EVE Search - LETTER TO CCP: Observations of a Jump Freighter Pilot and Producer

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

LETTER TO CCP: Observations of a Jump Freighter Pilot and Producer

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 9 post(s)
Jouni Kalmar Gallente The Tidemark Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.01.30 04:59:00 - [31] Originally by: Hardigeen Why would someone pay 7 bil to be able to jump-haul when they can do the same thing with 1.5 bil ship? Even if it takes two or three jumps to move the same amount of material, it certanly is better then spending 7 bil on Jump Freighter. Either make Jump Freighters cheaper or remove the capability of other ships to be used as haulers. That way Jump Freighters will have their place in the fleet and will be worth the cost. No one wants to spend 7 bil on a ship if they can spend 3-4 times less and get the job done. I agree with most of this but i'm also with rawne on the less nurfs the better. However, making jump freighters cheaper massively disadvantages those who have already built or brought them, a jump freighter at market material costs is roughly 3.75 bill with me 0 component prints, atm me 3 its around 3.5 bill raw build cost (not including invention, build, bpc, bpc copying, lost income from building freighters). This however was priced 1 month after jump freighter invention became avaliable and prices have risen slighly. Atm the difference between a single -1 me is 700 mill so raw prices go accordingly (and approimately) like... me -1 3.5b me -2 4.2b me -3 4.7b me -4 5.4b me -5 6.1b me -6 6.8b assuming ofc that its linear (if someone can confirm would be nice?)? Anyways i've kind of gone off track and lost my train of thought but reducing the costs hurts manufacturers and i've never seen CCP refund people for that sort of thing. Its kind of like buying a car then a week later have the manufacturer say that they're reduceing the sell price from distributors by 50% and those who have recently brought that car won't get a refund, how would you feel then? Anyway not very helpful here but a balance must be found and i strongly agree with increasing the jump freighter range and cargo capacity, at the very least to 1.5 times what the next biggest jumpable ship is capable of holding.
Hardigeen	Posted - 2008.01.30 05:25:00 - [32] All I'm saying that if CCP nerfed carriers to give Jump Freighter a role, then why would they allow Rorqual to replace carriers? And if they want Jump Freighter to be used, they will have to give them adavantage of being the only ship capabale of jump-hauling large amounts of cargo, especially considering the high cost of producing/buying one. Honestly, I don't think Rorqual should be able to haul more then 30k m3, as that its not the primary role for that ship.
Dr Aryandi Bloodstone Technologies	Posted - 2008.01.30 08:01:00 - [33] I do welcome these changes, they will help close the gap between the jump freighter and other options. It is now more borderline as to whether the jump freighter and rorqual is the better option. However I do agree with the other posters that the jump freighter needs something more to truly compete. Atm jump freighter has a base range of 5 LY and the carrier 6.5. That may be a small difference on paper but we all know just how useful the difference is in practice. If the jump freighter had a 5% bonus to jump range instead of jump fuel usage then with the relevant skill on 5 it would get 6.25ly base range - which is still less than the carrier but would just push it over the edge into usefulness for me. The other option would be to give it one high, one mid and one low. That would then open up fitting options (yes I know most people would just fit a cargo expander, a cap recharger and a cloak but most are not all). Heck remove the 5% more cargo per level bonus, put in a 5% jump range bonus and a low slot - then people can reach roughly the same capacity but also have the option to do other things with it. Blueprint Research Service Available See thread for details.
xena zena Dragons Of Redemption Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.01.30 08:29:00 - [34] Originally by: Hardigeen All I'm saying that if CCP nerfed carriers to give Jump Freighter a role, then why would they allow Rorqual to replace carriers? And if they want Jump Freighter to be used, they will have to give them adavantage of being the only ship capabale of jump-hauling large amounts of cargo, especially considering the high cost of producing/buying one. Honestly, I don't think Rorqual should be able to haul more then 30k m3, as that its not the primary role for that ship. a single compression run is ~20,000m3 of cargo. There are 4 compression lines. It takes about 1 minute per run. Getting 120 blocks of compressed ore in a decent mining op isn't that unusual. After a day or two with just 2-3 people mining it takes more then one rorqual to jump the compressed blocks out to a refinery. If anything rorquals cargo space is too small for its role. Don't punish existing ships more to give the jump freighter a useful role. Just boost the new jump freighters until they're worth the price tag assigned to them. IMHO. Range on-par with a rorqual at least. Cargo bonus is a start, maybe more? Would slots be crazy for a t2 freighter? No lows, but mids for armor tanking and a high for a cloak? Something other then gimping the usefulness of rorquals. Rorquals are already limited enough in their cargo capacity for their role. (Wouldn't hurt to give rorquals a cargo capacity bonus while in seige so you can compress larger runs?! lol.) _________________________
Lord Fitz	Posted - 2008.01.30 11:03:00 - [35] The irony is upon release the 1 run invention outcome was a big deal, now with cheaper BPCs and datacores it isn't. The material you save by using a better ME decryptor saves over a billion isk in build cost, which when combined with the fact that every man and his dog bought freighter BPOs to make BPCs from means that invention is now the minority cost component. Now boosting the max chance decryptor may actually increase the overall cost as more people will be using more compoents -per- jump freighter and the adv material price will rise again.
Lord Fitz	Posted - 2008.01.30 11:21:00 - [36] Oh, and if you're getting a 700m difference per level of ME you are doing something wrong. It's significant, but not that much 'per level'.
Kaaii Caldari PixelJuice Design Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2008.01.30 11:30:00 - [37] So, now, we are gonna have 10x as many jump freighter runs competing for the 54k isk p/u dysp? Yep good thinking, that will help.. According to Oveur, existing LSAA's already anchored will stay there. kieron Director of Community Relations,
Jouni Kalmar Gallente The Tidemark Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.01.30 12:18:00 - [38] Originally by: Lord Fitz Oh, and if you're getting a 700m difference per level of ME you are doing something wrong. It's significant, but not that much 'per level'. Hmm ok rechecked, as i didn't have the bpc that i was comparing to i assumed it was me -2, i am informed its -5 so i guess its really not THAT bad after all. My apolgies, you're right, i'll have a look into other me levels and compare, in any case more runs per bpc will still push the price up which is where the arguement was at anyway :P
Skyr ECP Rogues The Reckoning.	Posted - 2008.01.30 17:00:00 - [39] I hope this is not over the top.... but in my mind these should be the bonuses for such specialized craft: 5% Cargo Capacity bonus per level 10% Jump Fuel reduction per level 5% Jump Range bonus per level 5% Agility bonus per level All of the bonuses above are important for this class of ship. A bonus like 10% to hitpoints is as useful (read: it is not) as boosting bonus on transport ships... Seriously... once you start getting hit, there is no hope anyway.
MasterTao Caldari	Posted - 2008.01.30 17:46:00 - [40] If you change the # of runs then don't forget to reduce the bumped up success rate to the original =)
Ulstan	Posted - 2008.01.30 18:22:00 - [41] While you are reading this thread, Oneiromancer, could you speak to the possibility of someday having a medium sized industrial? Something in between a badger II and a Charon? That's such a steep jump. It would be like having the next ship class up from cruisers be carriers.
MFWood	Posted - 2008.01.30 19:05:00 - [42] I'm all for changes that help increase the intended function of the ship and the availabity of the ships in game but CCP really needs be careful on how often they reorganize the playing field. What I mean by this is that the industrialists that partake in the critical role of putting the newest items into play take on a heavy burden timewise and resource wise (isk)doing so. I for one had several Jump FT attempts as well as 100 T2 BS attempts ready (stocked up on bpcs, the best decryptors and datacores) for patchday and had spent several months training mains on 3 accounts up to level 5 in the mech, starship and encryption skills. I was all exited to take part in spreading the new tech, but was quickly crushed in spirit to see the massive failures in invention attempts, producing pathetic amounts of t2 bpcs at at -ME values that when added to the rediculously highly inflated t2 parts market (highly reliant on ferrogel, a dsyprosium product)made for a situation that equated to billions in losses. Many other industrialists were caught in this unfortunate situation as well. Instead of whining on the boards, we look for other way to recoup and still take part in the spread of the new items in game. In the case of the jump ft, demand for it is still low because in comparison (transport capacity wise) to the rorq it is a financially unwise choice. These new changes to the jump ft are awesome and will certainly increase the demand for it, as it will more adequately serve the role CCP had designed it for. By all means, we need these changes as soon as possible. Eventually, it would be nice to see the process of inventing it and building it become easier and cheaper, but to make that change now is highly unfair to the people that have invested in getting them built at this point in time. The process of invention (3 days assuming success on first attempts), then construction of the T2 capital parts (1-2 weeks) and finally the actual construction of the ship itself (17-35 days depending on PE of the bpc) is a very long process. The first jump freighters (from the best PE BPCs) have only recently come out of the factory and many of the first wave of these ships are still in the factory or coming out now. To change the playing field on the invention or building process at this time is a seriouly unfair move to make that penalizes the active indultrialists that have supported CCP and the game by getting involved in the newer tech. The jump ft has not been spreading around because it came out pre-nerfed and did not fill the role that you(CCP) intended it to fill, the rorq was and still is an (isk for cargo) better deal and there has barely been enough time for one buld cycle of the jump ft since the patch due to the length of the build. So, yes, increase its ability so demand for the ship increases. But please, don't leave those of us that have tried to participate in proliferation of the newer ships out in the cold by making us take huge losses from changes in the invention and building process that suddenly decrease the price and increase availability before there has even been a chance for those involved so far in making it to get the supply lines going. Do the functional and statistical changes now, but save the invention changes on it for a couple of months down the road when the demand has increased for it after you adjusted the stats to insure that it fulfills its intended role.
Rawne Karrde An Tir Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2008.01.31 03:21:00 - [43] Wow, I thought this thread had simply disappeared into the pages of forum history. Thanx for the dev response. After reading the changes proposed and others comments I am pleased. Though a few things, 1 changing the invention process is bad. MFWOOD already said why. Many of us took the bull by the horns and invested in this new industry with a given set of rules. To change those when the first batches have just come out the next wave is still cooking is not really great. My opinion is still that the build cost and invention cost is fine. A 7 bil isk ship is something people have the isk to pay for. At this point, what CCP needs to do is make the ship worth 7 bil isk or more. The proposed changes go in this direction, but I think CCP has not taken it far enough. CCP, in the proposed changes you frequently say on par with the rorqual. The fact is the Jump Freighter is not supposed to be on par with anything. It is supposed to be the number 1 jump hauler in all respects. I still think you need to increase the cargo a bit more. Jump freighter should have 50% of the t1 ship. The armor bonus and fuel decrease you have proposed are good. Agility bonus however is really not useful. Even with max skills the ship will still turn too slowly for that bonus to be of value. Also, last time i checked, a jump freighter does not need to align to anything in order to jump... So in summary, leave the invention and building alone. Increase the cargo further, and range. give it a range of 6 to put it inbetween the carrier and rorqual. The JF should not be on par with anything. it should be king.
Skyr ECP Rogues The Reckoning.	Posted - 2008.01.31 06:06:00 - [44] I strongly feel that the invention/cost should be kept as is since lots of people invested into building them or bought the ships. Unless you are volunteering to refund all current owners with some isk (which since CCP can conjure ISK at will should be no problem). I am gonna fight in the favor of agility bonus since I don't see CCP wanting to put any other feasible bonus in place of it (besides some totally insignificant one). Some people will like the agility bonus as decreasing the time of warp (alignment) from your low sec POS warp to the station might be worthwhile. However, again, drop the hit points bonus in favor of 5% jump range bonus. So again.... this is every JF pilot wet dream (on top of already increased capacity): 5% agility 10% fuel cost conservation 5% range 5% cargo capacity
Fujiko MaXjolt Caldari Templar Republic R0ADKILL	Posted - 2008.01.31 09:19:00 - [45] What I would like to see, would be for CCP to put in a fuel bay on the jump freighters. This would take away the strain of carrying fuel from the already way too small cargo hold. Add to that the proposed boost to the cargo hold, and I think you have a winner as far as cargo is concerned. Like previous posters have said, the agility and HP bonuses are all but worthless, as you wouldn't be warping that much faster and once you're targeted, it will be with alot of people there and you'll go down quick unless there's a half dozen carriers there to remote rep you...
Feronia Gallente Magma Industries	Posted - 2008.01.31 10:35:00 - [46] Some good changes here, but like others stated, the build cost and invention process are just fine as they are. The fact that some people could turn 1 freighter BPC into a 10-run Jump freighter BPC (if lucky) is horrifying. Not to mention the worse ME levels of these prints would put even more pressure on the moon material market. Also, with the long build times the JF multi-run BPCÆs will be a lot less flexible. I rather have 10 x 1-run JF BPCÆs instead of 1 x 10-run BPC. If you look at the price difference between a Rorqual and Jump Freighter, and the fact the JF is purely designed to be a hauler, it schouldnÆt be slightly better cargowise. It should be a lot better. IMHO a Jump Freighter should get a cargo round 500k m¦, with perfect skills.
Hippojack	Posted - 2008.01.31 10:36:00 - [47] I know this is a dumb question, but if I don't ask it would bug me something silly.... Can jump freighters use stargates? And by using the stargate system, then get into highsec where regular jump caps cannot...? Because if it can, then it would make them a LOT more useful and give them a big advantage over the Rorq and others... Whether or not worth the huge price tag at this stage remains to be seen, for this pilot....
achoura	Posted - 2008.01.31 10:54:00 - [48] The sad truth is anyone who invests in anything in eve dos so in the firm knowledge that it may be changed the very next day and whether builders like it or not that ship that cost 7 bil is sub par to the 1 bil carrier it was supposed to replace and further the ore cap is financially far more viable. Yes, it sucks i agree, and it would have been avoidable had the designer actually listened to the few thousand ppl who brought all this up pre launch, but that's life. Incidentally the agility vs. range bonus is almost mute, being able to jump farther at the cost of increased warp time means increasing the change of being ganked, conversely reducing the range at the cost of agility can mean two jumps instead of one again increasing the ganking potential. Personally i'd rather have the agility (was disappointed whent eh anshar interstitially had that cut) but i soppose that just comes down to how you do things. *The EVE servers and their patches*
Jouni Kalmar Gallente The Tidemark Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.01.31 11:04:00 - [49] Originally by: Hippojack I know this is a dumb question, but if I don't ask it would bug me something silly.... Can jump freighters use stargates? And by using the stargate system, then get into highsec where regular jump caps cannot...? Because if it can, then it would make them a LOT more useful and give them a big advantage over the Rorq and others... Whether or not worth the huge price tag at this stage remains to be seen, for this pilot.... Pretty sure they can, i cant fly one myself yet. However its not really much of an advantage, they make u more of a target for high sec suicide freighter gankers (yes it happens on occasion) and u cant haul as much anyway, you're better off jumping to low sec, moving 1 jump to high sec (just don't get tackled on the station) and switching to a normal freighter. Every ship has its place and its use, and high sec is a normal freighters home turf.

CCP Oneiromancer	Posted - 2008.01.31 12:32:00 - [50] Originally by: Ulstan While you are reading this thread, Oneiromancer, could you speak to the possibility of someday having a medium sized industrial? Something in between a badger II and a Charon? That's such a steep jump. It would be like having the next ship class up from cruisers be carriers. I'm sorry, I can't speak for Game Design and their plans in this field. I have only tested the changes for the jump freighters and thought to share some of my test results with you. There will be a devblog that will go more in-depth about these changes and perhaps you can then tackle Nozh in the feedback thread and shoot this question at him.

Natheera CompleXion Industries	Posted - 2008.01.31 15:00:00 - [51] I'm going to add my 2cents here too for added effect. Build Costs Don't change these. They're fine, and changing it now would have some very serious negative impacts on the economy and seriously pss off a lot of people unnecessarily. As has been stated many times, just it WORTH the 7.5 bil ISK. Ship Function and Stats* The ship needs to be worth the ISK it costs. It should be the best jump hauler there is. Corps and Alliances should WANT to spend 7.5bil on this ship. The changes you're proposing are a very good start and get us closer to where it needs to be. I personally think that if you were to increase the jump range a wee bit on top of the proposed changes, then we'd be set. So implement the changes you propose and just increase the base jump range a bit and I think you'll hit that critical sweet spot between useless and overpowered.
gordon861 Minmatar PROGENITOR CORPORATION Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2008.01.31 16:04:00 - [52] Why not make it so these things can actually jump into empire space using a new cyno generator or a special one at an empire POS. This by itself would justify the costs of them. Originally by: CCP Arkanon I frown on employees being power players to the extent that their gameplay results in any sort of domination over others. I donÆt believe CCP employees should run the EVE universe.
Ellaine TashMurkon CBC Interstellar The Unseen Company	Posted - 2008.01.31 16:07:00 - [53] Maybe make them more diverse then T1 freighters? Make Gallente about average Make Amarr much better tanker (higher resists, way more armor - about 50% effective hit points more) Give caldari significantly more cargo (like 20%) Make Matar much more agile (like 40% less time tu align) With freighters, difference is rather not significant. Maybe it would be more fun to have them varied?
Skyr ECP Rogues The Reckoning.	Posted - 2008.01.31 16:47:00 - [54] Originally by: Ellaine TashMurkon Maybe make them more diverse then T1 freighters? Make Gallente about average Make Amarr much better tanker (higher resists, way more armor - about 50% effective hit points more) Give caldari significantly more cargo (like 20%) Make Matar much more agile (like 40% less time tu align) With freighters, difference is rather not significant. Maybe it would be more fun to have them varied? Since the freighter's function is to carry cargo, as much as possible, we would shortly have only caldari ones in space. You don't need tanking on that ship. You don't (arguably) need better agility on that ship.
Ulstan	Posted - 2008.01.31 19:16:00 - [55] Quote: I'm sorry, I can't speak for Game Design and their plans in this field. I have only tested the changes for the jump freighters and thought to share some of my test results with you. There will be a devblog that will go more in-depth about these changes and perhaps you can then tackle Nozh in the feedback thread and shoot this question at him. Thank you very much for the response. I shall look forward to the upcoming devblogs. Quote: Since the freighter's function is to carry cargo, as much as possible, we would shortly have only caldari ones in space. Agreed. Giving ships bonuses to areas of performance that fall outside their intended role is usually pointless. See the bonuses for tanking and shield boosting that the techII industrials have. Their only purpose is to haul as much cargo as they can and align for warp as fast as possible. If they ever get caught and can't warp, they are dead anyway, so the meagre tanking bonuses are rather superfluous.
Riley Craven Caldari Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2008.02.02 00:19:00 - [56] Originally by: Ulstan Agreed. Giving ships bonuses to areas of performance that fall outside their intended role is usually pointless. See the bonuses for tanking and shield boosting that the techII industrials have. Their only purpose is to haul as much cargo as they can and align for warp as fast as possible. If they ever get caught and can't warp, they are dead anyway, so the meagre tanking bonuses are rather superfluous. Well I would argue that you are wrong.See the nice thing about eve is that its a sandbox. A purpose can be found for anything, including mods everyone thinks are useless (aka energy flux coils) The thing is that extra tanking bonus is very VERY nice when hauling high dollar goods in empire as it makes the ship harder to suicide. Think about that for a bit.
Herring Alcatraz Inc. Tactical Narcotics Team	Posted - 2008.02.02 02:10:00 - [57] Range still needs to be addressed. Otherwise very good with the proposed changes. CCP - please stop with the nerfing and boost something already.
Jouni Kalmar Gallente The Tidemark Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.02.02 18:49:00 - [58] Originally by: Riley Craven Well I would argue that you are wrong.See the nice thing about eve is that its a sandbox. A purpose can be found for anything, including mods everyone thinks are useless (aka energy flux coils) The thing is that extra tanking bonus is very VERY nice when hauling high dollar goods in empire as it makes the ship harder to suicide. Think about that for a bit. Why wouldn't you just use a normal freighter? If you have both, jump freighter goods from hostile space or 0.0 to the edge of high sec, move into high sec and transferr goods to a normal freighter, it'll take atleast 2 jump freighter loads to fill the normal freighter, with the speed they align and warp at i don't think many people will want to run around with a 1/4 full freighter, i know i wouldn't.
Rawne Karrde An Tir Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2008.02.04 01:13:00 - [59] Are we gonna be getting a dev blog on this soon? Also, people have been calling for an increase in range on the jump freighters. What is ccp's stance on it? What problem or aversion do you have to increasing the jump range to say 6 ly or 6.5 ly like a carrier?
James Lister State Outfitters	Posted - 2008.02.04 06:08:00 - [60] First of all thanks thanks to the OP for starting the thread and to Oneiromancer for the insight into changes coming down the pipe. It's always reassuring to know when a problem has been acknowledged and is being looked into. The proposed changes look promising. IMO a reduction of required materials is not out of line on JF, but perhaps only 20-30%. I just don't think you can make them perform at 10x versus the T1 version. On almost all the other ships (below BC size) the tech level price jump is about 10x but the T2 versions are normally better in every way. In order to compete at the HAC level you would need basically the t1 freighter stats with jump capability plus a few relevant bonuses. The side effect of this would be relieving some of the pressure on the t2 comps market. Even with a 4B or 5B price tag, the JF needs to be the premier long range bulk cargo solution. As long as the rorqual or a dread is even remotely comparable then the JF is still broken. Rorqual and dread fill other roles, so without some specific niche need it would always be better to buy a multi-role ship instead of the specialized one which does one thing slightly better than the others. As far as the bonuses go, just look at the name: "jump" and "freighter". If the bonus doesn't help jumping or freight carrying, it's pretty much useless for this role. And jump range > jump fuel usage. I'm also not a big fan of the 10x production runs. With a max invented run of 1 it changed the rules and made some "lesser" decryptors useful and even desirable. And as others have indicated, the invention costs are paltry in comparison to the build costs. Enabling yet even more crappy ME copies to be cranked out will only exacerbate the T2 components crunch. 5 runs ME -5 and 10 runs ME -6 4TL. If you look at the charts, there were as many freighter prints bought during trinity plus and minus 30 days than the entire 10 months prior. I suspect any lack of bpcs will soon be rectified.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.