Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Schneiderr
Asgard Schiffswerften Ev0ke
|
Posted - 2008.02.18 14:09:00 -
[31]
costs involved are fine, just increase the jumprange a little and we are fine :)
|
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles Zzz
|
Posted - 2008.02.18 14:17:00 -
[32]
Edited by: Kazuo Ishiguro on 18/02/2008 14:17:27 Brief comparison:- Can cloak between jumps: Rorqual: yes, Dreadnought: yes, JF: no
- Usefulness when not hauling: Rorqual: moderate, Dread: good, JF: liability
- Approx. ISK equivalent in JFs: Rorqual: 3, Dread: 3, JF: 1
- Volume hauled in terms of JFs: Rorqual: 1/3 Dread: 1/4
- Survivability: Rorqual: OK (slots), Dread: Excellent, JF: Poor (no slots)
- Fuel per (m^3 * ly) as a % of what a JF can do: to follow when I have time
Originally by: Tedric "We also made them a bit easier to manufacture, increasing the max production runs on their blueprints to 10 runs." ...
I think what's meant here is that the 'production limit' attribute on jump frieghter blueprints is being increased to 10. This means people will be able to use decryptors to get additional runs, as with other ships. Nost of the time it won't be worthwhile, however- all the decryptors that add runs do so at a significant cost to ME, which negates the saving in invention costs when building such massive ships. My research services Spreadsheets: Top speed calculation - Halo Implant stats |
Reptzo
Master Miners
|
Posted - 2008.02.18 15:24:00 -
[33]
I don't have a problem with the cost. Make them cost 10 bil for all i care, but make them worth it. The limited cargo hold and the extreme vulnerability while jumping is what makes the rorqual and dreads more appealing. It needs a larger cargo hold (more then the current boost), and the ability to fit a cloak. I don't see the need to let it hold assembled ships, cause carriers are great at that now. But the jump freighter needs more than a 500k cargo hold, realistically, it would be nice if it could haul the capital pos structures.
|
Gridwalker
Amarr
|
Posted - 2008.02.18 15:53:00 -
[34]
If you wanted us to use them, you should have made them tier-2 instead of tech-2 and issued BPO's for them.
-Grid
|
gordon861
Minmatar PROGENITOR CORPORATION Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2008.02.18 16:14:00 -
[35]
Another idea to make them cheaper and therefore more popular is to give an invented BP for them a base of ME+4, so if you use a max run decryptor it drops to a ME-2.
But also these should never have been Tech 2 ships, they should have been Tier 2, and then you could have made Tech 2 from them with Transport Ship style survivability.
Extra HP probably won't help as once they are caught they are going to die !
Increase survivabilty by giving the T1 3 rig slots and the T2 2 rig slots, it would make each freighter a different target and require different setups to kill/gank.
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 donĘt believe CCP employees should run the EVE universe. |
Hugh Ruka
Caldari Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
|
Posted - 2008.02.18 16:26:00 -
[36]
make them able to use covert cynos as jump beacons.
Originally by: Aravel Thon
Originally by: Nith Batoxxx Hi my alt just leanred to fly the ferox...............
I am so so terribly sorry...
|
SentryRaven
KIA Corp KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.02.18 16:29:00 -
[37]
Dear Mr Nozh, since you seem to be the transport ship Guru, please take a look at
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=234417
Would you be so kind to give the 571 poster and thousands of readers a simple answer if a small cargo freighter, with around 100-125k m¦ (just one freight can... nothing more...) for a reasonable price around 200M would be feasible or has been even thought about? My thread has been going for a good 3 years now without any kind of response.
If you will never implement this, please just say so, so I can stop taking a look at that thread every time I am on eve-o and a good load of people can finally have some sort of answer.
With best regards, SentryRaven KIA Noobship Pilot
|
Katana Seiko
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.02.18 17:28:00 -
[38]
Edited by: Katana Seiko on 18/02/2008 17:30:49 Yay, let's party... Who offers his jump freighter as party hall?
@Sentry: We're probably getting the Orca some time soon (Nozh? *nudge*), that might do the trick... --- This is your Captain speaking. Thank you for flying with our spaceline. Please remain seated until the ship has completely burned out. Thank you. |
sci0gon
Tech 2 Ammo Holdings Limited Tech Holdings Limited
|
Posted - 2008.02.18 17:31:00 -
[39]
lol
saint i dont mean to burst your bubble but a JF worth 6-7bil with a cargohold of 367.000m¦ is still weak. if you want more people in them then you really should reduce the build costs to drop the price a little. it should be worth at most 3-4bil
anshar = 6.5bil ark = 7bil nomad = 6.5bil rhea = 6-7bil
your forgetting that a lot of us eve players are tight and dont like parting with isk over something that just doesnt seem worth it even with the proposed changes that you have mentioned
why should we spend a extra 4.5-5bil on something like that?
We also made them a bit easier to manufacture, increasing the max production runs on their blueprints to 10 runs.
Is a 1 run freighter bpc going to deliver a 10 run bpc?
I'm asking cos its only possible to make a 1 run freighter bpc.
also if that does change does that mean your going to do the same with other ships that are invented or is that just for capital ships?
|
Traeon
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.02.18 17:33:00 -
[40]
Quote: Can cloak between jumps: Rorqual: yes, Dreadnought: yes, JF: no
I think this is major reason why JF's suck. It's a multi bilion isk kill waiting to happen when it's charging for the next jump. A single cov-ops could probe and hold it down.
Also, shouldn't a JF it cost more like 2 bil instead of 7+?
|
|
Ma Talune
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.02.18 17:48:00 -
[41]
Nozh if you are comming again this year at the gankaton I'll give you a beer of choice!
|
Braaage
eXceed Inc. eXceed.
|
Posted - 2008.02.18 17:56:00 -
[42]
They are MUCH too expensive but CCP cannot change the build without compensating all the corps/players that have built them or have them in build now and I'd hate to think how many that is.
Also what about the players that have already forked out 7-10B for one? You'd have to compensate them as well.
I do agree though they are just a chunk of empty metal for 7-10B......
These changes are welcome but nowhere near enough to make the ship viable for the cost.
At 5.5B average build cost they should be special!!
-- eve-guides.com All about POSs, Outposts, Exploration, Mining, Invention, EVE Database + much more!! |
Alz Shado
Ever Flow
|
Posted - 2008.02.18 18:15:00 -
[43]
Edited by: Alz Shado on 18/02/2008 18:18:48 Most useless ship ever. Survivability? If one gets caught, it's dead. You can give it 1m hit points and that doesn't change the fact it's a floating can. Make it more agile? It's a JUMP freighter, alignment really doesn't matter unless you took it into Empire (where it'll get suicide ganked just because it's a 7 BILLION DOLLAR SHIP
Here's the real problems that none of these changes adequately solves:
-Too expensive -Doesn't hold nearly enough -Doesn't jump nearly far enough -Too expensive -No defense at all, not even a cloak.
Cut the price down to about 1.5b, give it 50% of a freighter's hold, and let it jump the same distance as a rorqual. Otherwise, I'll be convinced that you guys really have your heads in the sand about this one.
And btw: Can we have our mini-freighter already? 500m, 120km3 hold, +1 WCS built in. Thanks!
|
zacuis
Great Big Research
|
Posted - 2008.02.18 18:24:00 -
[44]
all the people saying they are too expencive u guys are missing the point here. the idea is to make 0.0 hauling hard. i could go on at lengh why this is a good thing for the game but many have argued the point and wont here. its not a popular veiw. but it is a one that will make the game better. i truly beleive that.
the price is about right but u need to remove the chear better defended options of rorquel and expander dreads. the fix is not to buff the jf`s in some meaning less way.
someone pointed out that the rorquel is a capital industrial ship and hence it should be able to haul. i disargee.
im not gonna argue in this thread anylonger cos im flogging a dead horse ccp has wmped out on making 0.0 logistics harder. im wasting the skin on the end of my fingers it seems.
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2008.02.18 18:24:00 -
[45]
I can't help but agree that making them non-tech 2 might be a good idea.
|
Caligulus
Legion of Lost Souls
|
Posted - 2008.02.18 18:28:00 -
[46]
Good first attempt CCP but it's not enough. There needs to be a greater decrease in cost for these things. ------------------------------------------------- **** You're out of your mind!
**** Well that's between me and my mind. |
Caligulus
Legion of Lost Souls
|
Posted - 2008.02.18 18:31:00 -
[47]
Edited by: Caligulus on 18/02/2008 18:33:27
Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro Edited by: Kazuo Ishiguro on 18/02/2008 14:17:27 Brief comparison:- Can cloak between jumps: Rorqual: yes, Dreadnought: yes, JF: no
- Usefulness when not hauling: Rorqual: moderate, Dread: good, JF: liability
- Approx. ISK equivalent in JFs: Rorqual: 3, Dread: 3, JF: 1
- Volume hauled in terms of JFs: Rorqual: 1/3 Dread: 1/4
- Survivability: Rorqual: OK (slots), Dread: Excellent, JF: Poor (no slots)
- Fuel per (m^3 * ly) as a % of what a JF can do: to follow when I have time
Originally by: Tedric "We also made them a bit easier to manufacture, increasing the max production runs on their blueprints to 10 runs." ...
I think what's meant here is that the 'production limit' attribute on jump frieghter blueprints is being increased to 10. This means people will be able to use decryptors to get additional runs, as with other ships. Most of the time it won't be worthwhile, however- all the decryptors that add runs do so at a significant cost to ME, which negates the saving in invention costs when building such massive ships.
Bingo. How did you miss this CCP? The cost of invention is completely absorbable for a cap ship. It's the -ME that's killing it. It adds "billions" to the cost which coupled with the above comments makes this still completely useless.
and too that...
Quote: If you wanted us to use them, you should have made them tier-2 instead of tech-2 and issued BPO's for them.
-Grid
skip this T2 garbage and solve the problem.
------------------------------------------------- **** You're out of your mind!
**** Well that's between me and my mind. |
Zarch AlDain
The Establishment Establishment
|
Posted - 2008.02.18 18:48:00 -
[48]
Ok, first up - a lot of you are completely overstating the case and all that will do is get your argument dismissed immediately.
They are far from useless, in particular the ability to load them in empire and then jump them FROM HIGH SEC is invaluable.
The current changes are very good and the argument for not increasing the jump range is a convincing one. What I will say though is that I would really like to see them given some slots.
Assume that a cargo expander will be fit so remove the 25% increase (or make it a 5% one) and then give them one low, one mid and one high.
That then gives them options to use cloaks, tanking modules, damage controls, cap power relays, etc as seems appropriate for the purpose they are being used for.
Zarch AlDain
|
Gangus
Minmatar Matari BackBone
|
Posted - 2008.02.18 19:19:00 -
[49]
this is all well and good, but still leaves us begging for the answer to the obvious question... roughly when are we gonna see Trinity 1.1?? We're seeing all these bugs that you've said need fixing, but all we're getting this patch is a change to the login box... (heres a really understated, sarcastic "yay!")
Please let us know when the needed changes are coming into play, the current bugs are killing our POS research, (yes i know, off topic) as to remove blueprints etc from a POS we need to have the Starbase Config role, and that simply isn't safe to hand out willy nilly.
Never mess with a guy in an ugly ship. He's bitter and has nothing to lose. |
Timaios
Art of War
|
Posted - 2008.02.18 19:25:00 -
[50]
Like everyone else has commented, I'll echo the views expressed earlier.
The ship just isn't cost-effective at any level. The cargo expanded rorqual is cheaper (superior cost-effectivness) and a expanded dread is a multirole ship that you can take to those POS parties when needed. Both cost about 30% (or less) of a jump freighter.
The biggest advantage of the jump freighter is, as the kind fellow from EST commented, it's ability to jump from highsec. That's an amazing ability. But there's no particular reason why I'd pay 4-5 billion extra for just that capability. Now, if you would nerf both the rorqual and the dread and utterly decimate their ability to haul, I would.
I mean, please. Find a way to nerf the hauling dreads and rorquals, make it your top priority, do it for rev 1.1. I don't care how you do it, as long as it's done. Please.
(I would not mind that the build costs of the jump freighter were lowered so that they would be cheaper, but it's not something that's really needed. Jumphauling is something that should not be easy and everyday business and the capability for it should not come cheap.)
|
|
Panta Shay
|
Posted - 2008.02.18 20:11:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Zarch AlDain Ok, first up - a lot of you are completely overstating the case and all that will do is get your argument dismissed immediately.
They are far from useless, in particular the ability to load them in empire and then jump them FROM HIGH SEC is invaluable.
The current changes are very good and the argument for not increasing the jump range is a convincing one. What I will say though is that I would really like to see them given some slots.
Assume that a cargo expander will be fit so remove the 25% increase (or make it a 5% one) and then give them one low, one mid and one high.
That then gives them options to use cloaks, tanking modules, damage controls, cap power relays, etc as seems appropriate for the purpose they are being used for.
Agree. Combine 1 slot of each type with a nerf to hauling dreds and roqs and you are on your way to justifying cost. Dreds need a fuel bay that can only hold stront and a much smaller cargo. Roquals should get a big (300%?) cargo bonus when in siege mode so they can temporarily hold ore for compression, but their in flight cargohold could be nerfed big time.
If you want a ship worth 3 times as much as its competitors to be popular it needs to do the job at least 3 times as well.
|
Terradoct
Gallente The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2008.02.18 20:12:00 -
[52]
Edited by: Terradoct on 18/02/2008 20:13:38
Originally by: Timaios Now, if you would nerf both the rorqual and the dread and utterly decimate their ability to haul, I would.
And make Eve from "Here we give you a tool, use is ans you wish" to "You can't use you BMW 525 for rally, because it's not WRS model". Stop nerfing ships and nerfing players abylity to use ships as we wish.
The easyest solution will be to made them Tier 2. It was a misstake from the begining, CCP was told about it many times befor realesing them. Now they try to make them popular, that what happend when you are stabborn and do not listen others.
|
Lock out
Bald Industrial Corporation
|
Posted - 2008.02.18 20:30:00 -
[53]
Edited by: Lock out on 18/02/2008 20:30:59 Yeah, jump freighters should never have been made T2, they just don't fit in.
Change them to tier 2 with a higher build requirement than regular freighters (2 or 3 times as much) and they'll be fine. Making them T2 over-complicates things, and it just isn't necessary. |
Traeon
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.02.18 20:39:00 -
[54]
Quote: all the people saying they are too expencive u guys are missing the point here. the idea is to make 0.0 hauling hard. i could go on at lengh why this is a good thing for the game but many have argued the point and wont here. its not a popular veiw. but it is a one that will make the game better. i truly beleive that.
I agree that 0.0 logistics is low risk to risk free thanks to the existing capitals that do the job so well. Adding a gimped jump freighter won't change a thing about that though.
|
Ravoc
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.02.18 21:08:00 -
[55]
For each jump freighter pilot, you can easily find 10+ cargo dread pilots... |
orionbeta
Gallente Free Galactic Enterprises Infinite Innovation
|
Posted - 2008.02.18 21:58:00 -
[56]
Interesting on the 10Run BPC... can Nozh give more details on this?
Does this mean that the amount of time to create a 1 RUN Friegther BPC is now going to equal the same amount of time to create a 10 Run BPC or is the amount of time to create a 10 Run BPC going to equal 10 times the amount of time for a 1 Run BPC?
or
Is the 10 Run BPC limit only for the Jump Frieghter and then we will have the ability to use decryptors that will increase the number of runs?
The other changes are in the right direction.
All I can say without releasing too much information is people should have patience it takes time to set up production lines for a ship like this, and once they are up and running the price will decrease. With the increased supply and lower demand on the market the prices will slowly decrease. I know exactly how much it costs to produce these ships minus the overhead and profit margin from a material cost perspective. But for those of you waiting for a 1.5B - 2.5B Jump Frieghter... don't hold your breath.
|
John McCreedy
Caldari Eve Defence Force Insurgency
|
Posted - 2008.02.19 00:18:00 -
[57]
It's been said repeatedly and I wish you would listen. The biggest problem is the run off time for a BPc of a Cap ship. It takes far, far too long. You should reduce the copy time for Frighters which will encourage more Jump Freighters and thus natural competition will drive their prices down.
Make a Difference
|
Craminu
Gallente Viking Research and Production space weaponry and trade
|
Posted - 2008.02.19 01:20:00 -
[58]
quote: So why didn't we give it an increased jump range?
Moving transport ships in EVE has been slow; they are generally less agile, slower in warp etc. On normal freighter runs, it's always the freighter that is holding back the pace of the gang. Since jumping is instantaneous, our way of slowing down jump freighters is by decreasing their jump range, forcing ships that are jumping with them as support to take shorter leaps. We think this it is a fine and fair compromise. -----------------------------------------------------------
okay am i misreading this or are they nerfing the jump range as it is now? or just not increasing it?
Viking Research bpc sale
|
Steppa
Gallente Dawn of Fire Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2008.02.19 05:25:00 -
[59]
Perhaps I'm behind the times as I'm just popping my head in now and then since Trinity was released (RL is a ***** sometimes).
Sure, do the changes you're talking about but two major things need to happen:
1) Give it jump range at least equal to carriers. Just because you think logistics should be difficult doesn't equal fun. This is a game remember.
2) Bridge the gap between the T1 standard freighters and the jump-freighters. Make it jump/gate capable with even a quarter or a third of the cargo and reduce both the range and the skill reqs. Make this intermediate ship class inexpensive enough to fit in between what we have now.
|
Xykanth Roldeir
|
Posted - 2008.02.19 06:01:00 -
[60]
I'm suprised no one else has said anything about this.
The biggest drawback of all that I can see is having to train a rank 10 freighter skill to level 5 before even starting to fly a Jump freighter. I may be wrong in a few of my figures, but isn't that about 2 months training on one skill. Lowering the skill requirements alone will cause them to be much more commonly used that anything else that I could possibly think of.
In the meantime the cargonaught still sounds like the best option.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |