| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Tunajuice
Convergent
Firmus Ixion
   |
Posted - 2007.11.06 01:34:00 -
[31]
I don't think many people here disagree that jump freighters need some help to be useful. Hopefully CCP changes it now, and doesn't follow the typical pattern of releasing broken content and then "fixing it" 6 months later :P
There are many ways to make t2 freighters better.. but definitely the cost and the functionality compared to a moros and a roq need looked at.
|
Rells
Caldari
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2007.11.08 16:58:00 -
[32]
 Originally by: Kwint Sommer
Originally by: Rells
- The hull HP bonus for the freighters should be changed to a 10% additional cargo capacity bonus and a 20% reduction in size of minerals and ice products per level.
If CCP continues on this route, the jump freighter will still be supplanted by the carrier and nerfing the carrier isnt the answer. Nerfing the carriers to make them less appealing to use as haulers in 0.0 will just reduce their ability to participate in combat operations. Making the jump freighter more suitable for hauling is a much better idea.
I strongly agree with you on this. Jump freighters are still less useful than the much cheaper and easily defended Carriers and piling yet another nerf onto Carriers isn't the way to go.
Most of your suggestions are good but I don't think a 20% reduction per level would work well as that would be 100% at L5 and being able to transport an infinite amount of minerals -while essentially removing one of the more annoying aspects of the game, 0.0 logistics- seems very unrealistic.
I should have clarified. I mean it to be a cumulative thing such that at level 1 it is reduced by 20% but at level 2 it is reduced by 20% of the 80% that remains and so on. For example, if a a block of minerals took 100m3 at level 0 it would take 80 at level 1 and 64 at level 2 and so on. However, we could simply change it to provide a 18% reduction per level to make the math easier. At level 5 minerals would take up only one tenth of the space they do in other ships.
This bonus should also be on the tech 1 freighter in my opinion because it will encourage their use and make moving minerals much easier.
Four years is long enough to leave the corp interface broken! |
Eleana Tomelac
Gallente
Through the Looking Glass
|
Posted - 2007.11.08 17:51:00 -
[33]
Maybe it's just that you didn't understand the use of each ship.
Carriers are still here to move assembled and fitted ships with some spare parts in the corp hangar. It's fast ship replacement for battle.
Freighters are here to move everything else, minerals, various equipement, packaged ships that will not go directly to the battlefield (destination will be POS or station).
The T2 freighter price can be argued, the small cargohold can also be argued, but the fact that they will work fine can't.
The actual cap recharge rate makes them the fastest jumping cap ship, and it is a good thing.
--
Pocket drone carriers (tm) enthousiast !
Say hello to my tiny friends ! |
Rells
Caldari
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2007.11.09 03:17:00 -
[34]
The carrier would still be relevant in the fact that it would be able to deploy those ships in space. There is a need to move a large number of assembled ships such as insured and rigged ships. The jump freighter would not be able to deploy those ships in space whereas the carrier would be.
Four years is long enough to leave the corp interface broken! |
Vicious Phoenix
|
Posted - 2007.11.09 03:38:00 -
[35]
Edited by: Vicious Phoenix on 09/11/2007 03:38:48
Originally by: Rells
If this is true then it is yet more reason to not use the freighter over the carrier. You get just over 2 times the volume and have no tank, no ability to carry ships without destroying rigs and cant jump as far. The fact that you cannot put loaded haulers in a carrier is more than made up for by the increase in bay size. Before you couldnt even put a single BS in a carrier so in fact their hauling capability has been INCREASED.
Carriers can carry 10k m3 of minerals/fuel/etc. Have fun fueling POS with 10k m3 each trip or moving minerals.
Additionally, I don't think jump freighters should be able to rep themselves, but 15% to hull resistance/level seems like a much better and more logical bonus than 10% HP/level.
CFW (Certified Forum Warrior)
I kill people ingame too.
Originally by: CCP Tuxford
I prefer dew over pepsi. I prefer beer over most things. Damn now I want beer.
|
Chockcat
Gallente
Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2007.11.09 04:22:00 -
[36]
Edited by: Chockcat on 09/11/2007 04:23:08
Originally by: Rells
Edited by: Rells on 08/11/2007 16:58:25
Sometimes I dont think CCP is thinking things through. The most obvious examples of this are the turret bonuses on Covert Ops ships -- as if someone is going to combat fit a Helios.
When it comes to tech 2 freighters CCP is poised to make another silly blunder. Instead of making them the preferred method of conveyance and getting carriers back into the combat job as a primary role, the new tech 2 freighters will still leave carriers as the primary logistic means for the following reasons:
- You still can take assembled ships in a carrier and you cant in a tech 2 frieghter. With rigs getting blown up if you repackage a ship and with rigs becomming more common, people will use the carrier to jump these.
- Freighters can still only jump 5ly to the carrier's 6. At Jump Drive Calibration 4, that gives the carrier SIGNIFICANT range over the freighter. This means that the carriers will be able to make many trips in 0.0 that will be difficult to make in a freighter.
- The bonuses on the tech 2 freighters are badly concieved.
- Minmatar Freighter Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to cargo hold capacity and 5% bonus to maximum velocity per level
- Jump Freighters Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to hull hit points and 5% reduction in jump fuel need per level
Looking at the bonuses I can honestly say that the Jump Freighters bonuses are silly at best. No one in a freighter is going to care about more hull HP. If you are tackled and your excort cant repel the attack, an extra 50% hp is pointless. Furthermore, the speed bonus is a really bad joke. You might get the thing up to, what, 150m/s at max skills? Who cares?
- Since carriers can tank, fight and jump further than the freighter, why would I use a floating target that cant defend itself.
- With the 30 second dock bonus on changing session an enemy fleet coupld easily wipe it out before the session timer expires and it can dock. They would just ignore the rest of the fleet and focus on the freighter. How long does it take 20 BS to kill a freighter now?
- The resistances in the freighters are on their armor and not on their structure where the majority of their HP is located. Therefore, their vulnerability is extremely high.
The real changes that need to be made are:
- Role bonus: Assembled ships take the same amount of space as the unassembled version of the ship.
- Jump distance needs to be upped to 6ly. At least then they can keep up with the carrier escort.
- Bonus for speed needs to be changed to agility. Everyone in a freighter warps to 0, being able to align faster is much more important than subwarp speed. In fact subwarp speed of a freighter is beyond useless.
- The hull HP bonus for the freighters should be changed to a 10% additional cargo capacity bonus and a 18% reduction in size of minerals and ice products per level. I would add this bonus for hauling minerals to the tech 1 freighter as well.
If CCP continues on this route, the jump freighter will still be supplanted by the carrier and nerfing the carrier isnt the answer. Nerfing the carriers to make them less appealing to use as haulers in 0.0 will just reduce their ability to participate in combat operations. Making the jump freighter more suitable for hauling is a much better idea.
No matter what you think. You're using the carrier for a role it wasn't suppose to be used for. I will make this real simple and easy for you.
Can I have your stuff?  |
Rells
Caldari
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2007.11.09 20:40:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Chockcat
No matter what you think. You're using the carrier for a role it wasn't suppose to be used for. I will make this real simple and easy for you.
Can I have your stuff?
Next time read the thread please. Then you wont post something so non-sequitur.
Four years is long enough to leave the corp interface broken! |
Scimon Tinker
|
Posted - 2007.11.09 20:57:00 -
[38]
hey hey
I still dont understand why a freighter doesnt get slots for anything. The addition of a mid slot will at least give it the ability to fit a capital shield booster at the very least.
I also still dont understand why freighters cant take from cans in space. I rigged iteron V can just as easily scoop a full can.
Those points aside the ship bonuses are indeed useless but what else can you give them. they carry cargo from point a to b and dump into a station or a pos. Align speed would be nice but if its going to be jumped theres no need for alignment and the destination jump will most likely be 0m on a station
The jump range is ok as its biggest advantage is the abiliity to jump from empire high sec to 0.0. I expect many (non combat) characters to travel safely through empire to the closest jump out point then jump into 0.0/low sec
|
|
CCP Nozh
|
Posted - 2007.11.12 17:20:00 -
[39]
Hi Rells, sorry for the late reply. I did look at it earlier, but didn't have the time to reply at the time.
@ Bonuses, they might still be changed to make them more effective vs. other options. The 50% increase in hull was to decrease the possibility of this ship being suicide killed in high sec.
@ "Since carriers can tank, fight and jump further than the freighter, why would I use a floating target that cant defend itself."
Cause you can't haul effectively in a carrier anymore.
@ "Time it takes to kill a freighter"
Well, you might need logistics ships to support the freighter if that really becomes a problem, the T2 version has more HP on hull, armor and shield, so they should be harder for smaller gangs to "insta-gank"
@ "Jump Distance to 6ly."
Like I said before, we're still looking at ways to make freighters a more obvious choice over the other options. This might be one of them.
@ "Role bonus"
I'd rather see carriers and motherships as the main ship transporters.
@ "If CCP continues on this route, the jump freighter will still be supplanted by the carrier and nerfing the carrier isnt the answer. Nerfing the carriers to make them less appealing to use as haulers in 0.0 will just reduce their ability to participate in combat operations. Making the jump freighter more suitable for hauling is a much better idea."
Currently combat pilots regard the carrier is the next "logical" step from a BS, allowing it to be a natural uber hauler as well is just silly, in our opinion.
Nozh
Game Designer
CCP Games |
|
Zarch AlDain
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2007.11.12 17:42:00 -
[40]
Originally by: CCP Nozh
Hi Rells, sorry for the late reply. I did look at it earlier, but didn't have the time to reply at the time.
@ Bonuses, they might still be changed to make them more effective vs. other options. The 50% increase in hull was to decrease the possibility of this ship being suicide killed in high sec.
@ "Since carriers can tank, fight and jump further than the freighter, why would I use a floating target that cant defend itself."
Cause you can't haul effectively in a carrier anymore.
@ "Time it takes to kill a freighter"
Well, you might need logistics ships to support the freighter if that really becomes a problem, the T2 version has more HP on hull, armor and shield, so they should be harder for smaller gangs to "insta-gank"
@ "Jump Distance to 6ly."
Like I said before, we're still looking at ways to make freighters a more obvious choice over the other options. This might be one of them.
@ "Role bonus"
I'd rather see carriers and motherships as the main ship transporters.
@ "If CCP continues on this route, the jump freighter will still be supplanted by the carrier and nerfing the carrier isnt the answer. Nerfing the carriers to make them less appealing to use as haulers in 0.0 will just reduce their ability to participate in combat operations. Making the jump freighter more suitable for hauling is a much better idea."
Currently combat pilots regard the carrier is the next "logical" step from a BS, allowing it to be a natural uber hauler as well is just silly, in our opinion.
Have you considered making one of the bonuses a 5% per level increase to jump range?
That would give a highly skilled jump freighter a longer range than a carrier - but only with substantial training time investment.
Zarch AlDain
|
Paxx Aerion
|
Posted - 2007.11.12 17:58:00 -
[41]
Originally by: CCP Nozh
@ "Since carriers can tank, fight and jump further than the freighter, why would I use a floating target that cant defend itself."
Cause you can't haul effectively in a carrier anymore.
In otherwords
YOU WILL USE THIS SHIP BECAUSE WE WILL FORCE YOU TO USE IT! |
Kaiji Vincente
|
Posted - 2007.11.12 18:26:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Zarch AlDain
Have you considered making one of the bonuses a 5% per level increase to jump range?
That would give a highly skilled jump freighter a longer range than a carrier - but only with substantial training time investment.
This seems like an excellent idea to make jump freighters attractive. Especially if the current "no cargo on ships in maint array" restriction is replaced with something a bit more sensible. (Like "No assembled Industrials or Transports" perhaps. You don't have to live out in 0.0 to realize how problematic launching without any reloads can be.)
|
TheSard
Viziam
|
Posted - 2007.11.12 19:05:00 -
[43]
Originally by: CCP Nozh
Hi Rells, sorry for the late reply. I did look at it earlier, but didn't have the time to reply at the time.
@ Bonuses, they might still be changed to make them more effective vs. other options. The 50% increase in hull was to decrease the possibility of this ship being suicide killed in high sec.
You are designing a ship whose primary use is to move things around in low and 0.0 sec. Since jump freighters have significantly lower capacity than tech 1 freighter, are much more expensive and are unable to use their defining feature in high-sec, giving them a bonus that you yourself say is designed to keep them safe in high sec does not make sense. People are going to buy these to jump things - give them a jump related bonus (distance, fuel, etc).
Originally by: CCP Nozh
@ "If CCP continues on this route, the jump freighter will still be supplanted by the carrier and nerfing the carrier isnt the answer. Nerfing the carriers to make them less appealing to use as haulers in 0.0 will just reduce their ability to participate in combat operations. Making the jump freighter more suitable for hauling is a much better idea."
Currently combat pilots regard the carrier is the next "logical" step from a BS, allowing it to be a natural uber hauler as well is just silly, in our opinion.
You sure about that? The distance in training time, expense and abilities between a battleship and a carrier is much more extreme than between any of the other "logical" steps (frigate to cruiser, cruiser to battlecruiser, battlecruiser to battleship). Its a moot point though as you still have not told the players what you want carriers to be.
|
Psyrus Baine
The SMITE Brotherhood
|
Posted - 2007.11.12 20:34:00 -
[44]
"Currently combat pilots regard the carrier is the next "logical" step from a BS, allowing it to be a natural uber hauler as well is just silly, in our opinion."
Having to pay 4x the cost for a freighter compared to a carrier is just SILLY TOO.
Not everyone is part of a large alliance and can pay the price its going take to get into a jump freighter. I don't understand how you can justify the cost and training of making the Jump freighter a T2 ship. You really need to think about the fun factor in eve before trying to change everything and end up running people off.
opinion- An opinion is a belief on what is being observed. It is an assessment, judgment or evaluation of something. An opinion is not a fact, because opinions are either not falsifiable, or the opinion has not been proven or verified. If it later becomes proven or verified, it is no longer an opinion, but a fact.
|
ElCoCo
KIA Corp
KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.11.12 21:32:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Psyrus Baine
You really need to think about the fun factor in eve before trying to change everything and end up running people off.
QFT.
|
Turin
Caldari
Eternity INC.
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.11.12 22:47:00 -
[46]
Originally by: CCP Nozh
Hi Rells, sorry for the late reply. I did look at it earlier, but didn't have the time to reply at the time.
@ Bonuses, they might still be changed to make them more effective vs. other options. The 50% increase in hull was to decrease the possibility of this ship being suicide killed in high sec.
@ "Since carriers can tank, fight and jump further than the freighter, why would I use a floating target that cant defend itself."
Cause you can't haul effectively in a carrier anymore.
@ "Time it takes to kill a freighter"
Well, you might need logistics ships to support the freighter if that really becomes a problem, the T2 version has more HP on hull, armor and shield, so they should be harder for smaller gangs to "insta-gank"
@ "Jump Distance to 6ly."
Like I said before, we're still looking at ways to make freighters a more obvious choice over the other options. This might be one of them.
@ "Role bonus"
I'd rather see carriers and motherships as the main ship transporters.
@ "If CCP continues on this route, the jump freighter will still be supplanted by the carrier and nerfing the carrier isnt the answer. Nerfing the carriers to make them less appealing to use as haulers in 0.0 will just reduce their ability to participate in combat operations. Making the jump freighter more suitable for hauling is a much better idea."
Currently combat pilots regard the carrier is the next "logical" step from a BS, allowing it to be a natural uber hauler as well is just silly, in our opinion.
its not a natural "Uber" hauler. IT carriers just enough to be usefull IMO.
_________________________________
|
Turin
Caldari
Eternity INC.
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.11.12 22:51:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Tunajuice
I don't think many people here disagree that jump freighters need some help to be useful. Hopefully CCP changes it now, and doesn't follow the typical pattern of releasing broken content and then "fixing it" 6 months later :P
There are many ways to make t2 freighters better.. but definitely the cost and the functionality compared to a moros and a roq need looked at.
STFU. all that will do is make them jack up the prices on Rorqs and Moros, and then nerf the crap out of them to boot.
_________________________________
|
zacuis
Infinite Improbability Inc
Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2007.11.12 23:00:00 -
[48]
with the dycrptor changes currently on sisi im pretty sure the JF can be made in the 2.5 to 3.5 bill range which is about right if u ask me.
that said they do need some love cos atm i dont see the reason to use them over revelations or moros` other than having to make 2 trips rather than 1. at least in the dreads u can cloak and have some limited defence. i`d personally like to see JF`s given a range buff, cos they need to have an advantage over dreads or rorquels or they not gonna see any use.
|
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
Zzz
|
Posted - 2007.11.12 23:42:00 -
[49]
I dispute that figure. With the prices I last saw, I get a cost of at least 7.3bn isk (assuming 100% invention success, though it doesn't actually make that much difference), but possibly as much as 9bn isk depending on what happens to advanced material prices.
Why use one of these when 3 Rorquals will haul just as much (with a much better tank) for a fraction of the cost?
My research services
Spreadsheets: Top speed calculation - Halo Implant stats |
kasalupin
|
Posted - 2007.11.13 09:41:00 -
[50]
Originally by: CCP Nozh
Hi Rells, sorry for the late reply. I did look at it earlier, but didn't have the time to reply at the time.
@ Bonuses, they might still be changed to make them more effective vs. other options. The 50% increase in hull was to decrease the possibility of this ship being suicide killed in high sec.
@ "Since carriers can tank, fight and jump further than the freighter, why would I use a floating target that cant defend itself."
Cause you can't haul effectively in a carrier anymore.
@ "Time it takes to kill a freighter"
Well, you might need logistics ships to support the freighter if that really becomes a problem, the T2 version has more HP on hull, armor and shield, so they should be harder for smaller gangs to "insta-gank"
@ "Jump Distance to 6ly."
Like I said before, we're still looking at ways to make freighters a more obvious choice over the other options. This might be one of them.
@ "Role bonus"
I'd rather see carriers and motherships as the main ship transporters.
@ "If CCP continues on this route, the jump freighter will still be supplanted by the carrier and nerfing the carrier isnt the answer. Nerfing the carriers to make them less appealing to use as haulers in 0.0 will just reduce their ability to participate in combat operations. Making the jump freighter more suitable for hauling is a much better idea."
Currently combat pilots regard the carrier is the next "logical" step from a BS, allowing it to be a natural uber hauler as well is just silly, in our opinion.
Ok, I will just like to add a few pointers there.
As stated by most posters their current role bonus are next to useless.
Bonus to fuel consumption: i jump a carrier or rorqual because it is safer and faster than using other methods... frankly wether it cost 5M, 10M or 20M per return trip doesn't make any difference.
Hull hitpoint: given the cost of the ship and the restricted size of the cargohold, no one will use it in hi sec hauling ever. We just use a cheap t1 freighter to the last high sec system, load it up to the jump freighter and jump....
Having a bonus to jump distance would be a very appealing feature especially if it make it as good or even better than carrier for jumping. In effect you have a regional jump barrier since most 5 ly limited ships have difficulty jumping from one region to a 0.0 one without having to jump once in a low sec region. Also, in some region, you can not fuel some system without making two jumps. It will appeal to me to train the jump freighter skill and have specialised logistic characters.
It is when you make jump that you are vulnerable and having to make more jumps will obviously make you even more vulnerable.
My main gripe with a jump freighter or freighter in general is the fact that they are with the shuttle the only fully predictable ships. They are slow, easy to target, unable to defend themselves and have crap resistance structure. At least if i use a gimped rorqual or dread to haul, the attacker can expect some fight and the is a bit of a surprise element. My main fear with a t2 freighter is that i jump, get bumped by the pos shield and then i get minced by the attacking fleet. The fact it take 5 minutes or 10 minutes is not a big difference...
The t2 version is even worst since most t2 ships have special roles or bonus, the t2 freighter has a jump drive but also a very limited cargohold.... like lot of other jump enabled capital such as rorqual, carrier or dread. The only really t2 ability is the fact that it can jump and use gates like the new t2 BS....
Give them a better chance to survive like by giving them good t2 resist on hull for instance or give them some slot. But currently, they are expensive and not really sexy. And yes carebear want sexy ships too  .
I don't mind making carriers specialised ships transports and freighter specialised good transporter but make them really shine at this role. |
PauZotoh Zhaan
Teylas Inc.
Rare Faction
|
Posted - 2007.11.13 14:21:00 -
[51]
Originally by: CCP Nozh
@ "Since carriers can tank, fight and jump further than the freighter, why would I use a floating target that cant defend itself."
Cause you can't haul effectively in a carrier anymore.
What??? Are you gonna nerf carriers/MS that they cant take ships with cargo?
In one of topics dev said carriers are haulers and you wont nerf them.
So what did you mean by that?????
And if I cant haul stuff with MS, what can I do with MS then? With latest changes this ship is very easy to kill with heavy dictors, and in future you proly will nerf it with this stupid idea with 5 drones/fighters max and delegating stupidy.
So can you explain what did you mean by that?
|
Tyr Zewa
Caldari
MASS
Ministry Of Amarrian Secret Service
|
Posted - 2007.11.13 14:27:00 -
[52]
Right, before we compare the two ships, i'd like to say, the rorqual really needed a buff, and removing that buff is not the way to go. You have to make JFs more attractive, by giving them an advantage over the rorq when it comes to hauling.
Rorqual:
+ T1 ship, costs less
+ Has slots for defence
+ Lower fuel cost
= Same jump range
- Lower Cargo
- Higher skills (but usefull skill reqs, so not that negative)
So what can you do to make JFs used over Rorq's?
* Lower their fuel cost
* Give them some sort of defence in the form of fitting
* They are t2 ships, give them proper T2 resistances on shield and armor
* Make them have enough effective Armor or Shield hp for logistic ships to help them
* Buff their cargo
* Make them tier2 and not tech2, thus lowering their build cost
* Change their Hull hp and their velocity to something useful. (Jump range, armor/shield hp bonus, resistance bonus, anything that helps them be a 0.0 hauler)
You have oh sooooo many options to fiddle with JumpFreighters, so before you ever think about releasing this patch with them in their current form, ask yourself this question:
Why would i use this version of the JumpFreighter over a Rorqual?
Unless you can come up with honest advantages, you're gonna fail with this shipclass.
|
Eleana Tomelac
Gallente
Through the Looking Glass
|
Posted - 2007.11.13 14:42:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Kaiji Vincente
Originally by: Zarch AlDain
Have you considered making one of the bonuses a 5% per level increase to jump range?
That would give a highly skilled jump freighter a longer range than a carrier - but only with substantial training time investment.
This seems like an excellent idea to make jump freighters attractive. Especially if the current "no cargo on ships in maint array" restriction is replaced with something a bit more sensible. (Like "No assembled Industrials or Transports" perhaps. You don't have to live out in 0.0 to realize how problematic launching without any reloads can be.)
Sounds like a good idea for a bonus, look for 10%, because 10% bonuses always attract people (and for range bonuses 10% always makes more sense because it really increases efficiency).
For the ship restriction, maybe the simple way to restrict haulers from carriers ship maint bays would be to increase their unpackaged size.
If a carriers can no more put industrials in ship maint, then it's solved, you won't haul too much with a carrier full of exequrors or imicus or I don't know what ship has the best cargohold/volume ratio other than industrials.
The bad part would be if people want to move a rigged industrial to 0.0, if it can't fit in a carrier, how to move it? convoys involve much logistics, the best would be buying a new hauler, new rigs and sending it all via jump freighter. Which is not the best thing, it makes industrials only one way trip ships. No way to get them back from 0.0...
--
Pocket drone carriers (tm) enthousiast !
Say hello to my tiny friends ! |
PauZotoh Zhaan
Teylas Inc.
Rare Faction
|
Posted - 2007.11.13 15:24:00 -
[54]
You cannot store a ship that contains cargo other than charges inside a Ship Maintenance Bay.
Please remove cargo from the ship and try again.
Thx CCP. If this hits TQ then I invite everyone to see how Mothership looks like when she do selfdestruct.
|
zacuis
Infinite Improbability Inc
Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2007.11.13 16:01:00 -
[55]
if u dispute my figure i guess u need to go check on sisi i estimate invention cost to be around 700 mill per successful bpc run and i reprocessed a jump freighter at perfect refine and added up what was left it came in at 2 bill. as the new dycryptors leave u with + MEs i fail to see where u are getting 8 bill from. if ive messed up the numbers i`d love to know where ive gone wrong
|
achoura
|
Posted - 2007.11.13 16:38:00 -
[56]
Edited by: achoura on 13/11/2007 16:38:44
Out of curiosity why has freighter v been dropped to freighter iv for these ships?
Does this change mean these ships are being reduced from tii to tier ii?
|
jongalt
|
Posted - 2007.11.13 18:39:00 -
[57]
think of the reduction in skill requirements as part of the "no child left behind" initiative...
-jg.
|
Ulstan
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.11.13 18:59:00 -
[58]
Edited by: Ulstan on 13/11/2007 19:01:27
Quote:
@ Bonuses, they might still be changed to make them more effective vs. other options. The 50% increase in hull was to decrease the possibility of this ship being suicide killed in high sec.
The anti-suicide-gank bonus might make sense for a t1 freighter that lives in hi sec and travels alone, but not one that jumps around in low sec.
Quote:
Currently combat pilots regard the carrier is the next "logical" step from a BS, allowing it to be a natural uber hauler as well is just silly, in our opinion.
The more I think about it, the more I see that the jump freighters need to be tier 2 freighters, rather than tech 2 freighters, if you want them to replace carriers/rorquals/whatever as haulers. The freighter is a non combat ship that can't fit modules and can only be used for hauling, so I feel the jump freighters should be less costly than a carrier, mayyyybe the same price, but certainly not multiple times more expensive.
You don't want to make the carrier the uber solopwnmachineandhauler. That's fine, completely understandable. But you should provide some alternative to the carrier as a hauler that is equally efficient and cheap, unless the goal is just to nerf 0.0 logistics. If you nerfed the carriers hauling ability, and simultaneously introduced a dedicated jump capable hauler that cost less than the carrier and could jump farther, I don't think too many people would complain, other than dedicated carrier pilots.
But if you nerf the carrier's hauling ability and make the only alternative vastly more expensive and with a shorter jump range...well...
|
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
Zzz
|
Posted - 2007.11.13 19:04:00 -
[59]
Edited by: Kazuo Ishiguro on 13/11/2007 19:05:01
Originally by: zacuis
if u dispute my figure i guess u need to go check on sisi i estimate invention cost to be around 700 mill per successful bpc run and i reprocessed a jump freighter at perfect refine and added up what was left it came in at 2 bill. as the new dycryptors leave u with + MEs i fail to see where u are getting 8 bill from. if ive messed up the numbers i`d love to know where ive gone wrong
Did you reprocess the capital T2 components as well and add up the value of the advanced materials at Jita prices?
What material multiplier are you assuming for an invented BPC? Base quantities of components are assumed to be similar to those shown in this recent screenshot / 1.1 (since that includes a 10% wastage factor), which match what I got from reprocessing.
My research services
Spreadsheets: Top speed calculation - Halo Implant stats |
Kal Shakai
Dominus Imperium
|
Posted - 2007.11.13 19:26:00 -
[60]
Personally, I think the direction CCP is taking in regards to logistics is the correct one. I think they need to really put forth their best effort on these jump freighters to make sure they are well received.
The jump freighter needs to have no equal in regards to EFFICIENTLY moving parts and materials to deep space. That is the point of any freighter. Moving large quantities, long distances for the lowest cost. This will justify their price tag.
I would like to see their bonuses deal directly with range, cargo space, fuel efficiency and survivability.
Since cargo space and fuel efficiency have already been addressed lets talk about the other points.
All freighters should have their speed bonus changed to agility. The speed bonus is silly as Rells pointed out.
The hull hitpoint bonus is also silly. The extra hull HP isn't going to make enough of difference if you get ganked. Just make these things tough as nails to begin with. With no slots or rigs to customize them, a 5 or 10% bonus in any attribute is not really going make enough of a difference in survival.
Change this bonus to a range bonus so as to make the jump freighter the efficient hauler it should be.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |