| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Deseron
The Dedekind Cut
Empire Research
   |
Posted - 2007.11.07 01:51:00 -
[1]
After using the jump freighter on SiSi and reading the game development forum, I've seen lots of complaints about the jump freighter that I can agree with and would like to put them in a constructive manner--hopefully with some good feed back!
First thing I would like to address is the jump capabilities of the Jump Freighters. As the name suggests, this freighter has a jump drive that normal freighters do not have--this should be very appealing to 0.0 alliances because it would allow for better use of resources. However, looking at the specs for the freighter, this doesn't seem to be the case.
The standard bonus for jump freighters are:
- 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
The standard freighter bonuses cohere with the expected notions of a tech 2 ship--they have the same bonus as their tech 1 brothers. Examining the Jump Freighter skill bonus, we see an obvious discrepancy. The skill is obviously related to jump drive technology, yet a "10% bonus to hull hit points" does not seem to cohere with this skill--can a dev comment on this, please--and does not seem to fit the role of the ship. In conjunction with the 5 light-year base, a jump freighter can be expected a max range of 11.25 light-years, whereas the current hauler-of-choice has a max range of 13.5 light-years.
It seems to me that if the jump freighter was to be useful, it should at least compare with this range, and seeing that the hull HP bonus doesn't cohere, I suggest that this be changed to +10% jump drive range per level.
This will put the Jump Freighter max range to 13.75 light-years, which is only .25 light-years more, for an extra 60 or so days of training time--which I think is justifiable. Of course, not everyone will train both the jump calibration and jump freighter skill to level 5, so the next best (level 4) will yield a break-even point for the carrier and jump freighter.
I have come across other suggestions, such as better cap recharge time or the ability to carry assembled ships, although I do not see them as being very relative. Considering that the carrier will be able to hold battleships in its ship maintenance bay solves the first problem.
The second suggestion being cap recharge time. For the Anshar, the max recharge is around 210 seconds, or 3 minutes and 30 seconds. This suggestion does have some merit, because for long trips these could add up to a long wait period, so in some cases I could see the need to have a reduced recharge rate--but I wouldn't see it being anything under 1 minute. However, if a convey has carriers with them, then they could fit cap transfer arrays that would definitely speed things up.
I have only touched on three concerns thus far, but those are the only things that I see being of any great importance. Constructive feedback would be appreciated, so would raising new concerns about the jump freighters. I also hope that some devs would respond to some of the comments made here in this thread.
|
infinityshok
|
Posted - 2007.11.07 02:05:00 -
[2]
My suggestion:
deleting them from the database entirely and coming up with something that wont suck the sweat off a golf ball through fifty feet of garden hose.
|
Damned Force
|
Posted - 2007.11.07 07:11:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: infinityshok
My suggestion:
deleting them from the database entirely and coming up with something that wont suck the sweat off a golf ball through fifty feet of garden hose.
Agree :)
|
Zaphroid Eulthran
Minmatar
Imperial Visions
|
Posted - 2007.11.07 11:37:00 -
[4]
How about make the jump drive a 1000cpu module, make it tier 2, and gate capable?
Bonussess 95% reduction in jump drive mod
5% agility and top speed per lvl
Hi-Sec Industry NEEDS Mini Freighters <- not T2 bazillion ISK alliance toys |
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.11.07 12:01:00 -
[5]
Originally by: infinityshok
My suggestion:
deleting them from the database entirely and coming up with something that wont suck the sweat off a golf ball through fifty feet of garden hose.
Almost mirrors my opinion (with a small change as demonstrated above).
The last thing we need is easier logistics enabling 0.0 alliances to claim even more territory....
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Shadowsword
COLSUP
Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2007.11.07 12:20:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Kerfira
Almost mirrors my opinion (with a small change as demonstrated above).
The last thing we need is easier logistics enabling 0.0 alliances to claim even more territory....
You can't change a social situation (feudal system, allowing powerfull alliance to populate their space with renters) with a technical change. You'd make logistics more boring, sure, so big alliances would cut the number of mining POS they own, and reduce a bit the number of sov POS covering each stations. So what? Renters would get to pay for POS mining rights, and that's about it.
It would also hurt the T2 economy, reducing the supply of raws on smei-rare stuff, but I think you didn't considered it.
------------------------------------------
What is Oomph? It the sound Amarr players makes when they get kicked in the ribs. |
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.11.07 13:14:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Shadowsword
It would also hurt the T2 economy, reducing the supply of raws on smei-rare stuff, but I think you didn't considered it.
Why would it hurt it? You don't NEED to transport T2 components to empire, but could just build them in 0.0, near the resources.....
It would mean changes, sure, but also add yet another incentive to DO stuff in 0.0 instead of empire.....
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Seonae
STK Scientific
|
Posted - 2007.11.07 14:10:00 -
[8]
I've got the simplest fix possible:
Make them TIER 2 not TECH 2 ... this brings the price tag down to something far more acceptable for their capabilities. Right now they are simply going to be far too expensive to come close to justifying their **** poor capabilities. Hell, make it require freighter 5 to fly, I don't care, but get rid of the T2 build requirements (and associated cost) for something that is untankable, loses 10-20% of it's cargo bay for fuel requirements depending on where you live, and is, for better or worse, a pathetic attempt at forcing people down a specific road.
CCP .. learn from other people's mistakes, the player community is ALWAYS smarter than the devs, and WILL find ways around your attempts to pigeonhole.
|
Rosur
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.11.07 20:34:00 -
[9]
Yea make jump freigters teir 2 rather than tech 2.
Makes more sense as less cargo but a jump drive.
With the tech 2 friegter it should be around the same size as the teir 1 but with a jump drive but cant use gates Then with a teir 2 tech 2 it should be like the jump freigter but with a full frigter capacity but is low sec and can only jump.
|
fatwhiteguy
Rionnag Alba
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.11.07 21:02:00 -
[10]
Edited by: fatwhiteguy on 07/11/2007 21:02:32
Originally by: Seonae
I've got the simplest fix possible:
Make them TIER 2 not TECH 2 ... this brings the price tag down to something far more acceptable for their capabilities. Right now they are simply going to be far too expensive to come close to justifying their **** poor capabilities. Hell, make it require freighter 5 to fly, I don't care, but get rid of the T2 build requirements (and associated cost) for something that is untankable, loses 10-20% of it's cargo bay for fuel requirements depending on where you live, and is, for better or worse, a pathetic attempt at forcing people down a specific road.
CCP .. learn from other people's mistakes, the player community is ALWAYS smarter than the devs, and WILL find ways around your attempts to pigeonhole.
OR THIS
Originally by: infinityshok
My suggestion:
deleting them from the database entirely and coming up with something that wont suck the sweat off a golf ball through fifty feet of garden hose.
because with the jump rang and the fuel cost and the isk and time to invent and build as t2 these things are crap and not worth it
|
haular
|
Posted - 2007.11.08 00:11:00 -
[11]
My suggestion; shorten BP copy time for T1 freighters
Currently making 1run BPC for T1 freighter will take at least 4-5 weeks. That means it'll take months or entire year of trials to get a successful invention job for a T1 Freighter BPO owner. And it could take *years* for T2 Freighter market to mature and have competition. And my question is; would it be worth the ISK after all? IMHO, Jump Freighters should be accessible as the current Carieers, if it is meant for replacing the role for jump haulers.
|
Azuse
The Brotherhood Of The Blade
Pure.
|
Posted - 2007.11.08 00:21:00 -
[12]
Personally i love the hp bonus prolonging the pain.
Seriously, there are alot of ship that have bonuses we ignore or don't use but how many pilots will actually be using this one...ever..?
--------------------------
|
Valator Uel
Caldari
Pax Minor Asylum
Total Comfort
|
Posted - 2007.11.08 04:30:00 -
[13]
lol Azuse that's evil.
But seriously, hull HP? Come on CCP! Give me a reason to train it to level 5!
-----------------------------------------------------
|
Skyr
ECP Rogues
The Reckoning.
|
Posted - 2007.11.08 06:04:00 -
[14]
Originally by: haular
My suggestion; shorten BP copy time for T1 freighters
Currently making 1run BPC for T1 freighter will take at least 4-5 weeks. That means it'll take months or entire year of trials to get a successful invention job for a T1 Freighter BPO owner. And it could take *years* for T2 Freighter market to mature and have competition. And my question is; would it be worth the ISK after all? IMHO, Jump Freighters should be accessible as the current Carieers, if it is meant for replacing the role for jump haulers.
I didn't even think of this one but yo uare right... it will take forever to have any flying around let alone become mainstream.
It will be just cheaper (and faster) anyway to get titan and use jump portal for a standard freighter... With any luck, a price for one of the jump freighters might approach MS point ONCE somebody actually is able to make one.
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.11.08 10:03:00 -
[15]
Originally by: haular
My suggestion; shorten BP copy time for T1 freighters
Actually, keeping the copy time of it as it is would be a very good ISK sink for the game as whoever went into the production of these would need more than one BPO, and with the amount of money in the game it needs a lot more.
These ships SHOULD be hard and expensive to acquire. Otherwise we'll just end up with exactly the same easy logistics in 0.0 that CCP are trying to remove with the carrier hauler nerf, the compression nerf and the freighter mass increase.
I've said this before, but I'll repeat it. I seriously think these ships shouldn't be put in the game at all. If they are anyway, then making them very expensive and hard to produce is the next best thing.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |