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)
Rawne Karrde An Tir Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2008.01.21 23:10:00 - [1] Dear CCP Chronitis, and whom ever might care; Ok just some thoughts from my experience with the jump freighters. I have been going almost end to end on these from the invention down to the actual building then flying of them. I even have setup quite a few pos to produce moon materials to contribute to the building. When it comes to the invention and building of these I really have no problems. Sure the ships cost quite a bit more than CCP's stated target of 3.6 bil, but hey thats the market and I like that it goes up and down with supply and demand. CCP has never really been very good at anticipating what players will do and the effect on the market. As a pilot of the jump frieghter, the Rhea for the record, I am a little disappointed. I have trained up Jump calibration lvl 5 for maximum range and I'm working on Freighter lvl 5 as well to max out cargo. I have the Jump Freighter skill at lvl 4. Now the price is not something I'm unhappy about. This ship can jump from high sec space straight to the safety of a 0.0 or low sec POS. That kind of "safety" shouldn't be without a price. Too boot, the rorqual is anywhere from 1/4 to 1/5 the price of a Jump freighter but has half the cargo potential. What do I think should be done? Well I hate nerfs so lets leave the rorqual alone. As a producer, I've got 10's of billions tied up in construction jump freighters ( 4 Rhea and 2 Anshar for the record). I'd prefer to leave the construction costs alone as well. That leaves the ship. For the price tag that comes with these t2 behemoths, CCP should increase the cargo hold to 1/2 of the t1 freighters instead of the 1/3 its currently at. They should also remove the stupid speed bonus that you get. Whoopee I get to go 120 m/s in the jump freighter, instead of 90 m/s. This bonus is COMPLETELY useless as was pointed out by many even before the jf's hit tq. Replace the speed bonus with either a jump range bonus or something else more useful. Also which ever way they do it, JF's should get more range. The same as a carrier. So there you go CCP, I jumped in with two feet to be your guinea pig in this beta phase of eve and you have my observations on the situation. I should comment though that in my case, as a pilot, I do have a use for this ship that makes it very worth while to have. As a producer though, I've got stock laying around now as everyone's buying rorquals instead. I have a constant stream of people who are shocked when they hear the price then just go and buy a rorqual instead. Oh and final shameless plug hehe, if you are looking for one of these contact me hehe. Sincerely, Rawne Karrde
Sophie Daigneau The Theta Project GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.01.22 03:59:00 - [2] As someone who has 4 Anshars and now and Ark either delivered or under construction, I agree that there is currently an imbalance between the cost of the ship and the utility you get from that cost. As for the 3.6b number, take out the nerf to the number of runs on invented bpc's and base your costs on pre-trinity advanced materials prices and you are right about there, so CCP was spot on with that. They just didn't estimate right what the increased demand for the new ships would do to the T2 materials market.
ghosttr Amarr ARK-CORP RONA Alliance	Posted - 2008.01.22 04:27:00 - [3] Another thing i have found with building the jump freightor is that since the ship array cannot repackage the t1 version of the freightor its pretty much impossible to make one without first having to build a brand new t1 freightor. Why the hell would i want a new t1 freightor if im building the t2 one? It should be made so that ship can be drug over into the advanced assembly arrays and be repackaged during the transiting between maint. array and the assembly array A bigger eve Annndd..Player Factions
Siltan	Posted - 2008.01.22 09:43:00 - [4] Originally by: ghosttr Another thing i have found with building the jump freightor is that since the ship array cannot repackage the t1 version of the freightor its pretty much impossible to make one without first having to build a brand new t1 freightor. Why the hell would i want a new t1 freightor if im building the t2 one? It should be made so that ship can be drug over into the advanced assembly arrays and be repackaged during the transiting between maint. array and the assembly array You can kind of get around this by building in a low sec station I belive (building one soon). but it would be annoying in 0.0. Just letting people repackage in a maintanance array would probably do the job.

CCP Oneiromancer	Posted - 2008.01.28 11:19:00 - [5] We are currently testing some boosts to the jump freighters on our internal servers; the changes should be available for testing on Singularity later this week. * all jump freighters are getting a 25% base cargo capacity increase. * all jump freighters are getting a 10% bonus to shield, armor and hull hitpoints per Jump Freighter skill level. * the speed bonus has been changed to a 5% agility bonus per racial freighter skill level. * the fuel needs reduction has been increased from 5% to 10% per Jump Freighter skill level. * there is an additional 5% cargo capacity bonus per racial freighter skill level. There will be a devblog about these changes soon, so please give your feedback there.

achoura	Posted - 2008.01.28 12:40:00 - [6] It was stated shortly after release that the invention of these ships was going to be made cheaper but you make no mention of this. Are those changes in addition to easier invention or a supplement to the current build costs? *The EVE servers and their patches*
Marcus Tedric Gallente Tedric Enterprises Space Exploration and Logistic Services	Posted - 2008.01.28 12:54:00 - [7] Now those are some very interesting proposed changes, all rather nice. I shall hope at least some of them make it through. I really would, however, suggest you re-look at the idea to increase the number of runs obtainable on a BPC - all Capitals have a Max run of 1 - I don't see why a T2 version should be different. If you do, then I'd seriously look at the Decryptors once more, because the current stats are distorted. Anshar in the oven tonight
Elissen Amarr Serenity Inc	Posted - 2008.01.28 13:10:00 - [8] Originally by: CCP Oneiromancer We are currently testing some boosts to the jump freighters on our internal servers; the changes should be available for testing on Singularity later this week. * all jump freighters are getting a 25% base cargo capacity increase. * all jump freighters are getting a 10% bonus to shield, armor and hull hitpoints per Jump Freighter skill level. * the speed bonus has been changed to a 5% agility bonus per racial freighter skill level. * the fuel needs reduction has been increased from 5% to 10% per Jump Freighter skill level. * there is an additional 5% cargo capacity bonus per racial freighter skill level. There will be a devblog about these changes soon, so please give your feedback there. I am so glad now that I implemented skills properly for the last Jumpplanner . I do not have a Jump Freighter, but to me the changes seem good. I'm at work right now and do not have all the data handy, but the cargo increase would mean 50% increase at max skills? ---- Weeks of programming can save you hours of planning. Jumpplanner v2.2 - Routeplanner for all jumpcapable ships!

CCP Oneiromancer	Posted - 2008.01.28 13:13:00 - [9] Originally by: achoura It was stated shortly after release that the invention of these ships was going to be made cheaper but you make no mention of this. Are those changes in addition to easier invention or a supplement to the current build costs? Oops, forgot about that. The max production runs on jump freighter blueprints has been increased from 1 to 10.


CCP Oneiromancer	Posted - 2008.01.28 14:21:00 - [10] Originally by: Elissen I am so glad now that I implemented skills properly for the last Jumpplanner . I do not have a Jump Freighter, but to me the changes seem good. I'm at work right now and do not have all the data handy, but the cargo increase would mean 50% increase at max skills? Yes, max skills will mean +50% cargo capacity compared to the current numbers. So you'd have: Anshar: 351.562 m3 Ark: 344.531 m3 Nomad: 337.500 m3 Rhea: 367.968 m3 You also get -50% fuel consumption with max skills.

Skyr ECP Rogues The Reckoning.	Posted - 2008.01.28 15:08:00 - [11] Edited by: Skyr on 28/01/2008 15:10:44 A rather interesting boost to the ship. Besides the most desirable jump range bonus not in the list, all the other changes look very good. Especially cargo change and fuel conservation. The resistance bonus is still silly, but at least it will now apply to every single HP on the ship, not to that 5k armor sliver as previously. Correct me if I am wrong, but does it mean that at L5 of Jump Freighter and Jump Fuel COnservation, the ship should consume 12.5% of nominal fuel amount?
Kalmanaka The Graduates Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2008.01.28 15:19:00 - [12] The bonus listed above is to HP, not resistance (unless I'm missing something.) The current bonus is 10% to hull HP only, new bonus will be to shield, armor and hull.
Skyr ECP Rogues The Reckoning.	Posted - 2008.01.28 15:47:00 - [13] Originally by: Kalmanaka The bonus listed above is to HP, not resistance (unless I'm missing something.) The current bonus is 10% to hull HP only, new bonus will be to shield, armor and hull. Whichever it is :). Point is the bonus is silly to begin with. If it is getting hit (unless it had gazillion HPs to begin with), it goes down regardless since it would be tackled and swarmed.
Tradik	Posted - 2008.01.28 16:56:00 - [14] Originally by: CCP Oneiromancer Originally by: Elissen I am so glad now that I implemented skills properly for the last Jumpplanner . I do not have a Jump Freighter, but to me the changes seem good. I'm at work right now and do not have all the data handy, but the cargo increase would mean 50% increase at max skills? Yes, max skills will mean +50% cargo capacity compared to the current numbers. So you'd have: Anshar: 351.562 m3 Ark: 344.531 m3 Nomad: 337.500 m3 Rhea: 367.968 m3 You also get -50% fuel consumption with max skills. Either something is wrong with your numbers, or something is wrong with my understanding of the planned changes. Quote: * there is an additional 5% cargo capacity bonus per racial freighter skill level. That says to me, instead of the current 5% cargo capacity bonus/racial freighter skill, it is now 10% cargo capacity bonus/racial freighter skill. So, using the example of the Anshar, it would be 225,000 x 1.25 = 281,250, to add the basic hull boost. Then, assuming racial freighter V, 281,250 x 1.5 = 421,875. Please tell me if I'm correct about this, or just going completely insane. If God had wanted you to live, She wouldn't've created me.
Jakus Cemendur Caldari The Graduates Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2008.01.28 17:16:00 - [15] Quote: * all jump freighters are getting a 25% base cargo capacity increase. From Omni's first post in this thread.
Eleana Tomelac Gallente Through the Looking Glass	Posted - 2008.01.28 17:24:00 - [16] Originally by: CCP Oneiromancer Originally by: Elissen I am so glad now that I implemented skills properly for the last Jumpplanner . I do not have a Jump Freighter, but to me the changes seem good. I'm at work right now and do not have all the data handy, but the cargo increase would mean 50% increase at max skills? Yes, max skills will mean +50% cargo capacity compared to the current numbers. So you'd have: Anshar: 351.562 m3 Ark: 344.531 m3 Nomad: 337.500 m3 Rhea: 367.968 m3 You also get -50% fuel consumption with max skills. Isn't the exact value at max skill about +56.25% increase if it's 1.25*1.25... Well, that's just a detail, but every bonus gets multiplied to the others, not added, which is always better for the final values with max skills. -- Pocket drone carriers (tm) enthousiast ! Assault Frigates MK II

CCP Oneiromancer	Posted - 2008.01.28 18:04:00 - [17] Yes, I suppose it's 56.something%, I've always been very bad at math. A clarification - the 5% racial freighter skill bonus to cargo capacity remains unchanged. I included that by mistake in my initial post. I've done some comparative testing between jump freighters, Rorquals and dreadnoughts, the latter fitted for maximum cargo capacity. The values compared were min/max base ship price, min/max module price, min/max fuel price (for a 6-jumps trip with Jump Calibration, Jump Freighters and Jump Fuel Conservation at level 4), available cargo space (values for level 4 and 5 of the racial freighter skill). The numbers alone for jump freighters are at least on par, if not better, than those for the Rorqual, especially with racial freighter skill at level 5. If anyone is interested I can post them here and you can double-check them.

Elissen Amarr Serenity Inc	Posted - 2008.01.28 18:26:00 - [18] Originally by: Skyr Edited by: Skyr on 28/01/2008 15:10:44 A rather interesting boost to the ship. Besides the most desirable jump range bonus not in the list, all the other changes look very good. Especially cargo change and fuel conservation. The resistance bonus is still silly, but at least it will now apply to every single HP on the ship, not to that 5k armor sliver as previously. Correct me if I am wrong, but does it mean that at L5 of Jump Freighter and Jump Fuel COnservation, the ship should consume 12.5% of nominal fuel amount? You can already jump 11.25 ly with Jumpdrive Calibration 5. Right now you can get the fuel usage from 3100 isotopes per ly base down to 1162.5 isotopes per ly (for the anshar). With the intended change (10% per level of Jump Freighter instead of 5%) you would max out at 775 isotopes per lightyear. See this - WARNING ROUNDED VALUES. It is 25% btw (0.5 * 0.5). Different ships here mean different fuel usage, but the percentages stay the same. ---- Weeks of programming can save you hours of planning. Jumpplanner v2.2 - Routeplanner for all jumpcapable ships!
Matalino Gallente Ki Tech Industries	Posted - 2008.01.28 18:29:00 - [19] Originally by: CCP Oneiromancer The numbers alone for jump freighters are at least on par, if not better, than those for the Rorqual, especially with racial freighter skill at level 5. I don't have a vested interest in this yet, but reading this sounded totally absurd from a balancing point of view. WTF - Jump Freighters are at least on par with the Rorqual? There shouldn't even be a question when comparing them. Jump Freighter's only purpose is to move stuff. If they are not unquestionably the best jump-drive ships for doing so, then why do we have them. If any other ship is "on par" with a Jump Freighter for jump based hauling, then there is no need or use for the Jump Freighters at all. They don't need to be over-powered, but there should be no question that Jump Freighters are better at hauling than any other jump capable ship in all cases.
Sophie Daigneau Risky Advanced Production Enterprises GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.01.28 18:38:00 - [20] Originally by: Matalino Originally by: CCP Oneiromancer The numbers alone for jump freighters are at least on par, if not better, than those for the Rorqual, especially with racial freighter skill at level 5. I don't have a vested interest in this yet, but reading this sounded totally absurd from a balancing point of view. WTF - Jump Freighters are at least on par with the Rorqual? There shouldn't even be a question when comparing them. Jump Freighter's only purpose is to move stuff. If they are not unquestionably the best jump-drive ships for doing so, then why do we have them. If any other ship is "on par" with a Jump Freighter for jump based hauling, then there is no need or use for the Jump Freighters at all. They don't need to be over-powered, but there should be no question that Jump Freighters are better at hauling than any other jump capable ship in all cases. I believe he was referring to the isotope cost per m3 of cargo moved for each ship being on par. Once you factor in the time saved by being able to jump over twice the amount of goods per trip, the JF wins the argrument quite easily.

CCP Oneiromancer	Posted - 2008.01.28 20:37:00 - [21] Well, no, I was referring to the overall ISK/m3 of cargo moved, factoring in the cost of the ship, modules (if any) and fuel. I haven't added the price of skills, however, I shall go through the numbers again tomorrow with this added factor. Also, keep in mind that the price of the jump freighters will likely fall in the following months as more and more people will produce them. The BPC run change should give the invention a slight boost and they will hopefully become less and less of a rarity. Not to mention the added benefits of jump freighters - like access to highsec space and the ability to use stargates, unlike the Rorqual. Oh, and it's "she". =)

Jouni Kalmar Gallente The Tidemark Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.01.29 01:59:00 - [22] Originally by: CCP Oneiromancer Also, keep in mind that the price of the jump freighters will likely fall in the following months as more and more people will produce them. The BPC run change should give the invention a slight boost and they will hopefully become less and less of a rarity. I disagree here, given that there will be more prints out there (10 times infact) assuming you're not messing with the success of invention jobs, the demand for the raws and components for these ships will rise, in turn the price will rise given the stupidly large number of base materials required to build them, and in turn increasing the over all production cost of the ship. (Ignoring the invention costs and bpc + copying costs) In addition to the above, the sell price will fall due to a higher avalibility of each ship and more competition due to those with a freighter bpc ready to invent holding out till the changes come in, any success gives them not 1 but 10. I do agree with the changes but 10 runs? shouldn't it be more inline with other invention and let the decryptor decide how many runs of ships you get? Yes it will make the ships less rare but the cost won't fall as far as i can tell and at the very least, without increasing the yeild of moon materials this will only help t2 ships of all kinds to remain over priced if not increase the prices more.
Tradik	Posted - 2008.01.29 04:31:00 - [23] Originally by: Jouni Kalmar In addition to the above, the sell price will fall due to a higher avalibility of each ship and more competition due to those with a freighter bpc ready to invent holding out till the changes come in, any success gives them not 1 but 10. I do agree with the changes but 10 runs? shouldn't it be more inline with other invention and let the decryptor decide how many runs of ships you get? I don't believe that's how its going to work. What she said was: Originally by: CCP Oneiromancer Oops, forgot about that. The max production runs on jump freighter blueprints has been increased from 1 to 10. That says to me that, using appropriate decryptors, the maximum amount of runs for a single bpc you can get is 10 runs. That doesn't mean every bpc will have 10 runs, simply the possibillity of having 10 runs. If God had wanted you to live, She wouldn't've created me.
Jouni Kalmar Gallente The Tidemark Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.01.29 05:11:00 - [24] Edited by: Jouni Kalmar on 29/01/2008 05:12:29 Originally by: Tradik <Snip> I don't believe that's how its going to work. What she said was: Originally by: CCP Oneiromancer Oops, forgot about that. The max production runs on jump freighter blueprints has been increased from 1 to 10. That says to me that, using appropriate decryptors, the maximum amount of runs for a single bpc you can get is 10 runs. That doesn't mean every bpc will have 10 runs, simply the possibillity of having 10 runs. fair point - i was home on my lunch break from work so my response and reading time were limited, but aside from that i'm sure u understand my point none the less. So long as the number of runs are still affected by the decryptor used then it won't be too bad, still though, more runs at higher negative me will mean more materials required and effectively still have the same effect. keeping in mind a single -1 me diffence on a jump freighter works out to be somewhere in the area of 700 mill isk. I pitty the poor fool who gets a 9 or 10 run -6me >.<
Wrayeth Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2008.01.29 07:44:00 - [25] Originally by: CCP Oneiromancer Oh, and it's "she". =) There are no gurls on teh intarwebs. Everybody knows that. MMORPG = Many Men Online RolePlaying Girls. -Wrayeth n00b Extraordinaire "Look, pa! I just contributed absolutely nothing to this thread!"
kurikymoko yasai	Posted - 2008.01.29 11:07:00 - [26] Originally by: Matalino Originally by: CCP Oneiromancer The numbers alone for jump freighters are at least on par, if not better, than those for the Rorqual, especially with racial freighter skill at level 5. ..... There shouldn't even be a question when comparing them. Jump Freighter's only purpose is to move stuff. If they are not unquestionably the best jump-drive ships for doing so, then why do we have them. If any other ship is "on par" with a Jump Freighter for jump based hauling, then there is no need or use for the Jump Freighters at all. They don't need to be over-powered, but there should be no question that Jump Freighters are better at hauling than any other jump capable ship in all cases. I kinda agree with this quote. Atm you definitively have a competition between the rorqual and the jump freighter. Sure with the boost the J freighter would haul about twice what the rorqual can haul but yet again it fail to address some of the mains issue with this ship and with low sec 0.0 hauling in general. First of all, we are not so much interested in costs of the ship, skill, isk/m3 ectc..... there are only two variable that are of interest: how much it can haul and how far it can jump. They all relate to safety of transport and nothing else. the more it can haul the less trip you have to make the safer it is since you are less exposed. the farther it can jump the less it stay in space and the less of a chore it is to make POS refuel run Atm the J freighter and the rorqual use differents techniques to achieve this goal. Jump freighter: Sure they carry a lot but they are atm very expensive and they are very predictable since they can not defend themselves and can't fit anything on them so you know their weaknes and they go pop pretty easily. Sure they can use star gate and can go in high sec but nobody in its right mind would travel in high sec with one of these ship atm and in 0.0 or low sec you don't really use stargate you actually use jump freighter to AVOID stargate. The only example where this feature would be useful is isolated highsec pocket in low sec space. The new planned bonus would be a benefit but it would still not make the freighter the best of best hauler. Rorqual: sure it can haul on paper less than the Jump freighter but the thing that take most space is minerals especially the lower end one. The rorqual with GSc can haul up to 170 Km3 in the cragohold plus 10K in the corporate hanguar and carebear ships filled with ammo and charge in the ship maintenance array and the 4 compressions lines. It can make for a lot and lot of stuff if you plan well the trip. Atm the small cargo limitation is not a huge issue. Sure it can't use gates or enter in high sec but hey it can tank, cloack and defend itself albeit just a bit. It is basically more flexible and versatile. The new bonus for the J freighter is a step in the right direction but ideally i would love a J Freighter which have a jump range between the carrier and rorqual range. It would add some interest in the ship abilities.
zacuis Great Big Research	Posted - 2008.01.29 21:14:00 - [27] very good to hear but i`d trade all those bonues for a carrier like range
D'wayne	Posted - 2008.01.30 00:25:00 - [28] Originally by: Jouni Kalmar I do agree with the changes but 10 runs? shouldn't it be more inline with other invention and let the decryptor decide how many runs of ships you get? Yes it will make the ships less rare but the cost won't fall as far as i can tell and at the very least, without increasing the yeild of moon materials this will only help t2 ships of all kinds to remain over priced if not increase the prices more. Totally with you. Someone would have to want to burn money to invent and build from a 10 run bpc. If it was in line with decryptors, you would get 10 runs of Anshar BPC at ME-6. They would cost a bomb to produce and the invention would cost a lot. Assuming it takes you seven or eight attempts to get a 10 run BPC, thats seven or eight freighter bpcs you would need. With increased demand the prices will go up when there aren't enough bpos owned by players to make enough copies. It would cost a phenomenal amount to get the bpcs. Thats on top of the build costs, which would only be worse. More people buying t2 materials for lower ME bpcs means price of t2 goes up, not down.
Valia Deluri Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.01.30 00:28:00 - [29] Originally by: CCP Oneiromancer Yes, I suppose it's 56.something%, I've always been very bad at math. A clarification - the 5% racial freighter skill bonus to cargo capacity remains unchanged. I included that by mistake in my initial post. I've done some comparative testing between jump freighters, Rorquals and dreadnoughts, the latter fitted for maximum cargo capacity. The values compared were min/max base ship price, min/max module price, min/max fuel price (for a 6-jumps trip with Jump Calibration, Jump Freighters and Jump Fuel Conservation at level 4), available cargo space (values for level 4 and 5 of the racial freighter skill). The numbers alone for jump freighters are at least on par, if not better, than those for the Rorqual, especially with racial freighter skill at level 5. If anyone is interested I can post them here and you can double-check them. Please post. I would like to see the numbers. My question is how does a 7.1 bil ship compare equally to a 1.5 bil ship? I have no need for high sec thanks to war decs and at least the Rorq can pretend to defend itself. It may take twice the jumps but at 20 mill a run it still looks cheaper. -Deluri Code of Deluri Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I cannot accept, and the wisdom to hide the bodies of those people I had to kill today.
Hardigeen	Posted - 2008.01.30 04:11:00 - [30] 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.
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.
Lara Dantreb New Horizons	Posted - 2008.02.06 20:46:00 - [61] I have no problem whith JF construction costs I have no problem with JF invention requirements and cost but WTH such expansive ships don't deserve to have the same jump range than carriers ???
Doc Fury	Posted - 2008.02.06 20:58:00 - [62] Originally by: Lara Dantreb I have no problem whith JF construction costs I have no problem with JF invention requirements and cost but WTH such expansive ships don't deserve to have the same jump range than carriers ??? ^^This
Rawne Karrde An Tir Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2008.02.07 14:19:00 - [63] Agreed. Cost is fine, invention is fine, but dam, it shouldn't be on par with a 2 bil isk ship. C'mon ccp.
TypoNinja Caldari Void Angels THE INTERSTELLAR FOUNDRY	Posted - 2008.02.07 21:08:00 - [64] We do need some serious boosts to the utility of a jump freighter. Here we have a purpose built multi-billion is ship whos sole mission in life is 0.0 logistics. Yet its jump range is nothing to write home about and its cargo capacity is slim enough that their are reasonable alternatives to its use. There should be no reasonable alternative, its a jump freighter anything else should be obviously inferior to the task and by a good sized margin. Normal carriers exceed the hauling potential of anything else on the market by a factor of 20 (Rigged I5 at 44km3 with giant secures) For a tech two hauling ship with this kind of price tag can we at least make it twice as good as any other option? To add insult to injury our jump freighter is forced to share its precious hauling capacity with its fuel, further reducing its effective haulage. While a boost to its jump range is the most popular option, how about giving it a dedicated 'fuel bay' where only jump fuel goes. Be generous with its size but don't allow fuel to be removed from it to prevent it being abused. This would give it a clear advantage in longer trips where fuel space would start seriously eating into to cargo space of lesser vessels.
MrBadidea Spartan Industries	Posted - 2008.02.08 15:22:00 - [65] Originally by: TypoNinja There should be no reasonable alternative, its a jump freighter anything else should be obviously inferior to the task and by a good sized margin. Normal carriers exceed the hauling potential of anything else on the market by a factor of 20 (Rigged I5 at 44km3 with giant secures) You forget that the realistic potential market for these ships wasn't created by adding these ships as an attractive alternative, inherently better at the job than what 90% of people were using (read: haulers in carriers), but by nerfing other options so that this would be the viable alternative. Only its not viable at all. --- MrBadidea's ePeen strikes YOUR EGO Wrecking for EMOCIDE
Veng3ance Prophets Of a Damned Universe	Posted - 2008.02.08 19:54:00 - [66] Great changes, I think this will make the jump freighter a much more viable hauling option. All you guys talking about the Rorqual need to put things into perspective. One can go into high-sec, one can't. Jita --> Straight to a POS. How is that not worth the cost? I think the proposed changes will perfectly balance the jump freighter and asking for anything else (range ) is asking for the ship to be overpowered.
Aprudena Gist Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.09 03:20:00 - [67] while this change is good its still not good enough why is a ship that is easily 3 to 4 times the cost of another designed for logistics only on part with a ship that isn't made for such things in isk/m3 moved?
James Lister State Outfitters	Posted - 2008.02.10 01:59:00 - [68] Originally by: Veng3ance Great changes, I think this will make the jump freighter a much more viable hauling option. All you guys talking about the Rorqual need to put things into perspective. One can go into high-sec, one can't. Jita --> Straight to a POS. How is that not worth the cost? I think the proposed changes will perfectly balance the jump freighter and asking for anything else (range ) is asking for the ship to be overpowered. While undoubtedly handy for some situations, the ability to jump from Jita to anywhere is still a niche use and not worthy of a 5Bisk price tag IMO. If it could also jump INTO high sec then I might be willing to negotiate.
zacuis Great Big Research	Posted - 2008.02.10 14:25:00 - [69] bumping this topic cos i want to read the dev blog on the issue my 2 cents are that this ship needs a range boost and should have about half the cargo of the t1 freighter. personally i think the build cost atm is fine, dont even think adding more runs to the invention is a big deal, altho i think that it will increase the number of ships in game alot and i think thats what ccp is trying to do there which is fair enought. people whining about the cost of dyspro in this thread obviouly arnt building these things cos they ready dont use dyspro reliant complexs much. i agree i dont want to see the rorquel nerfed to make the jf`s better altho i have thought other wise in the past. its been said over and over in here but i agree so im gonna say it again these ships should be the hands down best way to get stuff in and out of 0.0. atm i`d feel alot better using a couple rorquels than a jump freighter cos they have a tank and some defence and give me the same amount of space as the jf at a fraction of the cost. the argument that i`d have to use 2 of them rather than 1 is a nonsence in my opinion imho most people think nothing of using multiple accounts to do things i have 4 my self
Rawne Karrde An Tir Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2008.02.10 22:37:00 - [70] Cmon CCP where's the dev blog already? Increase the cargo to 50% of the t1 version Give it more jump range. Price is fine Invention cost is fine Jump freighter shouldn't be ON PAR with anything. It should be the hands down best at doing what it does.
Rawne Karrde An Tir Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2008.02.11 23:58:00 - [71] I hate to break the magic of post number 69; however, CCP Oneiromancer what aversion do you guys have to giving this ship more range? Furthermore, what aversion do you have to adding a bit more cargo to put them in the range of about 1/2 the cargo of the t1 version? The cost of invention and production certainly grant that this ship who's sole role is jump logistics, should not be just on par with ships like the rorqual, which mind you is 1/4 the price, but should be the best and first choice to 0.0 jump logistics. Can we get a response to these questions?
Azuse Live and Learn Inc.	Posted - 2008.02.12 01:14:00 - [72] If the jf was intended to replace the carrier as the main hauler, even holding more, with reduced jump range, please explain how exactly the price is right when carriers cost roughly 1 bil (fitted insured) yet this replacement costs 7 bil (no insurance/defence). If the price was right there would be far more jf hauling in eve that there are ore caps, in fact since release all i've seen those ships really do is haul instead of mine, might have something to do with the price but i could be wrong. -------------------------
Skyr ECP Rogues The Reckoning.	Posted - 2008.02.15 04:19:00 - [73] I just wanted to inform that current SISI build doesn't give bonuses to structure, it does to armor/shield though. Thank you.

CCP Nozh	Posted - 2008.02.15 14:29:00 - [74] Originally by: Rawne Karrde I hate to break the magic of post number 69; however, CCP Oneiromancer what aversion do you guys have to giving this ship more range? Furthermore, what aversion do you have to adding a bit more cargo to put them in the range of about 1/2 the cargo of the t1 version? The cost of invention and production certainly grant that this ship who's sole role is jump logistics, should not be just on par with ships like the rorqual, which mind you is 1/4 the price, but should be the best and first choice to 0.0 jump logistics. Can we get a response to these questions? Hey Rawne, The devblog has been in the "devblog queue" for quite some time, waiting for translation and publishing. We like the current cargo capacity numbers and won't be boosting them further, at least not in Trinity 1.1. As for why we didn't boost their range, moving around large amounts of cargo in EVE has always been slow. Freighters are the ships that decide the pace of current freighter runs, we wanted to keep that trend. Since jump freighters are jump capable, the only way of slowing it down properly is with a reduced jump rage, forcing support ships jumping along with it to take shorter leaps. Nozh Game Designer CCP Games


CCP Nozh	Posted - 2008.02.15 14:30:00 - [75] Originally by: Skyr I just wanted to inform that current SISI build doesn't give bonuses to structure, it does to armor/shield though. Thank you. Thanks, I'll take a look at it. Nozh Game Designer CCP Games


CCP Nozh	Posted - 2008.02.15 14:37:00 - [76] Originally by: Azuse If the jf was intended to replace the carrier as the main hauler, even holding more, with reduced jump range, please explain how exactly the price is right when carriers cost roughly 1 bil (fitted insured) yet this replacement costs 7 bil (no insurance/defence). If the price was right there would be far more jf hauling in eve that there are ore caps, in fact since release all i've seen those ships really do is haul instead of mine, might have something to do with the price but i could be wrong. This has been answered countless times. The carrier was never supposed to be the "main hauler" in the first place, their ability to carry large amounts of cargo in their ship maintenance bay was an unintended feature (which got fixed too late). While the Jump Freighters are replacing them in the role of being the "main hauler", the Jump Freighter design wasn't based on the carriers ability to haul nor its cost. Nozh Game Designer CCP Games

Joel Williams Caldari	Posted - 2008.02.15 15:46:00 - [77] Keep up the good work Nozh! I think the fuel bay idea is great but would require lots new of coding. Would it be possible instead to fit a carrier style, fleet accessible, 10K Corp Hangar to them that allows you to store 3x GSC's of fuel etc? That way you have to have some kind of support fleet with you to transfer the fuel around and that would add to the multiplayer need of using these things.. And would hopefully require alot less code pain for your devs.. Just a thought!
Damon Ra Caldari	Posted - 2008.02.16 14:14:00 - [78] Originally by: CCP Nozh This has been answered countless times. The carrier was never supposed to be the "main hauler" in the first place, their ability to carry large amounts of cargo in their ship maintenance bay was an unintended feature (which got fixed too late). While the Jump Freighters are replacing them in the role of being the "main hauler", the Jump Freighter design wasn't based on the carriers ability to haul nor its cost. So what exactly justifies the 3x cost of the JF vs. a Rorqual? Both have the same range, both have comparable cargo space, and since the Carrier nerf almost every Rorqual out there is being used as a freighter/null sec logistics ship (that can defend itself) already. Is CCPs position that a JF being able to use gates and jump from high sec is worth the extra 4 billion isk? It would be good to hear from CCP exactly why they think people will actually be attracted to using a JF when another ship in-game already works equally as well for 1/3 the cost.
Azuse Live and Learn Inc.	Posted - 2008.02.16 17:31:00 - [79] Ty for the replies Nozh Please don't misunderstand me though. Carriers never were built as haulers but became such since they excelled, Ore caps have filled this niche (like the carrier this is not by design is it?) taking the place of the the hauler of choice. My corp and every other corp i know use rorquals to hall and why wouldn't we? It has the same range, it has offensive and more importantly defensive abilitys and while it may not be capable of jumping from highsec most people have freighters these days. For the cost of one jump freighter my corp could purchase 3/4 rorquals and have increased flexibilty and this is my point. Either the freighters need to become 3/4 times better at hauling or rorquals need to become 3/4 times worse, as carriers did, to warrant the initial outlay. -------------------------
Skyr ECP Rogues The Reckoning.	Posted - 2008.02.16 17:56:00 - [80] I have one little issue with current JF state. Since it lost its speed bonus in favor of agility bonus (you can argue which is better...), it actually became slower than T1 freighter... According to my calculations, excluding other than Freighter 5 skills, Obelisk can go 65*1.25 = 81.25 m/s whereas Anshar is stuck at its base 78 m/s. Would it be possible to adjust base speed of all JFs and increase it by some sizable amount? Perhaps meeting Freighter 5 bonus on freighter mid-point and adding 12.5% to JFs' base speed wouldn't be that overpowering... Of course if you could add 25% for missing speed bonus it would be even better. Thank you.
Rawne Karrde An Tir Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2008.02.17 01:18:00 - [81] Edited by: Rawne Karrde on 17/02/2008 01:18:18 Thank you for the answers. Does this mean then you might be nerfing the rorqual to only being able to carry, ice, ice products, ore and minerals then? Or do you intend to keep it "on par" with the jump freighters with only 1/3 to 1/4 the cost?
Skarkus	Posted - 2008.02.17 06:21:00 - [82] Thanks much to the Devs for actively looking at this and answering the communities questions. All points covered previously stand. So we're left with: 1. Massive buffs to JF really really needed. OR 2. Massive reduction in Cost to JF to more closely match its capabilities (especially when compared against Rorq) OR 3. Massive Nerf to competition (the only acceptable nerf to the Rorq would be a increase in production price) OR 4. Allow JF to Jump INTO high sec. (allow cynos in high sec, JF is the only ship allowed there) Seems to me that 2 and 3 would be unnecessary, and cause a lot of hate and discontent. Option 4 would be so excellent it would make the player base far too happy to be considered by the mean ol' devs. Predictable Dev Response to this line of thought: It would change the market too drastically! It would make hauling and trading much too quick and easy! Counterpoint: Isn't speeding up logistical operations the point of this ship? Don't Jump bridges drastically change logistics and speed up market delivery already? But I think we all know that this will never be considered, if the devs weren't fearful of the market impact of this ship, they wouldn't have designed it pre-nerfed. That pretty much leaves us with option 1. Considering that this ship class can only do 1 thing, shouldn't it do that thing really really really really well? Aside from shuttles, All other ship classes can be configured for an alternate use, and the more specialized ships always reflect a bonus that basically makes using another ship class for that purpose useless. Why did you make a ship that can only do 1 thing, make it really ****y at doing that one thing, and then make it incredibly expensive? Make this ship incredible at doing this one thing. The fact that the Rorqual is even close and comes in at 1/3 to 1/4 of the price is totally ridiculous, and anathema to the 'JUMP FREIGHTER's name and purpose.
Skyr ECP Rogues The Reckoning.	Posted - 2008.02.17 08:10:00 - [83] I think it is pretty obvious that rorq nerf is inevitable since the ship was initially designed for mining ops, not cargo hauling. JFs in their current state are a nice compromise between "easy mode" and somewhat cumbersome jump range. Asking for anything else is just too much, given that other alternatives get nerfed to hell. We don't want to have a one jump logistics ship that can carry so much so quick so safe that there is no more risk involved in resupplying. Let's face it, ever since carriers (cargo nerfed), rorquals (devs, please tell me they get massively nerfed too) this game is on easy mode as far as 0.0 pos/infrastructure maintenance goes.
zacuis Great Big Research	Posted - 2008.02.17 12:06:00 - [84] i hate asking for a nerf tbh. but if your not gonna make the jf the king of haulage into0.0 by buffing it then i have to second rawne`s call for the rorquel to be nerfed to make the jf the king u nerfed the carrier cos they werent intended as haulers. no one can seriouly claim that rorquels were intended to be jumping combat ships and mods aswell as pos fuel into 0.0. so they need to be restricted to minerals/ores and mining ships/haulers/shuttles. i dont understand why you've said 0.0 logistics is too easy so we are nerfing your 1 billion isk carrier and replacing it with a 5 billion isk jf only to leave rorquels as a viable and i most cases preferable alternative. i agree that 0.0 logistics was and still is a bit to easy. i hate the idea of making it harder by forcing lots of people to become involved with it ie forcing huge gangs to escrot t1 freighters threw 0.0. i actually really like the idea that u make it harder by making 0.0 jump haulers much more expencive and vunerable to attack ie the jf. but the rorquel seems to be an anomoly in that way of thinking
M4g3ll4n Circle of Shadows DeStInY.	Posted - 2008.02.19 09:36:00 - [85] Originally by: zacuis ... so they need to be restricted to minerals/ores and mining ships/haulers/shuttles. ... Aren't they restricted already? Further in my opinion a Rorqual is a good "hauler" for medium sized logistics atm. But Carriers were better in this part, couse of their jump range. And the JF are in my opinion the kings of logistics, couse you can carry more then twice as much as with a rorqual, but with half the risk (you need to jump only once). If the mentioned changes will be applied I think the price will go down a little (lets say 4bn) and the JF will be the logistic ship of choice.
Carniflex Caldari Fallout Research Fallout Project	Posted - 2008.02.19 09:38:00 - [86] Originally by: CCP Oneiromancer Oops, forgot about that. The max production runs on jump freighter blueprints has been increased from 1 to 10. Is it already on TQ or have I misunderstood and outsmarted myself by using +runs decryptor on currently running job? From this quote I kinda understand that it is on live server while from that devblog about jumpfreighters in 1.1 patch it seems like it will be implemented in patch 1.1.
Trayk Minmatar The Dead Parrot Shoppe Inc. Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2008.02.19 11:41:00 - [87] Any idea when these changes might make it to live server? IMO the cargo buff was a good start, just not quite enough. Give it enough room to carry 3 GFC plus 50-60k of fuel (370k m3 or so) at level 4 skills (who bothers with level 5 really?) Recruiting...Go FOOM Today!!
Gordon Red SteelVipers Cosmic Anomalies	Posted - 2008.02.19 12:19:00 - [88] To be able to fly a Rorqual has greater skill requirements as a jump frighter has. So (IMHO) this should be rewarded somehow. The advantage I see for the jump frighter is it's ability to jump into high sec! That's VERY powerfull. If you want more range - the jump freighter should suffer the same restrictions as the other capitals. I understand the role for: Rorqual - haul in 0.0 - minerals and other items jump freighter - haul from 0.0 into empire and back (pretty savely) carrier/mom - to haul ships and combat support titan - jumpgate ships in 0.0 (and sadly one-click => I-win)
Gaogan Gallente Solar Storm Sev3rance	Posted - 2008.02.20 17:19:00 - [89] Edited by: Gaogan on 20/02/2008 17:19:26 Originally by: TypoNinja There should be no reasonable alternative, its a jump freighter anything else should be obviously inferior to the task and by a good sized margin. Normal carriers exceed the hauling potential of anything else on the market by a factor of 20 (Rigged I5 at 44km3 with giant secures) ROFL. Shows how much you have been paying attention lately. It has been what? Two or three months now since they fixed it so you can't store ships in an SMA with anything but ammo in the hold. Jump freighters ROCK.
MFWood	Posted - 2008.02.22 18:41:00 - [90] All the changes planned for the jump ft are really meaningless until the Rorq is nerfed to where it can only hold massive amounts of the cargo type it was intended for (ores and mining related goods). If the carriers were nerfed as they filled a hauler role they weren't supposed to, then aren't the rorqs now doing the same thing? The costs and hassle of building jump ft far exceed that of the rorq for very little additional ability in the role of cargo transport.
Gaogan Gallente Solar Storm Sev3rance	Posted - 2008.02.22 20:31:00 - [91] Originally by: MFWood All the changes planned for the jump ft are really meaningless until the Rorq is nerfed to where it can only hold massive amounts of the cargo type it was intended for (ores and mining related goods). If the carriers were nerfed as they filled a hauler role they weren't supposed to, then aren't the rorqs now doing the same thing? The costs and hassle of building jump ft far exceed that of the rorq for very little additional ability in the role of cargo transport. I wouldn't call 4x the cargo and the ability to gate "very little additional ability".
TypoNinja Caldari Void Angels	Posted - 2008.02.23 00:50:00 - [92] Originally by: Gaogan Edited by: Gaogan on 20/02/2008 17:19:26 Originally by: TypoNinja There should be no reasonable alternative, its a jump freighter anything else should be obviously inferior to the task and by a good sized margin. Normal carriers exceed the hauling potential of anything else on the market by a factor of 20 (Rigged I5 at 44km3 with giant secures) ROFL. Shows how much you have been paying attention lately. It has been what? Two or three months now since they fixed it so you can't store ships in an SMA with anything but ammo in the hold. Jump freighters ROCK. You misunderstand I'm well aware that you cant pack an indy full of goodies in a carrier anymore, I'm comparing the indy cargo size to the freighter, then pointing out that the jump freighter at release was only about twice as good as a Rorqual for jump hauling, with a price tag more like five times. That makes 3 rorquals on cargo duty more cost effective than one JF (cheaper) while still carrying more cargo than the JF, and with the added bonus of being able to defend them selves somewhat. Of course the announced boosts earlier in the thread go along way to addressing that discrepancy.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one 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.