billion.
Invention means t1 ship + datacores + t2 parts + bpc. The t1 hulls are nearly a billion isk. The leaked screenshots with the t2 build requirements show a large number of t2 construction parts required, plus a ton of capital construction parts, plus the SIX WEEK bpc copy time. Oh, and don't forget the huge amount of waste in invented bpcs. I'll be surprised if these tin cans go for less than 8 billion isk.
And don't forget the insane number of mech eng datacores required are going to be competing with all the other new t2 ship types. tl;dr ccp needs to reconsider.
|
Nebulae Mem
Orbital Minerals
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 04:47:00 -
[23]
Ok, so you want super-high skills, no high-sec, no jumpgates.
Fine, have your useless little toy. The point of a freighter is to move stuff from high-sec to 0.0, and back the other way. What your suggesting would require 2 freighters - 1 for the high-sec stuff, and the jump-capable one for transport it all out into deep-space. (And it'll need to take 4 trips to do it!)
This freighter will be useless for empire carebears. It's got the right cargo-size for a "next-step-up" ship to bridge the gap from transport ship to freighter, but the rumored cost and the pointless (for empire) jumpdrive make it only a toy for Alliances.
I don't have anything against alliances - they're great customers. However the new ships - the heavy dictor, the jumpdrive BS, the rorqual, (god what a useless ship for us empire rats) and now this new freighter - make their lives easier (or at least more interesting) while the burden of producing these ships gets more and more tedious. (more ships = more materials = more goddamn slow trips to hell and gone to gather it all)
Could we please either put a hefty cargo increase/bonus on transport ships or something? I don't want to spend a billion on another super slow freighter, when 150-250k cargo space in a transport ship would do plenty.. I mean seriously - I can't haul enough minerals to build a damn battlecruiser without putting a full rack of expander IIs and a couple cargo rigs on my Mastodon. (Which takes 60 days worth of skill-training just to fly it w/decent navigation skills, tack on much more to be able to fit any modules on it)
And f**k the isk farmers, give the miners some new toys to play with instead of nerfing an entire occupation.
sigh.. late night beer and painkiller rant over. And my pvp character is laughing at me :P
|
Cyberus
Caldari
Wreckless Abandon
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 16:36:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Cyberus on 20/10/2007 16:39:32
Edited by: Cyberus on 20/10/2007 16:37:38
First i though it was an joke about T2 frigthers. But now its seems to be true and tbh i did expect something terreble again from ccp but let me tell you this was broke all my expections.
CCP why the HELL we need t2 frigthers? Who did ask you to bring out t2 versions?
Your trusted players want JUMP FRIGTHERS not the god da.. T2 versions of the existant begemoths. Why you bunch of devs always trying to make things more dificult then they already are?? Is that some kind of game contest in CCP HQ ? Who make the most stupid idea this months and win loser of the year price?
do you realy realize how much that ship will cost after /copy/invention/construction?
Why dont just make it simple:
Community want J.frigthers??? fine we give them those BUT:
1) We give the t1 frigthers 1 rig slot
2) we design some kind of rig and call it JUMP DRIVE UPGRADE
3) we make it only that rig will be able to fit in that rig slot at frighters
4) we make it construction cost ( for rig/module) like 250-300 mill isk
5) we make it penaltys like 40-50% cargo capasity
6) we make that if you repakege the ship then the module/rig will be destroyed.
7) we MUST to do that because we want ppl stop use carriers for jobs like jump frigthers
8) We MUST to do that because if we not make them cheap enogh ( 1,5-2 billion isk) then ppl simple will not bother to spend to many billions to fly them and still use carriers for that job.
9) the last but most important rison is that we will make our customers happy while they palying our game and keep subscribing they accounts and make us CCP rich.
Cyberus out.
|
Zaphroid Eulthran
Minmatar
Imperial Visions
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 17:22:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Nebulae Mem
Ok, so you want super-high skills, no high-sec, no jumpgates.
Fine, have your useless little toy. The point of a freighter is to move stuff from high-sec to 0.0, and back the other way. What your suggesting would require 2 freighters - 1 for the high-sec stuff, and the jump-capable one for transport it all out into deep-space. (And it'll need to take 4 trips to do it!)
This freighter will be useless for empire carebears. It's got the right cargo-size for a "next-step-up" ship to bridge the gap from transport ship to freighter, but the rumored cost and the pointless (for empire) jumpdrive make it only a toy for Alliances.
I don't have anything against alliances - they're great customers. However the new ships - the heavy dictor, the jumpdrive BS, the rorqual, (god what a useless ship for us empire rats) and now this new freighter - make their lives easier (or at least more interesting) while the burden of producing these ships gets more and more tedious. (more ships = more materials = more goddamn slow trips to hell and gone to gather it all)
Could we please either put a hefty cargo increase/bonus on transport ships or something? I don't want to spend a billion on another super slow freighter, when 150-250k cargo space in a transport ship would do plenty.. I mean seriously - I can't haul enough minerals to build a damn battlecruiser without putting a full rack of expander IIs and a couple cargo rigs on my Mastodon. (Which takes 60 days worth of skill-training just to fly it w/decent navigation skills, tack on much more to be able to fit any modules on it)
And f**k the isk farmers, give the miners some new toys to play with instead of nerfing an entire occupation.
sigh.. late night beer and painkiller rant over. And my pvp character is laughing at me :P
Finally someone who I can fully agree with.
The size is right,
The skill reqs are currently right, (freighter 1)
Make it T1 or why not use the cheaper larger freighters?,
Allow it to keep its jump drive you still cant activate a cyno in hi sec,
Allow it to use gates like the full freighters
Hi-Sec Industry NEEDS Mini Freighters
You know those small corps that actually build stuff. |
Goldis
Caldari
Mythos Corp
RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 21:33:00 -
[26]
Tbh it looks like a capital fleet logistic support ship (stront anyone?) Not ultra good and ultra expensive, which seems to be the new trend. Meh. A good alt's toy.
----
De Gustibus et Coloribus non disputandum est.
|
William Caldwell
Gallente
ISS Logistics
Interstellar Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 10:30:00 -
[27]
T2 freighter is a real joke... At least with current sisi stats! Will be overly expensive to invent/build and not worth the price tag for that little cargo, no fittings slots and dead slow cap recharge!
A rorqual costing 2bil is still a better alternative to t2 freighter with better cap a very very very decent cargo bay (150K m¦ and it's getting increased in rev3) and at least won't be just a slow moving brick withough any defenses like current freighters!
A normal t1 smaller jump freighter would have been good... cheap to poroduce and available widely, but to make it t2 is just insane! 
|
Verite Rendition
Caldari
AUS Corporation
CORE.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:37:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Goldis
Tbh it looks like a capital fleet logistic support ship (stront anyone?) Not ultra good and ultra expensive, which seems to be the new trend. Meh. A good alt's toy.
That wouldn't be the case, unless this one can jettison & collect things in space.
----
AUS Corp
Lead Megalomanic
EVE Automated Influence Map: Keeping Down The Clone Business Since 2007AD |
Cyberus
Caldari
Wreckless Abandon
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:16:00 -
[29]
Originally by: William Caldwell
T2 freighter is a real joke... At least with current sisi stats! Will be overly expensive to invent/build and not worth the price tag for that little cargo, no fittings slots and dead slow cap recharge!
A rorqual costing 2bil is still a better alternative to t2 freighter with better cap a very very very decent cargo bay (150K m¦ and it's getting increased in rev3) and at least won't be just a slow moving brick withough any defenses like current freighters!
A normal t1 smaller jump freighter would have been good... cheap to poroduce and available widely, but to make it t2 is just insane!
Its seems that ships already unpopular even bofore they get out of testing.
|
Tonto Auri
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 18:38:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Rells
Originally by: Tonto Auri
Originally by: Rells
Originally by: Tonto Auri
Bonus to carried cargo volume is something that
a) Cannot be implemented easily.
b) Makes no sence.
Already implemented on tech 1 haulers.
Sorry... Didn't know that. Please point me in right direction?
Probably You mean cargo capacity? (T2 freighters lack of that bonus as I saw last time on SiSi)
If Yes, I've misunderstand Your original post.
But You are clearly stated that it is "volume" of carried stuff. THIS bonus is unappropriate.
What else do you mean by volume? Obviously I'm not talking aobut ship size. From the Badger Mark II Description:
Quote:
The Badger Mark II is the latest version of the famous Badger, it's mostly used by the military or the mega corps for transports of goods of great value. The Mark II has stronger defenses and more high-tech equipment, making it one of the best freight carriers available.
Special Ability: 5% Bonus Cargo Capacity and Max Velocity per Caldari Industrial skill level
"item volume" - size taken by item from total capacity of cargohold it putted in.
"cargo capacity" - available space to store items inside structure.
Clear enough?
And Your quote only confirming my point of view. It is "Cargo Capacity" bonus. Not "mineral (or something else) volume" bonus.
Originally by: Rells
As for something being difficult to implement, that is an ourtageously preposterous argument unless you have access to CCP's code. It crosses the line of "uninformed sillyness." The only people on this forum that can comment on ease of implementation are emplyees of CCP.
I think that not only CCP employees knows how to code stuff. And how to keep things simple.
--
Thanks CCP for cu<end of sig> |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |